3 ms·

Do you get angry at people who have to file for bankruptcy?

whatshisface 8y ago
The person who takes out a loan has already paid for their chance of bankruptcy, in the form of interest (because the risk of bankruptcy is priced in based on your creditworthiness.) However most student loans would never have been offered if the deal was the same as for regular loans. What's being proposed is that the deal be changed retroactively, and for innocent bystanders to foot the bill. Think of it like this: party A defrauds party B (by misrepresenting the value of what they're offering), putting party B into irrecoverable debt in the process. Party A isn't going to give the money back (we can't get humanities professors to return their salaries, not to mention the less visible involved), so party B turns to their side and sees party C standing next to them... The fraud is between the victim, the perpetraor, and the state. However I don't expect much to happen along those lines because even though what happened was clearly fraud, it's not clear exactly who was responsible or even how a law could be written so that they would have broken any laws. It's like that one scene in the grapes of wrath: when a hundred people each commit a fraction of a crime, you're just about stuck when it comes to holding any of them accountable.
- RandomInteger4 8y ago
  I'm honestly siting here flabbergasted -- almost in shock -- at the shear delusion on display that I just had to read. Like, this comment obviously goes against the terms of hacker news, but I can't come up with a response that addresses the nonsense you've just laid forth. There is no fraud when someone can't pay back their student loans. Bankruptcy isn't fraud. Bankruptcy isn't paid for with interest. Bankruptcy is a right that debtors have when their debt gets out of control due to whatever reasons, and sadly us students do not have that option. Bankruptcy is mostly unavailable to us, and when it is available, it's made unavailable by terms that make absolutely zero sense at all. If I can't find a job, I have absolutely zero way to attempt to pay back student loans in order to show I made an attempt, which would be one measure needed to qualify me for bankruptcy. If I'm barely making enough to support my basic expenses when I do have a job, I can't be expected to prioritize my student loan over my ability to eat or provide shelter for myself. If the bar for showing an attempt at repayment is as low as sending $5 / month, then what's the point in having that restriction on student loans to begin with. Why was the ability to file for bankruptcy on student loans ever rescinded in the first place? It absolutely was not because there were more and more people trying to defraud the system, unless you somehow twist logic forcefully enough to fit that demented narrative. It was a means to shore up the predictable deficit that would be caused by the Bush tax cuts. Yes, the bush tax cuts. It was not that long ago that the ability to file for bankruptcy on student loans was stolen from us. If you live in a red state or purple state, then good fucking luck getting any sympathy from the judges with zero qualifications merely elected to their positions when seeking bankruptcy.
  - whatshisface 8y ago
    >There is no fraud when someone can't pay back their student loans. The fraud happened when they signed a bunch of kids up on 200k degree plans, under the false pretenses that it would be worth it. It was clear from the start that many of these degrees could not possibly make back their cost, but in the end a bunch of young people fell prey to the information assymetry. That's the premise of the discussion - because if the student loans had been made in full understanding of the consequences, there would be nothing wrong with what was happening! But it seems reasonable to me that the value of these educations was misrepresented.
    - RandomInteger4 8y ago
      The people suffering from student loan debt are not merely those who went into majors that you shit on you ignorant asshole.

The person who takes out a loan has already paid for their chance of bankruptcy, in the form of interest (because the risk of bankruptcy is priced in based on your creditworthiness.) However most student loans would never have been offered if the deal was the same as for regular loans. What's being proposed is that the deal be changed retroactively, and for innocent bystanders to foot the bill. Think of it like this: party A defrauds party B (by misrepresenting the value of what they're offering), putting party B into irrecoverable debt in the process. Party A isn't going to give the money back (we can't get humanities professors to return their salaries, not to mention the less visible involved), so party B turns to their side and sees party C standing next to them... The fraud is between the victim, the perpetraor, and the state. However I don't expect much to happen along those lines because even though what happened was clearly fraud, it's not clear exactly who was responsible or even how a law could be written so that they would have broken any laws. It's like that one scene in the grapes of wrath: when a hundred people each commit a fraction of a crime, you're just about stuck when it comes to holding any of them accountable.

RandomInteger4 8y ago
I'm honestly siting here flabbergasted -- almost in shock -- at the shear delusion on display that I just had to read. Like, this comment obviously goes against the terms of hacker news, but I can't come up with a response that addresses the nonsense you've just laid forth. There is no fraud when someone can't pay back their student loans. Bankruptcy isn't fraud. Bankruptcy isn't paid for with interest. Bankruptcy is a right that debtors have when their debt gets out of control due to whatever reasons, and sadly us students do not have that option. Bankruptcy is mostly unavailable to us, and when it is available, it's made unavailable by terms that make absolutely zero sense at all. If I can't find a job, I have absolutely zero way to attempt to pay back student loans in order to show I made an attempt, which would be one measure needed to qualify me for bankruptcy. If I'm barely making enough to support my basic expenses when I do have a job, I can't be expected to prioritize my student loan over my ability to eat or provide shelter for myself. If the bar for showing an attempt at repayment is as low as sending $5 / month, then what's the point in having that restriction on student loans to begin with. Why was the ability to file for bankruptcy on student loans ever rescinded in the first place? It absolutely was not because there were more and more people trying to defraud the system, unless you somehow twist logic forcefully enough to fit that demented narrative. It was a means to shore up the predictable deficit that would be caused by the Bush tax cuts. Yes, the bush tax cuts. It was not that long ago that the ability to file for bankruptcy on student loans was stolen from us. If you live in a red state or purple state, then good fucking luck getting any sympathy from the judges with zero qualifications merely elected to their positions when seeking bankruptcy.
- whatshisface 8y ago
  >There is no fraud when someone can't pay back their student loans. The fraud happened when they signed a bunch of kids up on 200k degree plans, under the false pretenses that it would be worth it. It was clear from the start that many of these degrees could not possibly make back their cost, but in the end a bunch of young people fell prey to the information assymetry. That's the premise of the discussion - because if the student loans had been made in full understanding of the consequences, there would be nothing wrong with what was happening! But it seems reasonable to me that the value of these educations was misrepresented.
  - RandomInteger4 8y ago
    The people suffering from student loan debt are not merely those who went into majors that you shit on you ignorant asshole.