3 ms·

> Why doesn't the Gov't just take the money from the schools that the people went to? Drain those billion dollar endowments seems way easier than all this paper

> Why doesn't the Gov't just take the money from the schools that the people went to? Drain those billion dollar endowments seems way easier than all this paperwork. For student loan repayment? This is one of the least thought out ideas I've seen on HN in a while, and there have been some doozies. Let's say you get a $20k personal loan from the bank and you spend it on various things or maybe one big purchase (this is as opposed to an asset backed loan like a mortgage or a normal auto loan where the item could be repossessed or home foreclosed on). You fail to pay back the loan, in what universe does it make any sense for the bank to go to the store or stores you purchased from to demand the money back rather than to you, the borrower?

kjellsbells 10mo ago
Dont confuse economics with politics. Commenter may simply be pointing out that a government already well known for its distaste of higher education institutions might decide that taking the money from them in one fell swoop and instantly wiping out student debt is vastly preferable to annoying a swath of voters that could make a difference in the midterms.
- downrightmike 10mo ago
  Its the next illogical step after cutting funding. Take funds from them, maybe even eminent domain, civil asset forfeiture is probably on the table too.
musicale 10mo ago
> in what universe does it make any sense for the bank to go to the store or stores you purchased from to demand the money back rather than to you, the borrower? It's a common legal strategy to sue those with deep pockets, regardless of whether they bear the greatest responsibility, in order to get more money. Makes perfect sense because they (the store in your example) actually have the cash. Are you going to sue the gambler or the casino? Another strategy is aggregation. If you can combine cases into a single case, the payout can be larger for similar effort - but once again this depends on ability to pay. Going one step further, if the seller is part of an illegal cartel or pyramid scheme, the government might be able to justify seizing its assets, or perhaps collecting punitive damages.
downrightmike 10mo ago
They aren't a bank. Banks get paid in interest for the risk they take in making the loan. Student Loans have no risk because you can't discharge them. But they carry high interest rates. Schools made bad predatory loans. Schools colluded with other schools to raise tuition. And schools made loans to any warm body they could to get them in the door. They did discount some tuition, but that was only enough to justify it as charity and not have to pay taxes. Its all a fraudulent scam.
- Jtsummers 10mo ago
  [flagged]
  - tomhow 10mo ago
    > This is one of the least thought out ideas I've seen on HN in a while, > So you're an idiot This is not acceptable on HN, no matter how right you are or feel you are. The guidelines make it clear we're here for curious conversation, not fulmination and personal attacks. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

kjellsbells 10mo ago

Dont confuse economics with politics. Commenter may simply be pointing out that a government already well known for its distaste of higher education institutions might decide that taking the money from them in one fell swoop and instantly wiping out student debt is vastly preferable to annoying a swath of voters that could make a difference in the midterms.

downrightmike 10mo ago
Its the next illogical step after cutting funding. Take funds from them, maybe even eminent domain, civil asset forfeiture is probably on the table too.

musicale 10mo ago

> in what universe does it make any sense for the bank to go to the store or stores you purchased from to demand the money back rather than to you, the borrower? It's a common legal strategy to sue those with deep pockets, regardless of whether they bear the greatest responsibility, in order to get more money. Makes perfect sense because they (the store in your example) actually have the cash. Are you going to sue the gambler or the casino? Another strategy is aggregation. If you can combine cases into a single case, the payout can be larger for similar effort - but once again this depends on ability to pay. Going one step further, if the seller is part of an illegal cartel or pyramid scheme, the government might be able to justify seizing its assets, or perhaps collecting punitive damages.

downrightmike 10mo ago

They aren't a bank. Banks get paid in interest for the risk they take in making the loan. Student Loans have no risk because you can't discharge them. But they carry high interest rates. Schools made bad predatory loans. Schools colluded with other schools to raise tuition. And schools made loans to any warm body they could to get them in the door. They did discount some tuition, but that was only enough to justify it as charity and not have to pay taxes. Its all a fraudulent scam.

Jtsummers 10mo ago
[flagged]
- tomhow 10mo ago
  > This is one of the least thought out ideas I've seen on HN in a while, > So you're an idiot This is not acceptable on HN, no matter how right you are or feel you are. The guidelines make it clear we're here for curious conversation, not fulmination and personal attacks. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html