Functional illiteracy in America

[PCXV]

No. I am saying agreeing to pay a government backed (tax payer dollars) student loan, then using bankruptcy to eliminate that debt is theft.

Are you saying it's ok for people to enter into an agreement then back out of it after the other party has fulfilled their end of the agreement?

Depends. How fair was the agreement? What was the intended outcome vs the actual outcome? What is the alternative?

What makes the purchase/decision of an education different than any other unwise purchase/decision that qualifies for bankruptcy? If it was a poor investment and is preventing you from financial stability/success, why shouldn't bankruptcy be an option?

I would bankrupt on my student loans if I could. My minimum payment covers maybe a quarter of the interest every month, meaning I am going backwards. My degree means nothing in my local job market. I can't buy a home, have less money for essentials, have no money to save for retirement, etc. It was a stupid decision when I was 18, with lots of quasi-promises and sales pitches made that a college education was an investment in myself and I would make $1 million more in my lifetime blah blah blah. Why did they loan me, an 18 year old with no job, no credit history, and no promise of a future good paying job, 30k ?

They fulfilled their end of the deal, I failed and have no recourse. Now what?

 

[see4]

Depends. How fair was the agreement? What was the intended outcome vs the actual outcome? What is the alternative?

What makes the purchase/decision of an education different than any other unwise purchase/decision that qualifies for bankruptcy? If it was a poor investment and is preventing you from financial stability/success, why shouldn't bankruptcy be an option?

I would bankrupt on my student loans if I could. My minimum payment covers maybe a quarter of the interest every month, meaning I am going backwards. My degree means nothing in my local job market. I can't buy a home, have less money for essentials, have no money to save for retirement, etc. It was a stupid decision when I was 18, with lots of quasi-promises and sales pitches made that a college education was an investment in myself and I would make $1 million more in my lifetime blah blah blah. Why did they loan me, an 18 year old with no job, no credit history, and no promise of a future good paying job, $50k?

They fulfilled their end of the deal, I failed and have no recourse. Now what?

I suspect much of what you wrote is something you can reflect on later.

 

[PCXV]

He isn't half as educated as he tries to tell everyone he is.

He's just another troll with no brain and less common sense.

I just don't get how somehow you can bankrupt on every other kind of debt but not student loans. Like you emebezzled a bunch of money and got caught, you can bankrupt on your debtors. You take a loan out and gamble it all at the casino, go ahead and file bankruptcy. You buy a car you can't afford or house you can't afford, yep bankruptcy is fine. You take a bunch of investors money and run the company into the ground, bankruptcy is cool. You give predatory loans and create a bubble that collapses the economy, bankrupty for you! But an 18 year kid deserves to have his entire financial future fucked over because they chose the wrong major in an overpriced education market, and the job market is flooded in a credential war where nobody wins.

 

[PCXV]

No. I am saying agreeing to pay a government backed (tax payer dollars) student loan, then using bankruptcy to eliminate that debt is theft.

Are you saying it's ok for people to enter into an agreement then back out of it after the other party has fulfilled their end of the agreement?

Back to the idea of theft; so if I agree to cost the taxpayer $40,000/year sitting in a jail cell for committing theft, then I should be able to bankrupt? That sounds like a logical solution!

 

[PCXV]

I hurt your feelings. And for that I'm glad, homophobe piece of shit.

You think its ok for students to take money from people, agreeing to pay it back, use it to get an education, then use bankruptcy to get out of the debt.

You're a thief and a homophobe and a coward.

Isn't that what all bankruptcy is? What makes student loans different? The government made a poor investment in me, they bear no responsibility for setting me and themselves up for failure? How about for not doing the due diligence to make sure their investment would get a return?

If my degree made me enough to pay them back I gladly would.

 

[see4]

Because I obviously haven't given this any thought so far.

That's not what I was implying.

 

[see4]

Back to the idea of theft; so if I agree to cost the taxpayer $40,000/year sitting in a jail cell for committing theft, then I should be able to bankrupt? That sounds like a logical solution!

That premise is not logical. Sorry.

Isn't that what all bankruptcy is? What makes student loans different? The government made a poor investment in me, they bear no responsibility for setting me and themselves up for failure? How about for not doing the due diligence to make sure their investment would get a return?

If my degree made me enough to pay them back I gladly would.

I am not going to argue how you feel about your situation, that is yours alone to own.

But yes, if you agreed to take money in exchange for something with the agreement you'd pay it back, unless you can claim undue hardship, you are obligated to pay it back. -- They, the lenders are under no obligation to help you earning the money to pay back the loan you agreed to pay, that is your responsibility. -- Remember you chose to take the loan, they didn't force you.

 

[see4]

I just don't get how somehow you can bankrupt on every other kind of debt but not student loans.

You can. You just need to prove undue hardship. Which is difficult, but impossible.

 

[choomer]

No. The Federal Reserve loans money to banking institutions. This loan carries an interest, widely known as fed funds rate. They also require the banking institutions secure the loan with deposits and securities.
The federal reserve does not lend money to itself, the government. The Federal Reserve is, in itself, a government entity.

No.
As I've said before, the Federal Reserve is about as federal as Federal Express.

I'd just link to this, but people either don't click links, or don't like the source (which you might not anyway):
Who Owns the Federal Reserve Bank and Why is It Shrouded in Myths and Mysteries? by Ismael Hossein-Zadeh

“It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.”
— Henry Ford
“Give me control of a Nation’s money supply, and I care not who makes its laws.”
— M. A. Rothschild

The Federal Reserve Bank (or simply the Fed), is shrouded in a number of myths and mysteries. These include its name, its ownership, its purported independence form external influences, and its presumed commitment to market stability, economic growth and public interest.

The first MAJOR MYTH, accepted by most people in and outside of the United States, is that the Fed is owned by the Federal government, as implied by its name: the Federal Reserve Bank. In reality, however, it is a private institution whose shareholders are commercial banks; it is the “bankers’ bank.” Like other corporations, it is guided by and committed to the interests of its shareholders—pro forma supervision of the Congress notwithstanding.

The choice of the word “Federal” in the name of the bank thus seems to be a deliberate misnomer—designed to create the impression that it is a public entity. Indeed, misrepresentation of its ownership is not merely by implication or impression created by its name.......

I heartily suggest "The Creature from Jekyll Island" as reading material if you want to debate anything else about the Fed.

No. Rise in cost of goods is not directly correlated to inflation, but rather the inverse. You are confusing causality. Bigly.

No, I'm not.
Inflation is not the only reason, but it is the prime one and 99.9% of the time the cause of the others too if you look far enough down the line..

No. Demand itself does not create scarcity. Supply is part of the equation. Sorry.

That's what I pointed out in the analogy. There always has to be some sort of demand for a product to be viable or else it is not made (at least for very long).
Even "shitty weed" can fetch a fair price if that's all there is and the only reason any weed has a price is demand.
Without demand you'd be hard pressed to give it away until you did so enough times to create a demand from dependency.
That is basic Drug Econ. 101. Did you pay for the weed the 1st time you got stoned?

What does that have to do with the price of apples in India? Facts are facts.

The line on the chart I posted steadily climbs no matter which party presides.
Deficits only happen when you spend more than you have/make, and the reason the line climbs steadily is that things are promised (and delivered in the most ineffective way possible) that have no source of payment from the present budget and are "borrowed into existence" which creates deficit spending that accrues debt.

You are correct, I conflated the misnomer. The national debt has been on a steady rise since we've been following it in the early 1900s. I could go on about how that number doesn't actually matter until you evaluate it as a percent of GDP, but thats a topic for a different day.

Debt is debt, or else we could call it something else.
Though, in fact, many "economists" and businesses do when they say credit history.
It is owed to someone. Only the ability and ease that debt can be paid back changes until it is paid off and then it is of no consequence.

No. Nobody has agreed specifically with your last statement. They aren't asking questions because they either don't care, don't believe what you have to say, or are not educated on the subject enough to understand. Sorry.

If you know all the motivations and decisions of everyone else, why do you debate on a forum?
That statement seems almost narcissistic.

No. You can pull money from an ATM that you don't have. It is possible.

So is the eruption of the Yellowstone super volcano, but it is not probable and you're conflating actual theft as a loan.
When you give money to a bank it technically ceases to be yours. Read the terms and conditions you were presented when you opened a bank account.

The Federal Reserve also prints money to cycle out old paper for new.

But the amount it creates digitally far exceeds that paltry amount.

I get how you are trying to create an analogy of paper notes to debt, but I'm afraid it's an oversimplification.

I don't have to create an analogy, it's easier than that.
All I have to do is search "financial definition of note" and I get back a page that says:
Note.
A note is a debt security that promises to pay interest during the term that the issuer has use of the money, and to repay the principal on or before the maturity date.
For US Treasury securities, a note is an intermediate-term obligation -- as opposed to a short-term bill or a long-term bond -- that matures in two, three, five, or ten years from its issue date.

Doesn't get much clearer than that.
Why do you think they print it on the currency?

 

[see4]

Isn't that what all bankruptcy is? What makes student loans different? The government made a poor investment in me, they bear no responsibility for setting me and themselves up for failure? How about for not doing the due diligence to make sure their investment would get a return?

If my degree made me enough to pay them back I gladly would.

Let's suppose this scenario...

18 year is accepted to Boston College undergrad and gets a loan for $110,000 to pay his/her tuition.

Now 22, he/she takes another loan to pay for their Harvard graduate med school, to the tune of nearly $200,000.

Now 26, he/she takes another loan to pay for post graduate medical studies to become a specialist, for another $100,000.

At 29, he/she gets done and becomes a medical intern, and hates it.

He or she becomes burnt out from all the schooling and hard work and owes nearly $500,000 in loan and interest. And wants only to be a simple pot farmer.

Should they be able to bankrupt themselves out of the loans?

 

[see4]

No.
As I've said before, the Federal Reserve is about as federal as Federal Express.

I'd just link to this, but people either don't click links, or don't like the source (which you might not anyway):
Who Owns the Federal Reserve Bank and Why is It Shrouded in Myths and Mysteries? by Ismael Hossein-Zadeh

“It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.”
— Henry Ford
“Give me control of a Nation’s money supply, and I care not who makes its laws.”
— M. A. Rothschild

The Federal Reserve Bank (or simply the Fed), is shrouded in a number of myths and mysteries. These include its name, its ownership, its purported independence form external influences, and its presumed commitment to market stability, economic growth and public interest.

The first MAJOR MYTH, accepted by most people in and outside of the United States, is that the Fed is owned by the Federal government, as implied by its name: the Federal Reserve Bank. In reality, however, it is a private institution whose shareholders are commercial banks; it is the “bankers’ bank.” Like other corporations, it is guided by and committed to the interests of its shareholders—pro forma supervision of the Congress notwithstanding.

The choice of the word “Federal” in the name of the bank thus seems to be a deliberate misnomer—designed to create the impression that it is a public entity. Indeed, misrepresentation of its ownership is not merely by implication or impression created by its name.......

I heartily suggest "The Creature from Jekyll Island" as reading material if you want to debate anything else about the Fed.

No, I'm not.
Inflation is not the only reason, but it is the prime one and 99.9% of the time the cause of the others too if you look far enough down the line..

That's what I pointed out in the analogy. There always has to be some sort of demand for a product to be viable or else it is not made (at least for very long).
Even "shitty weed" can fetch a fair price if that's all there is and the only reason any weed has a price is demand.
Without demand you'd be hard pressed to give it away until you did so enough times to create a demand from dependency.
That is basic Drug Econ. 101. Did you pay for the weed the 1st time you got stoned?

The line on the chart I posted steadily climbs no matter which party presides.
Deficits only happen when you spend more than you have/make, and the reason the line climbs steadily is that things are promised (and delivered in the most ineffective way possible) that have no source of payment from the present budget and are "borrowed into existence" which creates deficit spending that accrues debt.

Debt is debt, or else we could call it something else.
Though, in fact, many "economists" and businesses do when they say credit history.
It is owed to someone. Only the ability and ease that debt can be paid back changes until it is paid off and then it is of no consequence.

If you know all the motivations and decisions of everyone else, why do you debate on a forum?
That statement seems almost narcissistic.
So is the eruption of the Yellowstone super volcano, but it is not probable and you're conflating actual theft as a loan.
When you give money to a bank it technically ceases to be yours. Read the terms and conditions you were presented when you opened a bank account.

But the amount it creates digitally far exceeds that paltry amount.

I don't have to create an analogy, it's easier than that.
All I have to do is search "financial definition of note" and I get back a page that says:
Note.
A note is a debt security that promises to pay interest during the term that the issuer has use of the money, and to repay the principal on or before the maturity date.
For US Treasury securities, a note is an intermediate-term obligation -- as opposed to a short-term bill or a long-term bond -- that matures in two, three, five, or ten years from its issue date.

Doesn't get much clearer than that.
Why do you think they print it on the currency?

The Federal Reserve is a government entity. See https://www.federalreserve.gov/

A Federal Reserve Note is different from that of a securities note. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_Note

The other stuff is moot if we can't agree on the premise.

 

[dagwood45431]

You saved only the first sentence of a paragraph and showed it like a threat.

And now you stoop to name calling.

Are you all actually buck?

You are so confused.

 

[PCXV]

That premise is not logical. Sorry.



I am not going to argue how you feel about your situation, that is yours alone to own.

But yes, if you agreed to take money in exchange for something with the agreement you'd pay it back, unless you can claim undue hardship, you are obligated to pay it back. -- They, the lenders are under no obligation to help you earning the money to pay back the loan you agreed to pay, that is your responsibility. -- Remember you chose to take the loan, they didn't force you.

You said theft. Theft is a crime. Do the crime, do the time. I'm willing to do the time. Where is the flaw in logic?

I wasn't arguing how I felt, my questions centered around the idea of people making poor investments that were unconcionable to the lendee from the start. Do they bear no responsibility to own their poor investment choice, like when people invest in a business that bankrupts on them? So why is my bad financial choice a permanent hinderence while other bad financial choices allow for bankruptcy? Maybe I just haven't gotten to your response on this issue yet.

 

[PCXV]

You can. You just need to prove undue hardship. Which is difficult, but impossible.

Do other bankruptcies require proving undue hardship? Or just hardship?

 

[PCXV]

Let's suppose this scenario...

18 year is accepted to Boston College undergrad and gets a loan for $110,000 to pay his/her tuition.

Now 22, he/she takes another loan to pay for their Harvard graduate med school, to the tune of nearly $200,000.

Now 26, he/she takes another loan to pay for post graduate medical studies to become a specialist, for another $100,000.

At 29, he/she gets done and becomes a medical intern, and hates it.

He or she becomes burnt out from all the schooling and hard work and owes nearly $500,000 in loan and interest. And wants only to be a simple pot farmer.

Should they be able to bankrupt themselves out of the loans?

If the health industry tanked and no jobs were available, yes. They have no way to pay back the debt. That's my situation; literally no job I can get with my degree pays enough to justify the cost of my education. It's like they loan or gain investment of $10 million to open a casino in Atlantic City and the gambling/tourist industry tanks there. They can file bankruptcy. Both lost the ability to pay back the loan/investment. Or no?

 

[dagwood45431]

It's a failing I'm trying to overcome.

In that case, in the meantime, quit the incessant and hypocritical whining about it.

 

[see4]

Let me see if I can tackle these in one comment, rather than a series...

You said theft. Theft is a crime. Do the crime, do the time. I'm willing to do the time. Where is the flaw in logic?

Yep, so why is my bad financial choice a permanent hinderence while other bad financial choices allow for bankruptcy? Maybe I just haven't gotten to your response on this issue yet.

Bankruptcy isn't as easy as you think. It used to be at one point in time, and many people took advantage of it. -- It's much more difficult to successfully be granted bankruptcy. -- And it's even more difficult to be absolved of all your debt, student loans or otherwise.

Do other bankruptcies require proving undue hardship? Or just hardship?

See above.

If the health industry tanked and no jobs were available, yes. They have no way to pay back the debt. That's my situation; literally no job I can get will be enough to pay back my loans in my lifetime. It's like they loan or gain investment of $10 million to open a casino in Atlantic City and the gambling/tourist industry tanks there. They can file bankruptcy. Both lost the ability to pay back the loan/investment. Or no?

So if I were to have put a bunch of money in the stock market before it tanked in 2008, should I be able to get all my money back?

A casino is a secured asset that the lender can seize in case of a bankruptcy.

What were you implying then?

I was not implying you hadn't given your comment much thought, but rather the comment itself was a call to reflect. I mean no disrespect.

 

[see4]

That's my situation; literally no job I can get will be enough to pay back my loans in my lifetime.

But you can make an attempt to pay some of it back rather than not try and absolve it away through bankruptcy.

I could accept that if you were to bankrupt it away that your credit profile be permanently marked with said absolution. But even then, that's still a scape goat. -- Many people live off money earned rather than their credit worthiness.

 

[PCXV]

Bankruptcy isn't as easy as you think. It used to be at one point in time, and many people took advantage of it. -- It's much more difficult to successfully be granted bankruptcy. -- And it's even more difficult to be absolved of all your debt, student loans or otherwise.

Possibly, but I know plenty of people who have for a couple thousand in fees. I've looked into chapter 7 and it looks like it is based on income/ability to repay. If student loan bankruptcy were that way, I think many would qualify.

So if I were to have put a bunch of money in the stock market before it tanked in 2008, should I be able to get all my money back? A casino is a secured asset that the lender can seize in case of a bankruptcy.

In that scenario, you, the investor/lender, are in the same seat as the government, the investor/lender, in my scenario. So no, you and the government lost on your investment as what you invested in is now insolvent. They can seize my degree if they want, it might be worth a little less than the casino in atlantic city, but not by much.

I was not implying you hadn't given your comment much thought, but rather the comment itself was a call to reflect. I mean no disrespect.

I have reflected on this for almost six years now. I only owe $30k from my 4 years at a state school. But the degree really didn't prepare me for anything but grad school which I couldn't afford or entry level jobs that are extremely hard to get. I ended up paying out of pocket to go to the community college to learn some marketable office skills dealing with paralegal work. But I found that upon completion that entry level jobs were few and far between, and employers want experience meaning I would need to pay the internship program to work for free a couple years. Life and bills happen and since then I've been working in unrelated fields searching for a career path/upward mobility (also applying for jobs related to my degree when they pop up but no luck).

I will have to look up the statistics but iirc they don't make me optimistic. Huge amount of student debt, lots of defaulting, many graduates can't afford loan payments or have been severely hindered by their loans. Some percentage being on income-based repayment plans where the payment baloons each year because the principle is actually getting larger each year. It looks like some percentage of these loans may literally never be paid off.

But you can make an attempt to pay some of it back rather than not try and absolve it away through bankruptcy.

I could accept that if you were to bankrupt it away that your credit profile be permanently marked with said absolution. But even then, that's still a scape goat. -- Many people live off money earned rather than their credit worthiness.

My current payment plan based on income will put me more in debt in 30 years than I am today. That isn't my hope/plan but for many, even me, that is a possible reality.

To your second paragraph, that mark will allow them at least to live and reorganize their life to be a net positive for society and the economy. Would you rather just see them and the economy permanently suffer, only for them to perish with an even larger amount of debt?

 

[PCXV]

I'd also like to point out that it was me that took out the loans but all of them were paid directly to an institution that in return gave me an education worth $0. The lender, backed by the government, approved this institution to recieve loans knowing that the institution was giving me something that would not allow me to repay those loans. Did the lender know they were loaning money that would be spent on something worthless? If they did, they share some blame with the institution for misleading 18 year olds that lack reasoning ability into a lifetime of inescapable debt.