Skip to main content

Perhaps some Smart Kosacks have already sniffed this one out.  If not, you heard it here first!

Student loans are the only type of loan in this country to be stripped of standard bankruptcy protections.  After 9 years of diligent research, and sustained observation, StudentLoanJustice.Org has come to understand with confidence, and shown clearly that the removal of this critical and fundamental consumer protection has turned the student loan system against the public, and the systemic effects of this have been devastating to the public good.   While no one wants to file for bankruptcy, this consumer protection is a critical and essential element for any stable, healthy, rationally priced lending system.  By removing bankruptcy protections from student loans, Congress enabled a lending environment to take hold where defaulted loans are financially more lucrative than loans which remain in good stead- this is a defining characteristic of a predatory lending system, and cannot be sustained.

The Center for American Progress, A prominent Washington, DC.  based think tank,  appears to understand, and agree with this view in their most recent policy paper regarding bankruptcy protections for student loans, published last fall.

http://www.americanprogress.org/...

The CAP makes it sound like they are for bankruptcy protections, but they use a so-called "Qualified Loan" filter which keeps bankruptcy GONE for loans that have "reasonable" interest rates, repayment/deferment options, and that are from schools that pass the "gainful employment" test...This includes, by their definition,  ALL FEDERAL LOANS, and probably a majority of all private loans!!!

Legislatively, the citizen's have seen the return of bankruptcy protections be passed over repeatedly in favor of various repayment programs, "gainful employment" rules, and other legislation intended to fix the student loan problem over the years.  

The repayment programs, including Income Based Repayment and Public Service Loan Forgiveness, as we predicted, have proven to be looking for every reason to NOT admit people, and will certainly be using every excuse to kick as many of the people they do let into the program OUT of the program. It is being run like a credit card teaser (ie interest rate reduction for making ontime payments), where only about 15% of the people who try for the benefit actually get the benefit.

The Gainful Employment Rule (a law that aimed to expunge poorly performing colleges from the federal lending program, was weak from the outset, would never have helped anyone saddled with student debt even if it had worked as promised, and failed almost completely to achieve what it was intended to achieve, thanks to the Department of Education, which was against the plan from the beginning, and administered it as such.

Since almost the first day that these "alternatives to bankruptcy" were proposed, we predicted (boldly) that they would not work, and would only perpetuate the status quo. We were right. In the absence of bankruptcy protections (which compel the Department of Education to have "skin in the game" on the borrowers side, instead of against them) there is absolutely no chance that the "new" gainful employment rule (recently proposed), or any new repayment plans that might be proposed will work.

The CAP's most recent initiative, dubbed "Higher Ed, Not Debt" appears to be yet another attempt to pre-empt this.  While the initiative has not yet put forth any legislation to examine,  it has all the hallmarks of yet another feckless effort, at best.  At worst, it looks suspiciously like a taxpayer-funded bailout designed to provide private student lenders a vehicle to offload their non-performing private loans!

What is more disturbing, however, are the CAP staff who who are responsible for the Center's higher education policy, David Bergeron, and Joe Valenti.  Prior to joining CAP, Bergeron spent 30 YEARS at the Department of Education.  His most recent position was as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Education, and Director of the Office of Post-Secondary Education, which MANAGES THE STUDENT LOAN PROGRAM. The Chronicle of Higher Education actually describes Bergeron as "THE INSTITUTIONAL MEMORY" of the Department of Education.

The other author, Joe Valenti, came to the Center from the TREASURY DEPARTMENT, where he was a "ALEXANDER HAMILTON FELLOW". Alexander Hamilton is credited with architecting the nation's banking/financial system, and wrote a majority of the Federalist Papers. These documents are, among other things, used to justify a strong, centralized government (as opposed to a weak government model). Interesting guy was Hamilton...but he was no progressive.

What is perhaps most distrubing, however, are funders of the Center for American Progress.   Below is just a partial sampling:

Goldman Sachs
Bank of America
Wells Fargo
Citigroup
VISA
DeVry Education Group
Pearson
Walmart
KKR
The Blackstone Group
Comcast
Northrop Grumman

There is absolutely NOTHING progressive about the paper in question or its authors.  Further, there is nothing progressive about the Center's "Higher Ed, not Debt" initiative, or its corporate funders. There is only the stench of corrupted, beltway politics, false advocacy, and elitist duplicity. The Center for American Progress, at least regarding student loans, is a false front, is working against the people, against our freedom, and against progressive ideals.  It is a sick joke, particularly for those who have been hurt so badly by the corrupted student loan system.

For the sake of the citizens, the Democratic Party, and the relevance of this nation's democracy generally.  We urge the IMMEDIATE DE-FUNDING of the Center for American Progress.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Questions, Please Contact:

Alan Collinge, StudentLoanJustice.Org
justice@studentloanjustice.org
(253) 617-3407

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  No, they just don't agree with you on your issue. (11+ / 0-)

    The problem with granting bankruptcy protection to student loans is that an awful lot of people would invoke bankruptcy and not pay their loans.  It's not the lenders' fault there isn't appropriate employment for so many college graduates.

    It's not the side effects of the cocaine/I'm thinking that it must be love

    by Rich in PA on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 04:53:57 PM PDT

    •  Well, I can see what you do for a living. n/t (5+ / 0-)

      Pope Francis: the Thumb of Christ in the eyes of the Pharisees.

      by commonmass on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 04:57:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah, I work in higher education. (7+ / 0-)

        There's an absurd tendency to make colleges/universities and lenders take the fall for something they have nothing to do with, which is the collapse in appropriate employment for college graduates.  

        It's not the side effects of the cocaine/I'm thinking that it must be love

        by Rich in PA on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 05:00:13 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  What planet are you on? (11+ / 0-)

          Wasn't it the lenders and the Department of Education who lobbied away bankruptcy protections, thereby making lending as much money as possible to students a riskless proposition?

          I think it was.

          Who is raising their tuitions based on false premises of imminent financial demise?  Isn't it the colleges?

          I think it is.

          Please support the StudentLoanJustice.Org PAC

          by studentloanjustice on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 05:34:01 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'll focus on the second question, which I know... (12+ / 0-)

            ...more about.  I'm pretty sure public colleges raise their tuitions because their states don't fund them to the extent they used to.  I can't speak for private colleges but from what I've observed, they raise their tuition because (a) they're in an amenities arms race to attract students, (b) poor ones are tuition-driven and without increased tuition they can't survive, and (c) rich ones do it just because they can, sometimes pointing out (correctly) that it's part of a redistrubutive model in which wealthy families subsidize poorer ones.

            It's not the side effects of the cocaine/I'm thinking that it must be love

            by Rich in PA on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 05:38:38 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  ^^^^ this ^^^^ (8+ / 0-)
              public colleges raise their tuitions because their states don't fund them to the extent they used to.
            •  they raise their tuition rates (7+ / 0-)

              because in this shitty economy, people are willing to pay more for a college degree from a prestigious university. It's a simple business decision.

              Higher education has become a real racket. They don't pay for student services, they cut tenured faculty and merge departments, increase class size while decreasing the number of courses offered, rely on part-time adjuncts for teaching and grad students as slave labor for research. The NSF and private industry pay for an increasingly large amount of research done at universities. Private funding comes with huge strings attached and the NSF budget is perpetually cut in this age of deficit hysteria, so in effect it's becoming privatized. Research in the humanities, no one pays for that so humanities is going to disappear altogether pretty soon.

              The tuition increases all go to the layers and layers of bureaucracy, assistant-assistant-assistant-assistant deans who know shit-all about any academic subject but get paid six figures to sit on their asses and doodle on their iPads all day, and the rest of the cash to projects like new buildings which are of dubious value to students but are huge boondoggles and kickbacks to the wealthy backers who really run the colleges.

              Small colleges are bought out by large ones and mergers and consolidations are increasingly more common. Soon you'll have McUniversities that offer the same insipid Big Mac courses in all 50 states, rudimentary English and basic arithmetic, the rest corporate propaganda posing as education.

              But yeah, let's pretend like the colleges are the innocent victims here.

              "In America, the law is king." --Thomas Paine

              by limpidglass on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 06:50:52 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  The private ones are basically businesses (4+ / 0-)

                not providers of a common good (education). And they make rational decisions based on where their incentives lie. Excellence in teaching does not really bring in more dollars so they don't emphasize it. Research does pay, if external funding for it can be found, so they do like faculty who can build up little empires of research and share their grant bounty with the administration. Tuition at the top schools is also a funding source but in fact it is often offset with grants and scholarships so overall they don't break even on the tuition alone. But they spend a lot of effort to induce well-heeled alumni to give copiously to their alma mater.

              •  So long as everyone's into the Right Wing Talking (0+ / 0-)

                ...Points thing, I'll note that this notion of universities full of parasitic administrators, which is never accompanied by any evidence, is one of them.  

                It's not the side effects of the cocaine/I'm thinking that it must be love

                by Rich in PA on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 03:55:12 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  In what universe is this remotely a valid (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Christin, skohayes, Sylv

        response to Rich's arguments?

        And if it is, how on earth do you actually know what he does for a living?

    •  Do you work for the Banking industry? (4+ / 8-)

      Do you work for the banking industry?  This is precisely the sort of right wing rhetoric that has been used for years to perpetuate the problem to where it is today?

      And your point, as I have said to you at least once previously, is completely baseless, groundless, and in all reasonable likelihood, completely false.

      Please review our past discussions, and the argument at our website.  I really don't feel like repeating the dialogue with you a second time.

      Please support the StudentLoanJustice.Org PAC

      by studentloanjustice on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 05:01:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'll let your style of argument speak for itself. (15+ / 0-)

        N/T

        It's not the side effects of the cocaine/I'm thinking that it must be love

        by Rich in PA on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 05:05:59 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Your tagline speaks for itself. (5+ / 0-)

          I was just suspended from commenting for wondering aloud what this guy, Rich in PA, has to say for his progressive credentials, given the substance of his first comment, which reads EXACTLY like the banking rhetoric that has been used to perpetuate this problem for many years now.

          Nice, Daily KOS.  Very nice. Well done.

          Please support the StudentLoanJustice.Org PAC

          by studentloanjustice on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 05:36:05 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Come and see the violence inherent in the system! (11+ / 0-)

            It's not the side effects of the cocaine/I'm thinking that it must be love

            by Rich in PA on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 05:40:24 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  What I find ironic about the types of people (9+ / 0-)

              who continue to post this clip, is that they actually think this is a good satire against people who think there is such a thing as economic suppression. In this clip, the person complaining is a serf, being shoved around by a wealthy lord.

              One can get some insights into the minds of those who post this, because to a real serf, this wouldn't be funny at all.

              Newsflash: Wage-slavery, having the fruits of our wealth-producing labor stolen by the owning class, is not all that different from being a serf. One still has a master in the form of the capitalist class, one still has a lord in the form of a corporate boss, one still has rents to pay to the landlords (still a term used in law), interest to pay to the money lenders.

              I can't tell you how much I despise the mentality of people who post this ruling class propaganda. If there weren't a risk of being banned, my language would be far more potent.

              Fuck this shit. Goddamn the enablers of the wealthy class.

              "The political arena leaves one no alternative, one must either be a dunce or a rogue." Emma Goldman, Anarchism and Other Essays

              by ZhenRen on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 10:14:34 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  "Ruling Class Propaganda!?" Monty Python? (9+ / 0-)

                Have you even seen this movie? Are you at all familiar the Pythons beyond this clip?

                In the context of the film, the humor derives from the idea that anyone would try to reason with some dark age warlord using post enlightenment ideas. The whole movie revolves around lampooning and exposing Arthurian romanticism and its mythologizing of aristocracy. Hell, the movie ends with King Arthur being hauled off in hand cuffs.

                You may not like the use the clip has been put to but do yourself a favor and don't confuse that use with the substance of the film or the Pythons intentions.

                Nothing human is alien to me.

                by WB Reeves on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 02:27:04 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  You're misunderstood (5+ / 0-)

                  I'm noting the views of the people here who use this clip repeatedly, which are neoliberal defenses of the status quo.

                  Whatever the point was of Python (it's been decades since I've seen this film, maybe I'll get some time to view it again one of these days), the people who post this clip use it to ridicule critics of our pathetic "Democratic Party".

                  "The political arena leaves one no alternative, one must either be a dunce or a rogue." Emma Goldman, Anarchism and Other Essays

                  by ZhenRen on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 09:39:35 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Actually, from what I've seen, (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Sylv, TomP, kalmoth

                    it's used to ridicule people for making overblown claims of political persecution.

                    Of course I'm sure that I haven't seen every instance of it's use.

                    I'm glad you weren't intending to label the film or the Pythons as "ruling class propaganda."

                    Nothing human is alien to me.

                    by WB Reeves on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 11:11:39 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  So, there is no economic oppression (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Tonedevil, Brown Thrasher, JVolvo

                      in the US? And political power is not used to accomplish this oppression?

                      Smiling here...

                      Did I log into the wrong site? I thought we were a people-centered blog.

                      "The political arena leaves one no alternative, one must either be a dunce or a rogue." Emma Goldman, Anarchism and Other Essays

                      by ZhenRen on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 11:15:49 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Zhen, I said nothing remotely resembling that (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Sylv, TomP, kalmoth

                        Moreover, if you examine the parent comment that the clip was posted in response to, you'll discover that it has nothing to do with the points you raise either.

                        That comment was focused on the fact that the diarist had been put in time out. The time out resulted from hr's received for suggesting that someone disagreeing with him might be a "mole".

                        That is the only "oppression" that the clip was addressing.

                        Nothing human is alien to me.

                        by WB Reeves on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 12:00:52 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Its not at all clear (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          JVolvo

                          why, in fact, this video clip was posted, but its been repeatedly posted on dkos, almost always by defenders of the status quo, and if Rich in PA is anything, he is a defender of the status quo.

                          "The political arena leaves one no alternative, one must either be a dunce or a rogue." Emma Goldman, Anarchism and Other Essays

                          by ZhenRen on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 03:52:34 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  It is absolutely clear which comment he was (0+ / 0-)

                            replying to.

                            You're just blowing smoke now, evidently because you can't bear to admit that you got something wrong.

                            Nothing human is alien to me.

                            by WB Reeves on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 05:16:35 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  That's your neolib supporting interpretation (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            JVolvo

                            I've told you before: You're not invisible. Your motives, and proclivities, are transparent. You aren't fooling people. We see who and what you run with.

                            The more I study history, the more I understand people like you.

                            "The political arena leaves one no alternative, one must either be a dunce or a rogue." Emma Goldman, Anarchism and Other Essays

                            by ZhenRen on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 06:58:39 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You're behaving like an ignoramus (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            kalmoth

                            You can't point to anything I've said that could accurately be described neo-liberal. You're just throwing accusations to muddy the waters. You apparently think that you're entitled to say whatever you please, regardless of how defamatory or dishonest it may be.

                            Have fun with that.

                            Nothing human is alien to me.

                            by WB Reeves on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 07:40:32 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I'm piercing the veil of your pretense (0+ / 0-)

                            As I've told you before, I see you for what you really are. I see your long term participation here, what and who you defend, what and who you attack. What you uprate, what you downrate.

                            You aren't fooling me.

                            I know how people like you get to this place you inhabit. Its a sad history.

                            "The political arena leaves one no alternative, one must either be a dunce or a rogue." Emma Goldman, Anarchism and Other Essays

                            by ZhenRen on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 07:46:28 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  The only way you could "see" all that (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            kalmoth

                            is if you had combed through my entire comment, rating and diary history. You obviously haven't done this, since you would have run across plenty of evidence contradicting your imaginings.

                            More bluster. More insistence that your superior perception should be substituted for fact.

                            Nothing human is alien to me.

                            by WB Reeves on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 11:02:15 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I've seen enough random samplings (0+ / 0-)

                            And I've seen you in enough of these kinds of circumstances.

                            Hey, no matter. You keep on thinking you're an enigma. Not a problem.

                            "The political arena leaves one no alternative, one must either be a dunce or a rogue." Emma Goldman, Anarchism and Other Essays

                            by ZhenRen on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 11:10:27 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  As if you would know what "enough" was. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            kalmoth

                            Enough to suit your own prejudices certainly.

                            I'm hardly an enigma, since, unlike yourself, I post under my actual name and my record, not just here but in the larger world, is an open book.

                            But by all means, continue to argue that your supposed ability to perceive hidden realities, imperceptible to lesser mortals, entitles you to substitute your fancies for fact.

                            Nothing human is alien to me.

                            by WB Reeves on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 11:39:41 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Oh, and kalmoth (0+ / 0-)

                            And that private message you sent. Telling me I should remove Kropotkin as an avatar, and that you're blocking me, thus sending a nasty message I can't reply to.

                            Not cool. You don't speak for anarchism, Kropotkin, or any other person in anarchist history.

                            That was sad... disappointing. I have strong opinions about debt slavery (and that is precisely what it is) and notice how this topic brings out the real opinions people have.

                            Okay, I'm convinced. The site, particularity the comment sections, are overrun with neolibs.

                            "The political arena leaves one no alternative, one must either be a dunce or a rogue." Emma Goldman, Anarchism and Other Essays

                            by ZhenRen on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 11:29:38 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I doubt you could give an accurate definition (0+ / 0-)

                            of neo-Liberalism.

                            Nothing human is alien to me.

                            by WB Reeves on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 11:41:23 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I doubt I could give one that (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            JVolvo

                            you would agree with. You'd be touchy and defensive about that, all considered.

                            "The political arena leaves one no alternative, one must either be a dunce or a rogue." Emma Goldman, Anarchism and Other Essays

                            by ZhenRen on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 11:52:55 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Chuckle n/t (0+ / 0-)

                            Nothing human is alien to me.

                            by WB Reeves on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 02:18:27 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Chuckle n/t (0+ / 0-)

                            Nothing human is alien to me.

                            by WB Reeves on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 02:33:58 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                •  Take a look, Reeves (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Tonedevil, Brown Thrasher, JVolvo

                  at the upraters of that clip. All defenders of the status quo owning class. That's my point about the motivations in posting the clip. They see it as ridicule of people who complain about oppression.

                  Frankly, a so-called "Democratic" blog that supports Democratic ideals should be ashamed of itself to resort to this neoliberal defense of the banking industry.

                  "The political arena leaves one no alternative, one must either be a dunce or a rogue." Emma Goldman, Anarchism and Other Essays

                  by ZhenRen on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 11:11:57 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Um, (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Sylv, howarddream, TomP

                    I accept that you think that the upraters are "all defenders of the status quo and the ruling class" but that doesn't make it so.

                    You're essentially arguing that, because you've defined them as such, that proves your point about how the clip has been used. Short of presenting an example where these kossacks have admitted to being "defenders of the status quo and ruling class", this amounts to nothing more than claiming that your judgement is correct because your judgement is correct.

                    That is what's known as a circular argument. Not particularly effective since requires that folks substitute your judgement for their own.

                    Nothing human is alien to me.

                    by WB Reeves on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 11:40:49 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  The evidence is their defense of (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      JVolvo, Tool

                      prohibiting discharge of debt in bankruptcy. Anyone who defends that is defending the profiteering of the banking industry at the cost of ruining the lives of the poor.

                      And if you don't understand why such a defense makes them defenders of the status quo, then I submit that you wouldn't understand no matter how much more "evidence" I submitted.

                      To quote  Kos, frankly, I really don't give "two shits" what you think.

                      "The political arena leaves one no alternative, one must either be a dunce or a rogue." Emma Goldman, Anarchism and Other Essays

                      by ZhenRen on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 03:56:54 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  You can submit anything you like (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Sylv, TomP, kalmoth

                        but it remains nothing more than an opinion sans evidence.

                        I don't see where anyone is arguing for general policy of prohibiting discharge of debt through bankruptcy. Could you point out to me where any of the upraters have done so? I have seen some folks questioning it's application to College loans, which I disagree with, but that's hardly an attack on the poor.

                        Frankly, it appears you "don't give two shits" what anyone thinks other than yourself.

                        Nothing human is alien to me.

                        by WB Reeves on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 05:12:48 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Mileage varies. (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          JVolvo

                          You don't have much ability for pattern recognition. I can't help with that. And I'm not paid to help you learn what you're apparently unable to learn. Reread the thread. See the pattern. Its all there before your eyes. In my view, you're on the other side, the side that wants to enslave.

                          You're not reachable. Not worth the effort.

                          And read this, and note (the name of) the diarist is part of Tiabbi's story.

                          http://www.rollingstone.com/...

                          "The political arena leaves one no alternative, one must either be a dunce or a rogue." Emma Goldman, Anarchism and Other Essays

                          by ZhenRen on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 07:04:18 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  How convenient for you (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            TomP, kalmoth

                            Everyone must come around to your view or they are "unreachable" and "on the other side." Thus you never have to give them an honest hearing or re-examine your own views.

                            Even better, you get to pretend that expecting you to back up your views with evidence is some kind of dreadful imposition.

                            Any "anarchist" society predicated on such attitudes could only be a society of one.

                            Nothing human is alien to me.

                            by WB Reeves on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 07:33:47 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  My view doesn't have to be valid to you (0+ / 0-)

                            to be true and justifiable and valid to me. You have no authority in my universe. You're just a thinly veiled poseur.  There is no requirement or need or rule that I must fall into the trap of endlessly "proving" a position to someone who will never be convinced even when the evidence is right under his arrogantly upturned nose.

                            And speaking of anarchist societies, there would be no need for bankruptcy, or student loans, or tuition, or federal guarantees to private bankers, and no debt slavery.

                            And those who would want to force these forms of thievery on the rest of us would be defended against. They would not be tolerated. They would be treated as the criminal class that they are.

                            "The political arena leaves one no alternative, one must either be a dunce or a rogue." Emma Goldman, Anarchism and Other Essays

                            by ZhenRen on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 07:43:07 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  "Your" universe? (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            kalmoth

                            There's little point in attempting to converse with someone who imagines they inhabit a separate universe from the one the rest of us share. Particularly when they think this conceit entitles them to dictate what's real and what is not.

                            You should have Stirner as your icon, rather than Kropotkin.

                            Nothing human is alien to me.

                            by WB Reeves on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 10:53:27 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Yes, of course, MY universe... (0+ / 0-)

                            Because individuality is important and should be respected. We each have our own minds, our own experiences. And together, not as automatons, but as thinking individuals, we form social relationships. Individuality is important, and our relationships as such are also important.

                            Anarchists support the freedom and autonomy of individuality, as well as the cooperation and reciprocity in solidarity with others. We form a society not as a nebulous mass, but as separate people.

                            Sorry that was something you don't understand or support. Stirner had his points.

                            He was an individualist. Social anarchists accept some of this, while recognizing the inevitable tendency of social humans working together.

                            Reeves... you're not half as quick as you conceive yourself to be.

                            "The political arena leaves one no alternative, one must either be a dunce or a rogue." Emma Goldman, Anarchism and Other Essays

                            by ZhenRen on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 11:07:10 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Too bad you don't respect the individual (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            kalmoth

                            opinions of those who disagree with you.

                            Some anarchist.

                            Nothing human is alien to me.

                            by WB Reeves on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 11:11:35 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Disagreement is okay (0+ / 0-)

                            Even heated disagreement. Sorry, your invitation to the society of automatons is rejected.

                            "The political arena leaves one no alternative, one must either be a dunce or a rogue." Emma Goldman, Anarchism and Other Essays

                            by ZhenRen on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 11:13:53 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Are you completely incapable of honest debate? n/t (0+ / 0-)

                            Nothing human is alien to me.

                            by WB Reeves on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 11:17:07 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Reeves... (0+ / 0-)

                            Oh, for fucks sake, don't tell me you think this thing you do is debate?

                            Oh my... with you it is never real debate. Yep, figured that out a long time ago.

                            Classic pissing contest. Transparently so. The reason you never win is because I don't care how far you piss.

                            You stay at this all night until the next day, or even the next after that, just to make yourself feel you've won something out of this.

                            You're good at the "when did you last beat your wife" questions, I'll grant you that. But people don't tend to fall for that these days, do they? I had the impression that was passe.

                            "The political arena leaves one no alternative, one must either be a dunce or a rogue." Emma Goldman, Anarchism and Other Essays

                            by ZhenRen on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 11:49:16 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Sorry, I don't accept your "perceptions" as a (0+ / 0-)

                            substitute for reality.

                            Nothing human is alien to me.

                            by WB Reeves on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 12:34:00 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                      •  Defenders of the status quo: (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Tool, ZhenRen
                        Do you work for the Banking industry? (4+ / 8-)

                        Recommended by:
                            Horace Boothroyd III, Jarrayy, jan4insight, jqb
                        Hidden by:
                            kalmoth, Catte Nappe, virginislandsguy, raptavio, Tomtech, fcvaguy, Christin, Its the Supreme Court Stupid

                        Funny, I don't remember seeing "direct question re commenter's employment sector" = HRable in FAQs.

                        But the defenders do.  Weird.  Oh well, these Gates aren't going to polish themselves!

                        "But I do apologize, JVolvo, for you are arbiter of all that can and cannot be discussed and I bow down to your supremacy when it comes to what can be written on this website." WinSmith 1/22/2014 - "OK" JVolvo 1/23/2014 (sorry, Clive)

                        by JVolvo on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 10:47:09 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  That isn't the comment that was initially objected (0+ / 0-)

                          to.

                          Or did you already know that?

                          Nothing human is alien to me.

                          by WB Reeves on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 11:15:42 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  ??? The 'eff you clown' comments were Tues (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            ZhenRen

                            April 1st; late morning.  This comment - with the 8 HRs - was Mon pm, 3/31.

                            So, a time machine was involved?

                            Or the Monday comment was jumped on by the crew after the fact?

                            ???

                            "But I do apologize, JVolvo, for you are arbiter of all that can and cannot be discussed and I bow down to your supremacy when it comes to what can be written on this website." WinSmith 1/22/2014 - "OK" JVolvo 1/23/2014 (sorry, Clive)

                            by JVolvo on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 12:18:54 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  My Bad (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            kalmoth, JVolvo

                            This was the comment I was referring to:

                            Anyone ever accuse Rich in PA of being a mole? (0+ / 5-)

                            Just curious.  If I didn't know any better, I would accuse this guy of being a subvert.  He is no progressive, I hope all will agree from the substance of his first comment.

                            I've gone back and checked and based on the time stamps, the comment you initially cited was posted just before this one. According to the time stamps in the comments, it's likely it was hidden first too.

                            So you're right. The confusion was on my part. Apologies.

                            Of course, the second post does remove any doubt as to what he intended with the first.
                             

                            Nothing human is alien to me.

                            by WB Reeves on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 01:35:14 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Props for the correx. I wondered if the crew (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            WB Reeves

                            retro HRd him back to the first comment - which would be a bullshit thing to do, imo.  Dunno. I don't think we peons can see timestamps for recs and HRs.

                            Of course, he let his temper get him and typed breaking bad shit which is not ok.  Although he stated he had gotten a warning (I'm hazily remembering an "acknowledge you're off course/you can't comment until you do" warning from the old MB days) before his "fuck you" roll so he was (understandably, imo) pissed at the HR crew.

                            I still ask - not just to you - where is it stated that a straight-forward and direct "Do you work in X sector of our economy?" equals some mean accusation/attempt to smear/out a person that = HR offense?  I don't get it.

                            Now, I'll see what other comments I might need to reply to...

                            :o)

                            "But I do apologize, JVolvo, for you are arbiter of all that can and cannot be discussed and I bow down to your supremacy when it comes to what can be written on this website." WinSmith 1/22/2014 - "OK" JVolvo 1/23/2014 (sorry, Clive)

                            by JVolvo on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 10:54:28 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

              •  You're the bearer of a noble tradition. (5+ / 0-)

                The Humorless Left is something we should hold onto at all costs.

                It's not the side effects of the cocaine/I'm thinking that it must be love

                by Rich in PA on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 03:50:30 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  Oh, and about my tagline. (0+ / 0-)

            Might be before your time.  But Horace probably thinks I'm the Thin White Duke.

            It's not the side effects of the cocaine/I'm thinking that it must be love

            by Rich in PA on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 07:28:58 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  This site isn't restricted to progressives (3+ / 0-)

            It welcomes all Democrats from across the political spectrum.

            You can't accuse people of being moles, or anything similar without proof. Be happy you have a timeout and haven't been banned. Learn from it. Stop the personal attacks of the people who don't agree with you.

            "let's talk about that"

            by VClib on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 12:37:46 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Would it make the point less true? (9+ / 0-)

        As a general rule, people have to be responsible for their debts. Now if you argued that the cost of a college education is too high, or that the government should fund tuition for qualified students, I would agree with you.  But that's not the system we have.  And I am a banker.

        "Because I am a river to my people."

        by lordcopper on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 05:09:31 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  As a fundamental rule of western economic theory.. (7+ / 0-)

          Bankruptcy protections are a fundamental, and critical feedback mechanism that ensures appropriate good faith in a lending system, ensures rational pricing in the commodity being purchased, and ensures that the borrowers will not be preyed upon by unscrupulous lenders.  

          This rule goes back to Adam Smith, Mr. Banker.  You should go back, and check, and come back when you've got your economics straight.

          Please support the StudentLoanJustice.Org PAC

          by studentloanjustice on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 05:38:35 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  How does that dispute the idea that "people have (5+ / 0-)

            to be responsible for their debts"?

            "Because I am a river to my people."

            by lordcopper on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 05:41:31 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Debts in a poor economy are coercive (5+ / 0-)

              People enter into debt because they have no other choice. Then when the ruling class (bankers, corporations, and wealthy politicians) run the economy into the ground due to taking excessive risks and people lose jobs and can't pay, the bankers use their disproportionate economic and political power to force the poor to support their corruption by repayment of loans, while they literally starve, or suffer substandard standard of living.

              All loans must be dischargeable in bankruptcy. Corporations can discharge loans, governments can discharge loans, all except the poor who must pay, even if the money is taken from social security income.

              Goddamn any capitalist asshole who thinks this is fair.

              "The political arena leaves one no alternative, one must either be a dunce or a rogue." Emma Goldman, Anarchism and Other Essays

              by ZhenRen on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 09:27:35 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Leverage is used to increase total return. (0+ / 0-)

                Employing leverage increases risk.  This is a voluntary decision.  The alternative is to consume only that which you can afford to pay for at that moment.  You can't remove personal responsibility from this equation without setting off a chain of unintended consequences.

                "Because I am a river to my people."

                by lordcopper on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 05:36:14 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Voluntary decision? (7+ / 0-)

                  As in, either don't go to college and get a minimum wage job, or go to college, go deep into debt, and then get a minimum wage job and $30,000 debt, with that hope of getting a somewhat better than minimum wage job and maybe pay the debt down to $15,000 before you retire?

                  Some choice.

                  And God said, "Let there be light"; and with a Big Bang, there was light. And God said "Ow! Ow My eyes!" and in a flash God separated light from darkness. "Whew! Now that's better. Now where was I. Oh yea . . ."

                  by Pale Jenova on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 07:05:45 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  The options are tough choices, no doubt, but they (0+ / 0-)

                    are still choices.  The current student loan system can't survive borrower's walking away from debts with impunity.

                    "Because I am a river to my people."

                    by lordcopper on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 07:37:52 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  You're ignoring (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Brown Thrasher, JVolvo, Pale Jenova

                      the extremely coercive nature of loans for education, for mortgages, and consumer loans.

                      When people have no other way to pay other than to get a loan, this is what they do. The banks have made loads of money in recent years while the borrowers often have no work (thanks to the banking industry) and thus no way to pay for the loans.

                      The personal responsibility notion is neoliberal horseshit presented as a form of false working class morality.

                      People deserve a free education. They work, they produce the wealth of this nation, thus they deserve a free education.

                      "The political arena leaves one no alternative, one must either be a dunce or a rogue." Emma Goldman, Anarchism and Other Essays

                      by ZhenRen on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 09:49:14 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I'm ignoring nothing. Capital will seek a return (0+ / 0-)

                        commensurate with risk. As the risk increases, so will the cost of borrowing (and availability will decline).  It's not about what people deserve (I would actually argue that it's in everyone's best interest to educate the population), its about the type of system we have.  And our existing system puts the onus on the individual to finance education.

                        "Because I am a river to my people."

                        by lordcopper on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 10:09:43 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  The answer (3+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Brown Thrasher, JVolvo, Pale Jenova

                          is to get private capital out of financing education, rather than defend the profit margins of the banking industry.

                          "The political arena leaves one no alternative, one must either be a dunce or a rogue." Emma Goldman, Anarchism and Other Essays

                          by ZhenRen on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 10:39:19 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Yeah, because there are an abundance of lenders (0+ / 0-)

                            looking to make unsecured, long term loans (10-15 years) to students.  Good luck with that, but if you can figure out a way to do it I'm with you.

                            "Because I am a river to my people."

                            by lordcopper on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 10:51:51 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Easy to solve (4+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Brown Thrasher, JVolvo, Tool, Pale Jenova

                            Public funding of education. I know, that would absolutely not be a capitalist solution.

                            Its a matter of what we prioritize. We can fund the military, the wars, the banking industry, the rich, and fund low tax rates for the owning class, placing debts with no recourse to bankruptcy on the poor, or we can fund the people and their needs and interests. The money is there, its a matter of how we spend it.

                            The simple answer at the moment is allow the loans to be discharged in bankruptcy. The lenders are making money, and according to reports, have done very well and grown even larger during this economic downturn. Placing the burden of economic downturns on the poor directly serves the interests of the 1%.

                            "The political arena leaves one no alternative, one must either be a dunce or a rogue." Emma Goldman, Anarchism and Other Essays

                            by ZhenRen on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 11:01:37 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Great idea!! Now all you need is a rational (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Sylv

                            public, a news media to educate the public on the merits of such a program, a House vote, a Senate vote (60 votes) and a Presidential signature.  BTW, do you remember how the ACA was passed?  Good luck getting something done this century.  Really, I wish you the best of luck.

                            "Because I am a river to my people."

                            by lordcopper on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 11:08:49 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Indeed, it is difficult (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Brown Thrasher, JVolvo, Tool

                            But your defense of the banking industry by opposing discharging of student loans in bankruptcy isn't helping. You've joined the other side. You're working against economic democracy.

                            "The political arena leaves one no alternative, one must either be a dunce or a rogue." Emma Goldman, Anarchism and Other Essays

                            by ZhenRen on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 11:21:04 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Defense??? Do you want the truth, or do you want (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            TomP

                            me to agree with you?  

                            I'm simply pointing out how the existing system works.  If you absolve borrowers of their responsibility to repay loans you'll be destroying a system that has allowed many people the opportunity to finance an education they would otherwise not be able to afford.  You damn well better have a system to replace it before you destroy the existing system.

                            "Because I am a river to my people."

                            by lordcopper on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 11:55:08 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Obviously (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Brown Thrasher, JVolvo, Tool

                            You only understand the system and how it functions from a purely capitalist perspective, which is not the only point from which to analyze policy. In fact, it is completely serving of the minority wealthy interests.

                            If you absolve borrowers of their responsibility to repay loans you'll be destroying a system that has allowed many people the opportunity to finance an education they would otherwise not be able to afford.
                            If you absolve the banking interests of responsibility for destroying the economy with the wholesale gambling with financial instruments such as derivatives, and then give them as a reward federal protection from default on student loans, and prevent discharge of the loans in bankruptcy, after the wealthy class takes jobs overseas, destroys unions, and keeps wages flat for decades while corporate profiteering surges, you're defending the 1%.

                            Newsflash, Mr. Corporate Defender: The public is not responsible for their inability to repay loans when the corporate class fucks them over this way. The only failure of responsibility on the part of the public is the failure to take control of public assets and run these profiteers out of town.

                            You're working against economic equality, and aiding and abetting the theft of the wealth of the workers for the owning class.

                            It is who you are. You can't hide from that. You've revealed yourself.

                            And I have a system to replace it. It's called public funding of education by taxing the rich to get some of that stolen wealth back. Raise taxes on the wealthy interests (property taxes, income taxes, etc). Use the funds to bankroll education. And stop the perpetual wars and the out of control military spending.

                            If this isn't possible, the solution isn't to doom people to debt slavery by not allowing them to discharge a debt through bankruptcy. The entire basis of the bankruptcy laws, dating back to common law as I recall, is to allow a person to get on with life after becoming insolvent. It is considered to be humane, and just, and this is why traditionally, lenders had to bear as much risk in lending as borrowers did in borrowing. Read Graiber's "Debt, the First Five Thousand Years" for a history.

                            When we begin to create debt slavery from which a borrower cannot find relief, we're not serving even capitalism, but wholesale hegemony of the banking industry. Signing a student loan agreement is thus tantamount to becoming a serf, or a servant, to the banking industry and the owning class, since there is slim to no possibility of relief.

                            Goddamn anyone who thinks this is "progressive".

                            "The political arena leaves one no alternative, one must either be a dunce or a rogue." Emma Goldman, Anarchism and Other Essays

                            by ZhenRen on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 12:35:18 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Okay buddy. Good luck to you. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            virginislandsguy, TomP

                            "Because I am a river to my people."

                            by lordcopper on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 12:57:06 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Don't need luck (4+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Brown Thrasher, JVolvo, Tool, Pale Jenova

                            What we need is economic equality.

                            "The political arena leaves one no alternative, one must either be a dunce or a rogue." Emma Goldman, Anarchism and Other Essays

                            by ZhenRen on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 04:01:27 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  And less Mammon Men. Especially here. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Pale Jenova, ZhenRen

                            "But I do apologize, JVolvo, for you are arbiter of all that can and cannot be discussed and I bow down to your supremacy when it comes to what can be written on this website." WinSmith 1/22/2014 - "OK" JVolvo 1/23/2014 (sorry, Clive)

                            by JVolvo on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 11:03:20 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Hey, that sounds just like every farcical Repug (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Tool, ZhenRen

                            argument against marriage equality, sensible gun control and rare, safe and legal abortion.

                            Student loan bankruptcy provision ---> destroy the system.

                            Slippery Slope Fucking Bullshit, Mr Banker.

                            "But I do apologize, JVolvo, for you are arbiter of all that can and cannot be discussed and I bow down to your supremacy when it comes to what can be written on this website." WinSmith 1/22/2014 - "OK" JVolvo 1/23/2014 (sorry, Clive)

                            by JVolvo on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 11:01:09 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  The difference being that laws against marriage (0+ / 0-)

                            equality, guns, and anti-choice legislation serve no "useful" purpose.  The current student loan system actually makes/made higher education accessible to millions of Americans who otherwise would not have had access.  Your bullshit logic is flawed Mr. Volvo.

                            "Because I am a river to my people."

                            by lordcopper on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 06:04:28 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Thank you, Mr Banker. May I have another? (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            ZhenRen

                            "But I do apologize, JVolvo, for you are arbiter of all that can and cannot be discussed and I bow down to your supremacy when it comes to what can be written on this website." WinSmith 1/22/2014 - "OK" JVolvo 1/23/2014 (sorry, Clive)

                            by JVolvo on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 11:56:03 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

        •  "Being responsible for their debts" (8+ / 0-)

          I agree with you that we need people to be responsible for their debts.  If you make a loan, it's important that the law and regulations make it likely that you can make a loan agreement with someone and get paid back for it.  That's only fair.

          What doesn't follow is that you need the additional hook of being able to go after the borrower after bankruptcy.  You can, and you should, as a lender, be able to price in the default risk of the loan.  You should be able to take reasonable measures to collect on the debt.  But folks like Donald Trump have repeated used bankruptcy (and together with it, incorporation) to get out of failed business ventures.  Yet the system survives -- even thrives, looking at profit levels over the last 6 years.  If we don't need to hang these kinds of debts on Trump, why do we need to hang them on college grads whose "irresponsibility" was being born in time for the 2008 collapse?  

          Responsibility is fine, but it cuts both ways.  The borrowers should pay back their loans.  But the lenders should also bear default risk of the loans they make.

          This is not inconsistent with a functioning and profitable finance sector.  Only with a finance sector that does not believe it has moral responsibility for what it does.

          Quote of the week: "They call themselves bipartisan because they're able to buy members of both parties," (R. Eskow, Campaign for America's Future.)

          by mbayrob on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 08:45:18 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Responsibility is a joke (10+ / 0-)

            when it comes to people losing jobs due to the wealthy class gambling our economy into ruin, and then the wealthy get bailed out with middle class tax money, while the common people get stuck with debt they can't pay due to lack of income.

            This is a sham. If we want to discuss responsibility, then let the bankers go without a bailout next time they destroy the economy.

            "The political arena leaves one no alternative, one must either be a dunce or a rogue." Emma Goldman, Anarchism and Other Essays

            by ZhenRen on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 09:31:33 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  And when the cost of student loans rise to meet (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            mbayrob

            the "new" default risk, will you be okay with that?

            "Because I am a river to my people."

            by lordcopper on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 05:38:20 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  It'll need some mitigation (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              lordcopper, jbsoul, JVolvo, Tool

              I'm thinking from a social welfare perspective here:  if you price your loans correctly to cover your costs, you're correct: it will raise prices.

              The trick here is to get the incentives right.  You want lenders to use the tools at their disposal -- collection, the courts, and buyer education, for example -- to reduce the probability of default.  You want government to help with that -- say, by using the tax collection system as an extension of the collection system, so that people can't walk away from your loans with impunity.  Government should also use some mechanism to cover some proportion of the losses that lenders will see from default, since there's a public interest in having people get higher education, and there's no reason why lenders should be expected to pay for that.

              Like a lot of markets where there's under-regulation, there are huge incentives for predatory behavior, and it can be hard for banks to prevent these kinds of behavior from creeping in if their most profitable competitors make money that way.  Look at the mess in the mortgage markets before the collapse, where some of the biggest banks in the country were forging documents and "collecting" on loans they didn't have rights to.  Student lending currently has its own problems, some serious.

              I don't think the country needs or wants a financial sector that isn't law abiding.  So that's the trade-off: some regulation to make the economics of lending work out, and some regulation to protect the rights of borrowers.  

              This isn't simple, but it's certainly possible.

              Quote of the week: "They call themselves bipartisan because they're able to buy members of both parties," (R. Eskow, Campaign for America's Future.)

              by mbayrob on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 01:00:21 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  I don't even know what this comment means (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          poco, ZhenRen

          Sorry.  I don't get it.  Apologies for my ignorance.

          Please support the StudentLoanJustice.Org PAC

          by studentloanjustice on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 05:42:15 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'll try to help you out there (11+ / 0-)

            You have essentially accused the commenter of being a paid shill. Not cool, definitely against site rules. There are many ways, and many reasons, folk might disagree with you - in good faith. Mere disagreement, or presentation of a different perspectives, does not make someone a shill.

            HR'd accordingly.

            “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

            by Catte Nappe on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 05:54:19 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yup, read like an accusation of paid shilling (5+ / 0-)

              And the followup read like something from the late, great Ray Pensadors' prickliness.

              There was only one joker in L.A. sensitive enough to wear that scent...and I had to find out who he was!

              by virginislandsguy on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 06:50:05 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  and it got uprates (6+ / 0-)

              KOS: "Mocking partisans focusing on elections? Even less reason to be on Daily Kos."

              by fcvaguy on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 07:33:34 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Horseshit. (0+ / 0-)

              I have been in this particularly business for a decade now, and I have come up against more than a few "paid shills".  

              There is nothing inappropriate about accusing someone of being a paid shill.  It is a critical element of discourse, I feel, as long as Daily Kos allows people to post anonymously. I do not level such charges without quite good reason for doing so, and certainly don't do it lightly, or with any inappropriate motives

              You people are censoring free speech, and there is nothing more to say about it.

              As I said, I will never post here again.  THis is as bad or worse than the Huffington post, Fox News, or any other site that won't post what they don't like.

              Disgusting and heartbreaking. You people make me want to vomit.  This is how the ruling class, elitists win, I suppose.  See you on the streets.

              Please support the StudentLoanJustice.Org PAC

              by studentloanjustice on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 08:03:14 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You misunderstand the concept of "free speech" (3+ / 0-)

                Free speech means you get to say what you think. And it also means the rest of us get to say what we think about what you said.

                “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

                by Catte Nappe on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 10:24:38 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Not to worry (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  JVolvo

                  He got far more free speech, coverage, recognition, and fairness from the Rolling Stone than he will ever get on dkos.

                  http://www.rollingstone.com/...?

                  "The political arena leaves one no alternative, one must either be a dunce or a rogue." Emma Goldman, Anarchism and Other Essays

                  by ZhenRen on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 04:04:24 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  You know he could have tried conversing (4+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Catte Nappe, TomP, churchylafemme, kalmoth

                    ...having a give and take instead of telling people to fuck off and die. Diarists have a responsibility to maintain some basic standards here.

                  •  Maybe Taibbi edited out the fuck off and die parts (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Sylv, TomP, kalmoth

                    “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

                    by Catte Nappe on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 05:14:24 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Taibbi took the message (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Tool

                      as a skilled, rather gifted writer/journalist, and translated it to us in a language that even borderline neolibs can understand.

                      I think this person didn't expect to be treated with so much conservative banking industry supporting circumspection on a so-called "progressive" blog.

                      After reading these comments, I'm more disgusted with this pathetic excuse of a progressive site than I've ever been. I owe 65,000 in student loans.

                      One day I will tell my story. It will call into question the motives and legality of the entire system when I do. And I will be critical of some of the most "progressive" senators offices when I do.

                      In the meantime, goddamn the people who defend this exploitation. Goddamn them with every fiber in my body. Just goddamn them to fucking hell.

                      "The political arena leaves one no alternative, one must either be a dunce or a rogue." Emma Goldman, Anarchism and Other Essays

                      by ZhenRen on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 06:48:03 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

    •  the corporate thinking of universities has to bear (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      OldDragon, limpidglass, cville townie

      some blame for the crisis, however.

      I have a big problem with a student loan system built to encourage default, as I've stated recently when this topic arose, but I have a larger problem with the astronomical cost (let alone the insane and unconscionable rate of increase) of tuition.

      Cap the amount of government student loans to whatever "acceptable loss" is, set reasonable safeguards against able-deadbeats and scammers and let the university system suffer the deficit of taxpayer money.

      The students that can't take the road to the half-million dollar sheepskin will get their education elsewhere and won't have to choose between willing indentured servitude and the stress of going through bankruptcy -- and, if by chance anyone wants to argue that bankruptcy is or should be nothing to stress about, I would suggest that our education system isn't teaching some of the important lessons that a sustainable society requires.

      Righteousness is a wide path. Self-righteousness is a bullhorn and a blindfold.

      by Murphoney on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 06:41:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  What would that accomplish, though? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        fcvaguy
        and let the university system suffer the deficit of taxpayer money.
        If we want to give up on the idea that a college education actually provides something beyond a credential, then sure, you can run a public university on a combination of low state funding and low tuition.  You only need whatever resources are necessary to print diplomas.  But that would be kind of a fraud on society.

        It's not the side effects of the cocaine/I'm thinking that it must be love

        by Rich in PA on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 06:47:40 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Based on the insane, parasitic rate of tuition (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Pale Jenova, cville townie, jbsoul

          increase -- universities gave up on the idea that a diploma has anything to do with a college education at least 35 years ago.

          when the collegiate budgets tell me that expenditure on academics outweighs professional "student-atheletic" sport support and capital expenditure, you can try to tell me different.

          Until then, chopping the taxpayer-teat from out their mouths will specifically ask them to pay attention to what the hell they are doing.  

          At the moment, I believe they don't have to care what they are doing -as long as it makes profit.

          sorry, "increases the endowment".

          Righteousness is a wide path. Self-righteousness is a bullhorn and a blindfold.

          by Murphoney on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 08:35:34 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You're looking at a tiny handful of elite private. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            TomP

            ...institutions and mistaking them for the rest of US colleges and universities. And as for the athletic stuff, the ones that make a fetish of it make money on it rather than taking from their overall budgets.

            It's not the side effects of the cocaine/I'm thinking that it must be love

            by Rich in PA on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 03:52:11 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  don't pooh-pooh me. if it were a handful of (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              jbsoul, JVolvo

              elites, then we would not have a notable crisis of student debt and default.

              as for a positive economy generated by student athletes, I think it's you who are narrowing your scope to the remarkable few, rather than considering the general effects.

              Righteousness is a wide path. Self-righteousness is a bullhorn and a blindfold.

              by Murphoney on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 03:06:36 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  Why is student debt different from other debt? (7+ / 0-)

      Certainly, there are consequences of declaring bankruptcy.  At a minimum, it limits your access to credit for a long time.

      What I don't get in your position is why student debt should be privileged in this manner.  It doesn't involve a particularly high level of moral hazard, unlike credit card debt, which is dischargeable in bankruptcy.  As is mortgage refinancing, IIRC.  Or medical debt.

      So why is it that your finances can completely collapse completely, but student debt should survive?

      I can't buy

      The problem with granting bankruptcy protection to student loans is that an awful lot of people would invoke bankruptcy and not pay their loans.
      Sure, it happens.  But you're going to have to come up with hard numbers to convince me this was ever an important factor before the current law.

      As for

      It's not the lenders' fault there isn't appropriate employment for so many college graduates.
      Actually, no.  Anyone who loans money is required to bear the actual risk.  You're supposed to price it in.

      If it turns out that student debt becomes too expensive because the folks who make educational loans bear the true economic risk, then it's reasonable public policy to create public reinsurance for universities and similar to help cover that risk.

      The idea that you can screw with the finances of people trying to get an education but not of the people financing it is absurd on its face.  And immoral, frankly.

      That said:  the underlying problem, as you've pointed out elsewhere in comments here,  is that we aren't putting enough money into higher ed.  And as we've cut the money for higher ed, we've shifted the cost onto students.  And I agree:  very dumb public policy.

      But let's fix the real problem.  Rather than screw a generation of young people simply because their elders have been too short sighted and too selfish to do the right thing.

      Quote of the week: "They call themselves bipartisan because they're able to buy members of both parties," (R. Eskow, Campaign for America's Future.)

      by mbayrob on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 07:49:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Student loans are different because.... (8+ / 0-)

        ...public policy justified an exception to the discharge when the exception was limited to government and charitable lenders.  With government loans, the discharge puts the burden of the taxpayers; with both government and charitable loans, there's a risk that too much lost would lead to an unavailability of funds in the future.

        There is some data out there about defaults on non-private loans that were used to justify the increasingly tightened exception to discharge.  Sadly, I can't remember much about it or how to find it (we're talking maybe late 80s, early 90s here) but it had to do with high rates of discharge in specific areas.  An exception was created, which didn't apply if loans were in repayment for five years or if paying the loans caused an undue hardship.

        The time cap was later expanded to seven years and, in the late 90s, was eliminated altogether.  I don't recall any data about defaults that supported these moves.

        There is no such public policy justification for private loans (and none was offered in Congress), which were never excepted from discharge until 2005.  Those lenders are exactly what you describe above, lenders who are supposed to accept the burden of loss with the benefit of the profits to be made.

        •  There was a problem with getting people to pay (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ricklewsive, kkkkate, jbsoul

          IIRC from back then, the main problem that did exist was that a fair number of people simply refused to pay off their student loans, even if they had the means to do so.

          I have no problem allowing people who loan out money to take action needed to get themselves paid back.  And while

          ...public policy justified an exception to the discharge when the exception was limited to government and charitable lenders
          I don't think it necessarily follows that a loss to government or to a charitable institution (as many universities are) need to be treated that differently.  I think there's a public interest in getting people to pay back their debt in a timely way.  But I don't think you can make much of a case that you need our punitive treatment of this debt in bankruptcy in order to do that.   If anything, government is better equipped to handle some level of bad loans that a private lender.  We just need to make sure that the people who don't pay really can't pay.

          Quote of the week: "They call themselves bipartisan because they're able to buy members of both parties," (R. Eskow, Campaign for America's Future.)

          by mbayrob on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 08:35:25 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  See Figure 2 (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          virginislandsguy, VetGrl, TomP

          in the CAP report that diarist links to. The data from the late 1980s is there. Defaults at skyrocketed to about 23%.

          KOS: "Mocking partisans focusing on elections? Even less reason to be on Daily Kos."

          by fcvaguy on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 09:36:09 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Defaults, yes. But not via bankruptcy (0+ / 0-)

            The problem, as I remember it, is that people simply walked away from their student loans.  Bankruptcy had nothing to do with it.

            Making it easier to service and collect on student loans was what was needed.  The bankruptcy angle was gratuitous.

            I actually do have some sympathy for the banks, schools and other institutions that got stiffed back then.  But that was the problem that needed solving.

            Quote of the week: "They call themselves bipartisan because they're able to buy members of both parties," (R. Eskow, Campaign for America's Future.)

            by mbayrob on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 12:47:37 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Not to defend the current conditions (0+ / 0-)

        There is one aspect of student loans that differ from other sorts of consumer loans is that no one can repossess the education or the degree. That complicates things.

        Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell. --Edward Abbey

        by ricklewsive on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 08:12:27 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Not that different from a business loan (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          kkkkate

          You can only collateralize things up to a point.  And you can, equivalently, it turns out, add a risk premium to a loan to reflect default risk.  This isn't so complicated:  it's Finance 101.

          There's an additional issue that once you price in that risk, that people will get less education that we might want nationally.  But we already have a solution for this we use for things like flood and disaster insurance:  we create a secondary government market for insurance ("reinsurance") that helps cover losses.

          That could work here as well, if we decide that our goals are to create a stable student loan market, rather than the current policy, that rewards people who rip the faces off students with high priced loans for sometimes substandard education.

          The student loan market can survive weeding out some of the more noxious companies in the space.

          Quote of the week: "They call themselves bipartisan because they're able to buy members of both parties," (R. Eskow, Campaign for America's Future.)

          by mbayrob on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 08:27:27 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Why is student debt different from other debt? (5+ / 0-)

        Let's talk about the most common types of debt:

        1) Mortgages
        2) Car Loans
        3) Credit Cards
        4) Student Loans

        1) and 2) have two things in common - they all require a downpayment (collateral) and proof of ability to pay (a job and income).

        3) requires no collateral but you must demonstrate proof of ability to pay.

        4) requires none of the above.

        KOS: "Mocking partisans focusing on elections? Even less reason to be on Daily Kos."

        by fcvaguy on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 08:29:19 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Credit cards aren't such a good example (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          kkkkate, Pale Jenova, cville townie

          as is much corporate finance.

          And by your logic:  why is that we shouldn't force credit card (or medical debt) to survive bankruptcy as well?  Neither kind of debt is really "secured" by collateral.  

          Also: are you really going to claim that mortgage and credit card debt was all that well connected with the "ability to pay"?  Or do you want to be taken seriously? :-)

          Try this on for size:  we've historically treated student debt somewhat differently because while mortgages buy you a house, car loans buy you a car and credit cards buy you all sorts of shit, student loans are a means of improving the overall quality of the work-force.  Not only the student benefits.  The whole economy does.

          Unless you want to claim that you built that, that everything you ever got you got from your own merit, that you got nothing from your parents or your community, and that's the way God Wants It,  then you should concede that some of the special treatment might be warranted.

          Quote of the week: "They call themselves bipartisan because they're able to buy members of both parties," (R. Eskow, Campaign for America's Future.)

          by mbayrob on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 08:54:58 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  By my logic? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ricklewsive

            I only presented very simple basic facts.

            Also: are you really going to claim that mortgage and credit card debt was all that well connected with the "ability to pay"?  Or do you want to be taken seriously? :-)
            Don't insult me please.
            Unless you want to claim....
            What I see here is a series of comments by you that only shit on everyone else's comments while not offering any real alternatives of your own up for criticism.

            What I'm interested in is seeing the ability for everyone who wants to go to college to get a good job, have the opportunity to do so. That if they need to borrow money to do so, that they should be able to borrow it without collateral, without income, at low interest rates, paid back over a long period of time,  merely on a promise to pay.

            I'd be concerned that default rates like we saw in the late 1980s (over 20%, see Figure 2 in the CAP report linked in the diary), not re-occur, causing loans to become more restrictive, with prohibitive interest rates, causing fewer people to be able to go to college and making college only available to the well-to-do.

            Any suggestions to solve that problem?

            KOS: "Mocking partisans focusing on elections? Even less reason to be on Daily Kos."

            by fcvaguy on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 09:30:44 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You have read my comments, yes? (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Rich in PA, cville townie, JVolvo

              Short answer is:  reinsurance.

              You do the same thing you do with various kinds of disaster insurance.  By allowing people who grant student loans to insure themselves against loss in exchange for making the loans, you keep rates down.

              That's actually a serious answer that has good economics behind it.

              Quote of the week: "They call themselves bipartisan because they're able to buy members of both parties," (R. Eskow, Campaign for America's Future.)

              by mbayrob on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 12:37:08 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  You could make them do a chapter 13 (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Rich in PA, TomP

      instead of chapter 7, which would limit the abuses.

      And God said, "Let there be light"; and with a Big Bang, there was light. And God said "Ow! Ow My eyes!" and in a flash God separated light from darkness. "Whew! Now that's better. Now where was I. Oh yea . . ."

      by Pale Jenova on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 07:14:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Please support your funding list with links. n/t (0+ / 0-)

    I'm a Vietnam Era vet. I'm also an Erma Bombeck Era vet. When cussing me out and calling me names please indicate which vet you would like to respond to your world changing thoughts.

    by Just Bob on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 05:09:15 PM PDT

  •  Doesn't Elizabeth Warren support this? (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rich in PA, kkkkate, doroma, Sylv

    I'm ready to trust her judgement on it.

    We are all pupils in the eyes of God.

    by nuclear winter solstice on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 05:17:24 PM PDT

  •  Too late for sane debate ( for me) (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kalmoth, OldDragon, kkkkate, Sylv

       RE:   Warren is actually looking at ways to help students who have been scalped by the TBTF bank loans - historically and to get those interest rates down.

         The system of student loans is always tricky and Warren is concerned that Sally Mae is making buckets of money that should /  could be rebated to student loans.

         Don't whine at me....or respond with a standard reply:  corrupted....

  •  Thank you for this diary. (4+ / 0-)

    Good information.

    "No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money." -- JC, Matthew 6:24

    by Chi on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 05:42:52 PM PDT

  •  I have problems with some of the work of the CAP (3+ / 0-)

    Like all other advocacy groups they cherry pick data for publicity purposes, rather than doing substantive research with the intent to inform, rather than advocate.  That requires me to view all of their press releases, and reports, with suspicion until I can validate their data from independent sources.

    However, just because they don't support adding college loans back into the bankruptcy code does not mean they have been "badly corrupted".

    "let's talk about that"

    by VClib on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 06:09:22 PM PDT

  •  Congratulations, Rich in PA. Sorry KOSACKS (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ZhenRen

    I won't be bothering to post here again.  Good luck to all the good, decent citizens out there.

    Have another look at the people who appear to be leading the thought here, though...I cannot emphasize this enough.

    Alan Collinge

    http://www.beacon.org/...

    http://studentloanjustice.org  

    Please support the StudentLoanJustice.Org PAC

    by studentloanjustice on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 06:22:17 PM PDT

  •  Hate Loans....but (8+ / 0-)

    If Students were free to discharge loans in bankruptcy I think lending would completely evaporate and turn college into something only accessible to the 1%.

    Just looking at this logically, without the current parameters who in their right mind would lend $50-100K+ to 18-22 year old kids with no collateral or job if they knew the loan could be discharged in bankruptcy at the end of those 4 years?

    It would be like asking banks to issue mortgages without the right to take the house back if you defaulted on the loan. No one would ever lend on a house in that case if you could discharge the loan and keep the house.

    Now you could I guess get into a situation where student loans become dischargeable if your degree were voided and you were stricken from the school records, but in practice I don't know how that would work.

    I am not a banker, have a mountain of loans, and hate the system, but realistically the only way to ensure kids have access to loans is to keep the system we have.

    We could debate about how healthy it is and whether or not states should be increasing funding to colleges so that kids don't need to take out 6 figures of loans just to go, but without that happening making the loans dischargeable would dry up funding and keep tons of kids from going to school.

    That is not desirable either.

    This is one area where I wish there were a better solution, but without radically altering how we fund schools the loan system has to largely stay as it is as that is the only way to ensure there will be lenders for kids who want to borrow.

    •  A Modest Proposal (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      happymisanthropy, fcvaguy

      Ok, let's have bankruptcy for student loan debt.

      BUT, as a condition of discharge, the university will void their degree(s), and void all their credits.

      Let's see how that goes over.

      There was only one joker in L.A. sensitive enough to wear that scent...and I had to find out who he was!

      by virginislandsguy on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 07:02:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Interesting (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        virginislandsguy, TomP

        I think John makes some sobering points. Loans for college would dry up really fast. Nobody will lend money to an 18 year old without a lot of collateral (1%'ers) or without a guarantee.

        KOS: "Mocking partisans focusing on elections? Even less reason to be on Daily Kos."

        by fcvaguy on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 07:39:18 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Why not just put them in chains? (5+ / 0-)

        Are there not debtor prisons?

        Crikey.

        Quote of the week: "They call themselves bipartisan because they're able to buy members of both parties," (R. Eskow, Campaign for America's Future.)

        by mbayrob on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 07:59:28 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well of course, (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          fcvaguy, TomP

          forfeiting your collateral, just like a house in foreclosure, is exactly the same as slavery or debtor prison. Hyperbole much?

          There was only one joker in L.A. sensitive enough to wear that scent...and I had to find out who he was!

          by virginislandsguy on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 08:10:03 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Reality free much? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Jarrayy
            BUT, as a condition of discharge, the university will void their degree(s), and void all their credits.
            If that wasn't satire on your part, you have other problems.

            Quote of the week: "They call themselves bipartisan because they're able to buy members of both parties," (R. Eskow, Campaign for America's Future.)

            by mbayrob on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 08:18:09 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  See Swift, Jonathan (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ricklewsive, TomP

              However, I threw that out there for discussion. To the degree that I use home foreclosure as an analogy, the home owners who made down payments and monthly payments have to walk away from their home which was the collateral.

              In order for student loans to be forgiven, what are the lendees willing to give up in return? It seems the answer is nothing. Is it fair that foreclosed homeowners give up so much and student loan lendees give up nothing? That is the question I am posing. And there are no easy answers.

              There was only one joker in L.A. sensitive enough to wear that scent...and I had to find out who he was!

              by virginislandsguy on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 08:31:16 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  It might interest you to know... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            protectspice

            In the early 00s, there was a bill introduced in Congress that would have specifically allowed individuals to use future earnings as collateral for student loans.

            Thankfully, it didn't go anywhere but still....

            •  Doesn't the current law (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              virginislandsguy

              accomplish that very thing? If the debt cannot be discharged then it must necessarily be serviced with those earnings.

              Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell. --Edward Abbey

              by ricklewsive on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 08:53:40 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Not really the same (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                ricklewsive

                Pledging future earnings gives the lender a property interest in those earnings with a right of repossession. It would be rather like waking up in the morning to find the repo man came and took your car, only it's your paycheck.

                Certainly one can argue that the practical effect is the same, i.e., the lender takes the money vs. the lender gets all the money anyway.

                But lien rights shouldn't be casually disregarded. As just one example, consider exemptions.  Those can't be taken unless you have equity in property and your equity comes only after liens are taken into account.  

                Other problematic examples would be limited only by the imagination of the banks' attorneys.

    •  Crazy assumptions that need questioning (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jbsoul
      If Students were free to discharge loans in bankruptcy I think lending would completely evaporate and turn college into something only accessible to the 1%.
      No offense, but that's an issue that can be analyzed using spreadsheets and doing standard finance calculations.  You are stating that as if you have evidence.  You don't;  disproving it doesn't take a lot of fancy math.

      There wasn't a lot of evidence before the current law was passed that this was a problem.  Not because it hadn't been studied:  I'm pretty sure it had been.  IT WAS DONE PURELY TO MAKE THE CURRENT RACKET MORE PROFITABLE.  

      You should not make a claim like this unless you can find figures on student loan bankruptcies from before the early 1990s that would be high enough to change interest rates substantially.  My sense is that you won't find these numbers.  Very simply, because they never existed.

      Quote of the week: "They call themselves bipartisan because they're able to buy members of both parties," (R. Eskow, Campaign for America's Future.)

      by mbayrob on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 07:57:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Your argument would be more convincing (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        fcvaguy

        if you were to present the data on bankruptcy before the law.

        Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell. --Edward Abbey

        by ricklewsive on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 08:19:13 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Before bankruptcy was removed (0+ / 0-)

          It was found that far less than 1% of student loans were actually discharged in bankruptcy proceedings.  It was a "crisis only in the imagination" according to a lawmaker who participated in the legislation that restricted, and ultimately removed bankruptcy.

          See John Pottow's paper (U Mich).  Google him.  The title includes "nondischargeability", "Bankruptcy", and "Theory".

          Moreover, bankruptcy is still a highly repugnant, undesirable, and last-ditch course of action to take.  More than that, there exist now far, far more attractive alternatives in the various repayment plans that now exist.

          There is zero chance that any significant increase of recent graduates filing for bankruptcy fresh out of school will occur.  

          This is, as a said before obvious, blatant, fear-mongering BANKER's RHETORIC that Rich and others are engaging in.  You people should look very closely to see where Rich gets his paychecks, and whether he is actually a progressive, or just shill.  I suspect strongly that he is the latter.

          But it's up to you.  This is my last post on the KOS. I sort of doubt that even this comment will make it through.

          Please support the StudentLoanJustice.Org PAC

          by studentloanjustice on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 08:14:56 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Read (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        fcvaguy

        What part of "I think" constitutes having evidence.

        I gave my opinion, and gave my reasons why I think that.

        A little less attack dog and a little more reading comprehension would go along way toward making this a more civil debate.

        Besides, you're comparing Apples to Oranges as it is a different world now than 20+ years ago.

        Loan debt is higher than it has ever been, and the job market is as poor as it has been in forever. Getting a degree used to mean getting a job that paid enough to pay back the loans that were a fraction of what they are now.

        People weren't running to bankruptcy court 20+ years ago over $5-10,000 debt and decent job prospects in a good economy.

        $40-50,000 in debt and getting stuck with a $10-12 an hour job would make dischargeable loans look eminently more appealing.  

        As I said, I am all for greater funding of schools so this doesn't happen, but in the absence of that the system is going to stay as it is.

    •  Disgusting (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kkkkate, Jarrayy, jbsoul

      The banks got bailed out, remember?

      While the public ends up paying for the gambling debts of the banking industry.

      The student loan crisis is yet another example of an austerity measure, and some have predicted that this is the next bubble to burst. It is yet another way to extract wealth from the poor to further enrich the wealthy.

      What is going on is the wealthy class has ruined the job market for the working class, and thus to keep schools open, and the banking industry earning money, they put the problem they created on the backs of the students by coercing them to take out enormous loans. Then when they can't get a job due to the jobs having gone elsewhere, and due to a ruined job market, they are forced into paying back the loans as yet another protection of the wealthy class. The majority end up footing the bill for the 1%, rather than putting public funds into schools. The public funds go to the banks, instead.

      Increase taxes on the wealthy, and make education free. Cut the military spending. Cut the war spending. Increase property taxes on the more expensive homes. Raise taxes on corporations.

      There is a reason debt relief has traditionally existed for loans. The reason banks earn interest is to cover the risk. If kids won't go to school due to high interest, then that is a sign of a broken system which needs an overhaul.

      When I was young, higher education was free or extremely reasonable in California, which ended when proposition 13 passed into law, which limited property taxes to 1% of assessed value. From then on education became very expensive. We're in a neoliberal age, supported by some of these idiots here on dkos, and middle class and the poor are footing the bill.

      "The political arena leaves one no alternative, one must either be a dunce or a rogue." Emma Goldman, Anarchism and Other Essays

      by ZhenRen on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 10:03:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Ok, I could possibly support bankruptcy discharges (4+ / 0-)

    for student loans. The diarist bemoans the fact that student loans are the only type of loan that cannot be discharged in bankruptcy. If he wishes student loans to be treated as all other loans, then so be it.

    Student loans, as all other loans should be able to be discharged through bankruptcy.

    Student loans, as all other loans, should have their interest rates reflect their potential of non-repayment. Therefore English, history, philosophy and political science majors will pay a much higher interest rate than engineering majors.

    Student loans, as all other loans, should have a maximum principal that is relative to the collateral offered (in this case, the potential earnings of the loanee) Therefore, poetry majors will be limited to $3000 in loans while a neurosurgeon in medical school will have a top loan amount of $500,000.

    Student loans, as all other loans, will be limited to those who have a reasonable probability of completing their graduate requirements (and thus maintaining their collateral). Therefore, loans will be limited to the percentage of a school's student body that is equal to the school's 5 or 6 year graduation rate percentage.

    Student loans, as all other loans, will be limited to those institutions that have a track record of assisting their clients in protecting their collateral. Therefore, about 75% of for profit institutions and about 15% of public institutions will be blacklisted.

    •  assist their clients to protect their collateral (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kkkkate, Catte Nappe, jbsoul
      Student loans, as all other loans, will be limited to those institutions that have a track record of assisting their clients in protecting their collateral.
      And why should that be a bad thing?  The moral hazard isn't with the students in any case.  The moral hazard always on the finance side.  I think that the risk on these loans can and should be partially socialized via reinsurance, since schools will loan out too little otherwise.  But that's an easy tweak.

      The bankruptcy change was bad policy, done for dishonest reasons disconnected from the economic realities of education finance in the 1980s and 1990s.  The last 20 years have only shown just how bad a move it was.

      There is so much wrong with some of the responses on this thread, yours included.  I suspect it's in part generational:  I don't think a lot of people older than 30 appreciate how badly screwed up the system is for people younger than this age.  Really:  us boomers and x'ers really did have it a lot better than the current lot.  If you're not from the current cohort, prove your points carefully, or STFU.  Because you aren't helping.

      There are good public policy reasons to encourage people to get a college education.  I live just outside of Silicon Valley.  The workforce in this region is pretty highly educated, but not necessarily in a technical field.  General education has value, and unless you've seen what happens when only "practical" things get support (I have -- common in many countries outside of the US) you will fail to appreciate the value of general education economically.  I do think that we value (and get the benefits of) a creative work force, and that countries that do more or less as you suggest do not:  they are a lot better at getting people who know a lot about very little.   It cost them in many ways.

      There is little or no evidence that the old treatment of student loans -- pre-1990 or so -- was a serious problem.  The law was changed not because of a real need, but because the finance lobby wanted just a little more candy.  And of course, they got it.

      Quote of the week: "They call themselves bipartisan because they're able to buy members of both parties," (R. Eskow, Campaign for America's Future.)

      by mbayrob on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 08:15:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I've read your comments with some interest (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        virginislandsguy

        while your spending a lot of time criticizing others' thoughts on the issue, you aren't really coming up or showing us your own ideas.

        KOS: "Mocking partisans focusing on elections? Even less reason to be on Daily Kos."

        by fcvaguy on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 08:26:20 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You're not following (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jbsoul

          I'm indeed very critical of your point of view, so you're not going to get a lot of validation from me.  But this is a pretty straight forward example of a kind of market failure, is all.  Pulling this stuff out of bankruptcy protection was never a solution.  Regulation and a subsidy would be.

          Quote of the week: "They call themselves bipartisan because they're able to buy members of both parties," (R. Eskow, Campaign for America's Future.)

          by mbayrob on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 12:40:32 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Thanks for the kind STFU... (3+ / 0-)

        It's always gratifying to see the younger generation use their education and highly-honed debating skills to good advantage!

        I've spent almost 35 years in higher education and have served many times as a faculty representative on financial aid policy committees. MY suggestions above were somewhat tongue-in-cheek. However, you simply can't bring back a bankruptcy discharge option unless you really tighten up the entire program. There are just way too many abuses today. Repayment rates are going to continue to be problematic. I really was serious that a very large number of schools and programs need to be dropped from the list. Interest rates will need to rise a bit. The number of students eligible for loans will also need to be drastically cut to eliminate those with little chance for success. It's all just a big mess right now.

        It is quite clear that we have too many college graduates right now and there is a good chance that will continue for some time. Some argue that college education should be free for all - society will benefit from having many who are highly educated - even if their job does not require it. I can see merit in this if the the nation decides on this approach. I would only support it, however, if we only allow those who can successfully complete a program within a reasonable time take advantage of it.

        •  Younger generation? (0+ / 0-)

          Comment included this statement:

          us boomers and x'ers really did have it a lot better than the current lot.

          “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

          by Catte Nappe on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 12:36:19 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Interesting (6+ / 0-)

      Here's some additional data for everyone to consider.

      The average student loan debt for a 2013 graduate was $29,400.

      US News did some great work at looking at what I'll call "student loan mill" colleges. Some surprising results.

      The top 10 schools with the highest student loan debt here:

      http://www.usnews.com/...

      The top school with the highest debt per student upon graduation was Wheelock College in Boston, MA:

      http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/...

      Wheelock is a private college. It is ranked #69 out of 135 ranked regional universities in the North as rated by US News. You be the judge of whether that is a quality university.

      At Wheelock, 82% of students borrowed money to go to school. The average debt load of a 2013 graduate was $49,439, the highest of all colleges in the nation.

      What does Wheelock offer?

      Five most popular majors for 2012 graduates:

      Human Development and Family Studies, General     25%
      Social Work                                                     22%
      Elementary Education and Teaching                     10%
      Kindergarten/Preschool Education and Teaching      9%
      Early Childhood Education and Teaching              6%

      I'm not sure about anyone else, but if my son or daughter required student loans to attend college and they told me they wanted to go to Wheelock, I would strongly advocate against it.

      Wheelock is just an example. Feel free to look at the other schools in that list and draw your own conclusions.

      KOS: "Mocking partisans focusing on elections? Even less reason to be on Daily Kos."

      by fcvaguy on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 08:47:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I've been to Wheelock... (3+ / 0-)

        It's one of the Colleges of the Fenway in Boston. I was giving a lecture series at one of the other colleges there and my daughter was being recruited by Simmons which is also one of the colleges. Merck labs are also right nearby as well as Harvard Medical School. A wonderful neighborhood, but absolutely nothing special at all about Wheelock. Very average - not at all worth going into that kind of debt for.

        The only two schools worth anything on that top ten debt list are Quinnipiac and Trinity, but there are so many other schools that are just as good as or better than they are that wouldn't require the debt load.

        I think about 20% of the public and private schools should just give it up and about 75% of the for profit schools should be forced to close. Just way to much waste.

        •  Agree (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          virginislandsguy

          KOS: "Mocking partisans focusing on elections? Even less reason to be on Daily Kos."

          by fcvaguy on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 07:25:17 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Some comparison of public, private and for profits (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          OrganicChemist
          At public colleges, two-thirds of graduates had borrowed, and their average debt was $25,500. At private nonprofits, three-quarters of graduates had borrowed, $32,300 on average. And at for-profits, 88 percent of graduates had borrowed, with an average debt of $39,950.
          http://chronicle.com/...

          And I'm with you 100% that the majority of the for-profits should be put out of business.

          “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

          by Catte Nappe on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 12:52:59 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Yikes (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        fcvaguy, kalmoth, OrganicChemist

        Double whammy to take on a maximum debt load to go into lower paying fields like social work and teaching.

        “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

        by Catte Nappe on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 12:44:37 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I think its part of the problem (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Catte Nappe, TomP

          I'm not sure how pervasive or significant the problem is, but parents need to be more engaged in their kids' school choices and loan requirements.

          After looking at this data, I would never let my kid take on this kind of debt load for this kind of program for such a mediocre school.

          KOS: "Mocking partisans focusing on elections? Even less reason to be on Daily Kos."

          by fcvaguy on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 03:16:57 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Might help to some extent (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            fcvaguy

            But a lot of the for profits are catering to returning adult students. And checking out Wheelock, they have a lot of graduate programs which may also  be drawing in older students.

            “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

            by Catte Nappe on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 03:28:42 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Some data to support your argument (5+ / 0-)

      Degrees with lowest unemployment:

      Actuarial Sciences: 0% unemployment
      Pharmacology: 0%
      Educational Administration: 0%
      School Counselling: 0%
      Geological Engineering: 0%

      Degrees with highest unemployment:

      Clinicial Psychology: 20%
      Fine Arts: 18%
      US History: 16%
      Library Science: 15%
      Military Technologies: 11%

      Great graphic here:

      http://www.upworthy.com/...

      KOS: "Mocking partisans focusing on elections? Even less reason to be on Daily Kos."

      by fcvaguy on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 09:11:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I have an idea! (0+ / 0-)

        Let's eliminate all humanities-related majors! Schools should only be able to offer science, math, engineering and business.

        Jesus Christ, a lot of us don't want to major in chemistry, biology, engineering or accounting.

        I'm just incredibly sick of hearing about how useless certain majors are. You may think they are, but hundreds of thousands of students think otherwise.

        •  Thats not a good idea at all (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ricklewsive

          Why would  you want to do that? Everyone should choose a major that reflects who they are, what their interests are, and their passions and interests.

          The CAP report diarist links to acknowledges the disparity in employment rates between various colleges and various programs and the data supports CAP's conclusions.

          CAP also makes recommendations in that regard, recommendations which also came from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

          If you wanted a degree in medical coding, wouldn't you want the college and the financial institution to make  you aware of the following:

          In the average medical-assistant or medical-coder program, for example, students would need to devote 84 percent of discretionary income to student-loan payments. As a result, these borrowers are not likely to repay their student loans.

          KOS: "Mocking partisans focusing on elections? Even less reason to be on Daily Kos."

          by fcvaguy on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 10:04:52 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  The reason Ed Admin and School Counseling... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        fcvaguy, Catte Nappe

        ...have zero rates is that most people pursue those degrees part-time while working, or while on sabbatical from jobs they can return to.  So in one sense they belong with the others, but in another sense they don't.

        It's not the side effects of the cocaine/I'm thinking that it must be love

        by Rich in PA on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 08:14:19 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I've got a better idea (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Brown Thrasher

      Let's end the wars, cut the military, tax the rich bastards, and fund public education. Let's cut out the profiteering at the expense of the 99%.

      "The political arena leaves one no alternative, one must either be a dunce or a rogue." Emma Goldman, Anarchism and Other Essays

      by ZhenRen on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 10:45:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'd be for heavy funding of some state schools... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Rich in PA, kalmoth, virginislandsguy

        As long as we cut out the 40% of knuckleheads that have no business being there. It's just ridiculous. If we have heavy funding, then I want a selection process similar to that in Europe. I would add a second way through community college to make your way to a college or university if you don't make the cut the first time. We need to totally get out of the remediation business and totally out of the babysitting business and focus on the prepared and serious students who really want to accomplish something. If you have the need to party hardy or grow up a bit, then wait a few years till you try to give it a go.

        •  That's a huge unspoken problem. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          OrganicChemist, kalmoth, Catte Nappe

          There are a ton of people in higher education that aren't able to do well in higher education as currently conceived.  Because of the decline in good blue-collar employment, a college degree is now considered an essential credential for all kinds of employment that doesn't objectively require it, so a lot of people are in college who have no real desire to be there.  

          The problem is that it's hard to distinguish between people who shouldn't be in college because they're not motivated to be there, and people who are simply badly prepared because of the low quality of their K-12 education.  If we "impose standards" we'll likely lose a lot more of the second group than the first, and it will look like we've done something useful (in the sense that colleges will work more smoothly with less remediation) but we'll just be punishing people who shouldn't be punished.  

          It's not the side effects of the cocaine/I'm thinking that it must be love

          by Rich in PA on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 07:35:48 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Your point is very good... (4+ / 0-)

            Which is why I think there should definitely be a second path to a good college or university through community colleges. Unfortunately, in some of the European countries, the tracking and selection process occurs so early, that many students who are late bloomers or who really do mature at some later point, are already too far along in their tracking to jump back to a college track and be successful. Their destiny is unfortunately sealed at that point. Kind of like the crazy test cramming that goes on in many Asian countries to get into a good school. One single  test means everything!

            I would suggest that if you are a late bloomer or were unfortunately stuck in an educational system that left you unprepared for college, you should be able to enroll in a community college to get the remediation you need or to prove that you are ready for college or university. After a year or two there, you should be able to transfer. This would be for those who don't gain access to a good college track while in their high school.

            I'm also for the idea of a gap year which is very common in Europe. I think many students would benefit from a year or two to discover themselves before they head off to college. I studied an extra year overseas before I began my college career back in the United States. I was working for my daughter to have a gap year as a student in China - it was pretty much set up - I had a sponsor for her and everything. Then out of nowhere, she became really accomplished in a sport and was very heavily recruited by colleges. She decided that she really wanted to continue with this sport in college, so she is going to do that and do two semesters of study in China during her off seasons as part of her college program. It worked out that her best friend is going to be able to use the spot I had organized for my daughter in China for next year. They went through the 5 year Mandarin program together at our school.

            The standard program for college admittance REALLY needs to be strengthened. It should be 4 years of science, 4 years of English and literature - at least 3 years should be intensive writing, 4 years of math to at least a pre-calculus level, conversational fluency in a foreign language should be required, and then you should have good supporting electives. If you are arts or humanities bound, then you should have your psychology, sociology, music, art, poetry, etc courses in the mix. Of course, many of those should be required for everyone.

            If you can't get these, then this is where community college remediation would come in. I know it's very unfair that not everyone who is motivated is given the tools they need in high school. Maybe at some point in the future, that will be addressed. The reality is that I don't see that happening any time soon. That is certainly unfortunate! Until that time, we will need the community college system to repair the damage and help get many students on their way.

            Sport should also be required for EVERYONE. There needs to be an allowance on high school teams for the also-rans so that everyone can participate. I certainly was an also-ran. I did cross country - never was that good at it. I did get pretty good at skiing in college - something that I still enjoy to this day!

            •  The reason the Euro tracking model... (0+ / 0-)

              ...has thrived despite its obvious limitations is that blue collar employment received higher economic and social rewards there than it does here.

              It's not the side effects of the cocaine/I'm thinking that it must be love

              by Rich in PA on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 02:29:25 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  Wow. (5+ / 0-)

    Based on some of these replies, you'd think the Republicans took over Daily Kos.

    •  I think the time has come (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Jarrayy, Brown Thrasher

      to state this as a fact. Its neoliberalism.

      There once was a time people would have stood up to this. Seems most have departed.

      Whatever these individuals call themselves, they are clearly supporting the wealthy interests and they believe in capitalist exploitation of the majority. They support the extraction of wealth for redistribution to the rich.

      "The political arena leaves one no alternative, one must either be a dunce or a rogue." Emma Goldman, Anarchism and Other Essays

      by ZhenRen on Mon Mar 31, 2014 at 10:34:56 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  sorry, that's bullshit... (5+ / 0-)

        diarist was challenged on the facts (such as alleged corporate sponsorship of CAIR, which receives more than 90% of its funding from non-corporate sources), and then started behaving in a manner that is, frankly, sick.

        If you insist on defending this kind of behavior, I am afraid I seriously misjudged you as a fellow Kossack.

        •  But the principle issue (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Brown Thrasher

          raised by the diarist is sound: all debts should be dischargable in bankruptcy, including student loans.

          Anything less than that is tantamount to debt slavery.

          I've explained already in other posts why this is important. As to respect, I have absolutely none for those who want to give banks a free ride at the expense of people too poor to pay for their own educations.

          How far "democrats" have fallen.

          "The political arena leaves one no alternative, one must either be a dunce or a rogue." Emma Goldman, Anarchism and Other Essays

          by ZhenRen on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 10:45:21 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yes, and the Unabomber had some good ideas too. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            kalmoth

            Actually, he was more civil than our departed  colleague.

            It's not the side effects of the cocaine/I'm thinking that it must be love

            by Rich in PA on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 02:26:13 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  A difference in student loans (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            TomP

            Collateral. In a car loan, there is the car. In a home loan, there is the house. In a school loan there is no tangible collateral.  That makes lenders pretty skittish about risking their money. They might be induced to do so - if they were allowed to charge exorbitant interest rates. Do we really want that?

            “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

            by Catte Nappe on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 06:09:40 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Pretty unproductive thread (5+ / 0-)

    It's really unfortunate because I think the site has more than a little compassion for the plight of the young caught in this horrible confluence of shitty economics, unreasonable inflation in the cost of degrees at a time those degrees have lost value, and several long term trends working against the working class.

    There is some truth in most of the positions presented but the devil is in the details. A single modification of the current system has ramifications all the way through the process and loads of consequences.

    An idea to consider, which could possibly produce some relief for those currently in bad situations and for the future of funding for college degrees would be to examine the Australian approach adopted several decades ago. Other countries have followed their lead. It would require a new commitment on the part of the nation unlikely to be accepted in the current political environment but would seem a bit more holistic than retroactively waiving the bankruptcy rule.

    Australia as a system of loans for college but the repayment plans allow for minimum income threshold before requiring repayment. Graduates that find good incomes out of the gate begin repayment right away, while those who end up with low incomes in their early years would have repayments deferred until they worked their way up to the threshold and then they begin to pay for their educations.

    It protects graduates from bad economic times and an education does not become a reason for impoverishment. I'm sure there are lots of details but I do like the idea.

    Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell. --Edward Abbey

    by ricklewsive on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 07:26:57 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site