Student Loans: The Other Killer of Our Economy

DEBT SERVITUDE

Standing ovation to Yves Smith from Naked capitalism and Moe Tkacik for his article on the 40 year war on students. It is like eating our young. We want a country that is vibrant, that offers hope for advancement, and that provides superior services and products. But we alone make it impossible for most students to justify the cost of higher education.
As Graeber points out in his wonderful book DEBT: The first 5,000 Years, debt is a moral and political issue and has no precise meaning because it refers to money which has no precise meaning. Those dots on a screen are not money. They are representations about comparative wealth. The bullying atmosphere of this country has turned morality on its head. Those that commit the most atrocious acts in dealing with the unsophisticated consumer are allowed to roam free while the lives of their victims are turned into chaos and despair.

We have transformed morality into something that only applies to ordinary folks and not to people who achieve unspeakable wealth. A businessman walks away from building a home because he sees no possibility of profit or even breaking even and there is no stigma against him, he is not prevented from doing so and the bank is stuck with the result. Then along comes the myth of securitization and the bank is not stuck with that result or any other result. And the ordinary person who wants to walk from the the home because there is no hope for profit or breakeven is said to violating some code of morality — even some say a sin against humanity and God.

We want the quality and productivity but we are not willing to pay for it. We did very well when the cost of education was affordable and easily financed and paid for with reasonable assumptions about employment. We are doing terribly now because we got away from that and made education a profit seeking venture for the finance sector.

The banks had a field day when they were allowed to act as intermediaries in the government backed student loan market. All the same things that happened with mortgages were happening with student loans, including the non-dischargeability of a debt.

In my opinion, the government backing should be construed as a non-transferable guarantee to the loan originator. Government backing (i.e, our tax dollars) should not be the vehicle for making money multiple times on the same loans. Nor should the government backing be tacked on as an inducement for investment where diversification addresses the risk of loss. In this case, like the mortgage market, people were encouraged, even pushed into loans they either could not afford or didn’t need.

Just like the mortgage market, with the originator not exposed to any risk, the goal was to move as much money as possible to justify the fees and “trading profits” the investment banks were taking. And just like the mortgage market the only proper remedy is to reduce rates and principal to correctly reflect the value of the loan at origination instead of enforcing the false and fraudulent value of the loan as represented by the originator and its agents.

This may turn out to be a parallel source of litigation and legislation as the country struggles with over $1 trillion in student debt, much of which cannot be paid because the students are unemployed resulting from a recession that was and remains so deep that it rivals the great depression.

Reality check: you can keep those loans and mortgage bonds on the books as long as your accountants and regulators are willing to play the game, but eventually they must be written down to real value. The same holds true for government backed loans. The government must take the hit here because they are the pocket of last resort.

And anyone arguing for “unchaining” restraints on Wall Street is speaking in code to those in the 1%. He is saying “we don’t have to settle for most of the country’s wealth, we can have it all.” But such people ignore history when income and wealth disparity becomes so severe that people cannot keep a roof over their heads or food on the table, things change. My message to those anti-regulators is be careful what you wish for — if you get it, the people might turn around and get you.

Moe Tkacik: Student Debt – The Unconstitutional 40 Year War on Students

Yves here. I’m featuring this post not simply because the student debt issue is coming to serve as a form of debt servitude, but also because the backstory is so ugly. Student debt is the only form of consumer lending where the obligation cannot be discharged in bankruptcy. This story chronicles how persistent bank lobbying, including disinformation portraying student borrowers as likely deadbeats, led to increasingly draconian treatment of student loans. A second reason for posting it is that due to technical difficulties at Reuters, the original ran without the hyperlinks, which are of interest to serious readers.

By Moe Tkacik, a Brooklyn-based journalist who writes at Das Krapital. First published at Reuters.

Lobbyists’ trillion dollar revenge on nerds  

You have probably mentally catalogued the student loan crisis alongside all the other looming trillion dollar crises busy imperiling civilization for the purpose of enriching the already rich. But it is different from those crises in a few significant ways, starting with the fact that the entire student loan business is arguably unconstitutional.

You don’t have to take it from me: a preeminent bankruptcy scholar made precisely this argument under oath before Congress. In December 1975, when Congress was debating the first law that made student loans non-dischargeable in bankruptcy, University of Connecticut law professor Philip Shuchman testified that students “should not be singled out for special and discriminatory treatment,” adding that the idea gave him “the further very literal feeling that this is almost a denial of their right to equal protection of the laws.”

Read more at http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/08/moe-tkacik-student-debt-the-unconstitutional-40-year-war-on-students.html#kqzkfT8tjDj05GZ6.99

31 Responses

  1. I started a Debt Neutrality Petition Drive here. http://www.change.org/petitions/congress-create-debt-neutrality-rights-for-paying-down-credit-cards-student-loans

    The idea is consumers can pay down their credit card and student loans interest free, no more penalties and fees, as long as they are not ringing up new debt at an equal or higher amount.

  2. Yeah, your friend in virginia may be in for some surprises, e tolle.
    I wonder who sent him the letter, Colonial or their assignee, the crooks? I mentioned once that I had a friend who worked for TWB. Got a two minute get out of here when the feds showed up with padlocks – literally. They had also screwed up somethig else big time. It was like they couldn’t get fha insurance on their fha loans, so were offering the ranch and them some to get fha-loan people to refi into conventional loans. One reason which comes to mind for not being able to get fha insurance is losing your fha approval and what comes readily to mind for that is abusive “delegated” underwriting. It could have been other things, but if I were betting….

    Virginia is a title-theory state. Let’s hope they at least did a reconveyance of the dot. What a rotten, reprehensible situation for this man to find himself, as anyone. “By the book” you said he has lived his life. Yes, and someone like that is more likely to believe others behave that way as well. He could have spent the rest of his life in that belief and should have been able to. Makes me want to punch someone just for that.

  3. @ JG, yes, I’m sure it would fall under the current IRS deal, as it’s already been forgiven, so says the letter. As to your note acid test, absolutely….a must to have that.

    On that subject, a friend of mine in VA who’s always done everything by the book retired a few years ago and paid off his mortgage. I asked him if he received that wet ink note and he said he didn’t need it, that they sent him a letter of satisfaction, and told him to keep it as his proof. I explained to him that that wasn’t good enough. He went on to tell me that I was over-doing it with my concern, that he had taken out the loan with a small town reputable bank, Colonial Bank of Virginia, and that he trusted them totally.

    A while later, I guess he started questioning this stuff as it hit the news more, and he asked me to look at some of his docs. It turns out that Colonial sold his loan before the ink was dry to Taylor, Whitaker, and Bean, and we know the rest of that story. The only CEO in America who actually fessed up to selling the notes to multiple entities.

    My friend has written repeatedly and has never received his note. This crap is going to go with all of us to the grave, I have no doubt about that.

  4. @e tolle – wouldn’t you fall under the IRS’ current stance on debt forgiveness, (which I think they will be extending), anyway? If I got that IRS deal right (and I don’t swear I do), they won’t 86 the debt forgiveness to homeowners until and unless they determine to start socking it to investors for what became unearned – lack of better word – tax avoidance. Last I heard, and it’s been some time now, the
    IRS was still on the fence as to taxation of the investors. Sort of disappeared maybe because of what it acknowledges.
    But to me the acid test: will they release / reconvey their dot? Would you be compelled to try to rely on promissory estoppel down the road?
    Seems to me you would if they don’t reconvey.

  5. @ Enraged, a 1099? What, me worry? Blood from a turnip. The IRS has already rabbit eared all four of my pants pockets. I look like denim-dosed Viagra.

    @ Carie, I got a certified letter that simply states that they’re forgiving the unpaid principal on my second mortgage and releasing me from any obligation to make payments on the loan now or in the future. Could it be due to my boyish charm? My virginesque innocence?

    Beats anything I’ve ever seen. I guess I’ll return the box of spray paint and the graffiti instructions I downloaded….I can’t bring myself to defile their private property after this….oh wait….yes I can.

  6. ToLLe,

    Congratulations! That’s so much less to worry about for right now but… watch out for that 1099. Since there was apparently no “settlement”, they may report it to the IRS.

    It wasn’t so long ago that I was predicting things would get better. I guess I was right to remain optimistic.

  7. That’s crazy, E.Tolle—did they just send you something in the mail to that effect? What did it say?

  8. I just had a near 6 figure HELOC forgiven by Wells, without ever asking for it. WTF’s up with that? Have they gotten religion?

    I know better than that, but I haven’t heard of them doing this, much less without any whining on my part…..anyone heard of anything like this? I wasn’t in touch with them…didn’t threaten BK…Is Treasury applying pressure? Did that sodium pentathol I put in the water supply finally kick in? Are they leaving the dark side?

  9. @ Enraged, I’m all over that deal about electing a mom with four kids….I’d turn the entire planet over to women if I had a say in it. Men have so totally screwed everything what with their bluster and brass.

  10. I so agree this has been allowed to go on for far too long.Good points ,spot on.

  11. Does anyone know how to find the SLABS (Student Loan Asset Backed Security) pool for a Student Loan executed by Sallie Mae?

  12. ToLLe,

    What’s your point? That education ain’t what it’s cracked up to be? That, in fact, it may be a dangerous thing in the hands of some?That the poor schlemiels who get indebted to the tune of tens of thousands aren’t getting their money worth? That common sense if the rarest good around here?

    Probably all of the above, I suppose…

    Let’s elect for president a single mom with 4 kids, who knows how to negotiate, knows how to fight for what she believes in, is thrifty and has a good head on her shoulders and is not impressed by diplomas but by track records. Someone who won’t cave in to big interests and has her priorities straight: people first. Who do we have like that currently running? Anyone?

  13. Some infamous quotes….blasts from the not too distant past….showing that many highly paid thinkers are simply chewing on their pipe stems with nothing but empty 38 longs to show for it. They do have expensive shoes and get chauffeured around though, so they must be good at something. Just not economic forecasting, or what’s best for Main Street.

    This first one is from December 2004. It was written by a senior economist and a vice president at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Further proof that these people get paid huge sums for spewing lunacy and babbling bullshit. They are all self-important, when in reality, we don’t need them at all. We trust these people with creating our money for what reason?

    Home prices have been rising strongly since the mid-1990s, prompting concerns that a bubble exists in this asset class and that home prices are vulnerable to a collapse that could harm the U.S. economy.

    A close analysis of the U.S. housing market in recent years, however, finds little basis for such concerns. The marked upturn in home prices is largely attributable to strong market fundamentals: Home prices have essentially moved in line with increases in family income and declines in nominal mortgage interest rates.

    Moreover, weaker economic conditions are unlikely to trigger a severe drop in home prices. Historically, aggregate real home prices have fallen only moderately in periods of recession and high nominal interest rates.

    Then there’s the classic Neil Barsky quotes, from Alson Capital Partners LLC, who made the following statements in the WSJ on 28 July, 2005:

    “There is no housing bubble in this country. Our strong housing market is a function of myriad factors with real economic underpinnings: low interest rates, local job growth, the emotional attachment one has for one’s home, one’s view of one’s future earning- power, and parental contributions, all have done their part to contribute to rising home prices… What we do have is a serious housing shortage and housing affordability crisis.”

    And who could forget James F. Smith, Director, Center for Business Forecasting, who in April 2005 argued that US housing demand would stay strong for years to come due to robust underlying demand:

    “There is no evidence of a housing “bubble” in the United States and housing demand should stay strong for years to come. Three major factors lead to this conclusion. First, the 77 million baby boomers are approaching the peak home ownership ages of 65-75 (over 83.0 percent versus a national average in 2004 of 69.0 percent). Second, immigrants, a growing share of the U.S. population, tend to buy houses ten years later than people born in the United States of the same income group and family size. Third, mortgage rates are not likely to go high enough (8.0 percent or more for 30-year fixed rate mortgages) to put a crimp in demand. Despite some areas of concern, overall homeowners’ equity is at record levels above $9 trillion. Delinquencies are still less than one percent of mortgages outstanding.”

    What about the great Samuel Lieber, President, Alpine Woods Capital Investors, who said in the WSJ on 12 April 2006:

    “We don’t see a bubble. Historically, home prices just don’t go down nationwide unless we are in a significant recession… It’s employment that really counts. The underlying fundamentals of real estate are still very positive. Job creation and household formation drive housing.”

    A true genius, Mark Vitner, Senior Economist, Wachovia said on 19 January 2006:

    “Everybody is looking for evidence of a housing bubble…There is not a housing bubble. The supply had not kept up with demand.”

    And finally, who can forget this greatest hits testimony from The Bernank in 2005:

    “House prices have risen by nearly 25 percent over the past two years. Although speculative activity has increased in some areas, at a national level these price increases largely reflect strong economic fundamentals, including robust growth in jobs and incomes, low mortgage rates, steady rates of household formation, and factors that limit the expansion of housing supply in some areas.”

    Screw them all. Death to Wall Street. Cut them out like the cancers that they are.

  14. About time! Finally, they get it that Treasury must be in charge!!! Next: the dismantling of the fed. PS: I tried to post 3 things about that major news but LL blocked them all… Wonder why.

    More Wind-Down Efforts for Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
    By 24/7 Wall St.
    Posted 9:13AM 08/17/12 Posted under: Economy, Real Estate
    ——

    Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have both been critical issues when it comes to the housing crisis. The government wanted these agencies to create equal housing opportunities, and these agencies provided the mechanism for unfettered house buying for all. These agencies are relied upon heavily by individuals seeking a mortgage, and these agencies are hated by many taxpayers.

    Now their profits are going to be seized by the Treasury. A four-year old pact is being revamped and now the bailout dividend terms will be replaced with profits going to the Treasury. Make no mistake about one thing here: This is another step toward a winding-down of these quasi agencies, even if the Treasury is claiming that it still supports the mortgage market.

    The 10% dividend payments will be suspended, but all profits will now go the Treasury. In the latest quarter, the Treasury did get its dividend payments without borrowing AND there were profits. And on that winding-down scenario, Fannie and Freddie will accelerate the downsizing of their mortgage portfolios. Starting in 2013, each will be required to cut the mortgage portfolios by 15% per year versus a 10% reduction now.

    With almost $200 billion having been injected into Freddie and Fannie, maybe this will cut the taxpayer risk and maybe this will get these closer and closer to joining the banks and insurance companies in finally paying back Uncle Sam (actually, the taxpayers) for bailing them out.

  15. I don’t know how it will impact those of us in suit. I know I was wondering why Fannie hadn’t answered my motions. In fact, she hasn’t even hired anyone to represent her yet…

    Treasury Working to Wind Down Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac

    Published August 17, 2012

    Reuters

    Read more: http://www.foxbusiness.com/government/2012/08/17/treasury-working-to-wind-down-fannie-mae-freddie-mac/#ixzz23oHzDhZA

    The U.S. Treasury on Friday said that it was taking steps to wind down Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the country’s largest mortgage financiers that were taken over by the government during the financial crisis.

    The government-controlled companies, which buy mortgages from lenders and repackage them as securities for investors, will be required to reduce their investment portfolios at an annual rate of 15% instead of the 10% required under their previous agreements with the Treasury.

    Read more: http://www.foxbusiness.com/government/2012/08/17/treasury-working-to-wind-down-fannie-mae-freddie-mac/#ixzz23oIBx8Cw

  16. Must be why Fannie didn’t answer my complaint… Well, I may not get awarded any damages but, right now, I live in a free house and the co-defendants are remaining awfully quiet. Something’s cooking. And it has nothing to do with me! Something tells me I’ll be able to quiet title faster than I thought.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-17/treasury-accelerates-withdrawal-of-fannie-freddie-backing.html

    U.S. Accelerates Winddown of Fannie and Freddie
    By Cheyenne Hopkins – Aug 17, 2012 8:56 AM ET

    The U.S. Treasury Department today announced plans to accelerate the winddown of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

    Treasury amended its terms as conservator of the government-sponsored-enterprises. The GSEs have been under conservatorship since 2008. Both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac reported second quarter profits earlier this month.

    Treasury amended its terms as conservator of the government-sponsored enterprises by prohibiting the companies from retaining profits, building capital and returning to the market in their prior form. The new plan replaces a 10 percent dividend payment Fannie and Freddie paid to Treasury with a quarterly sweep of every dollar of profit each firm earns going forward.

    The Treasury said it is also requiring the GSEs on an annual basis to submit a plan on their actions to reduce taxpayer exposure to mortgage credit risk for their guarantee book business and retained portfolio.

    Republicans in Congress have called for an end to the two taxpayer-owned companies, which now own or guarantee about 60 percent of U.S. home loans. Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner has said he will propose a plan to overhaul housing finance that will include dismantling or altering Fannie Mae and McLean, Virginia-based Freddie Mac.

    To contact the reporters on this story: Cheyenne Hopkins at Chopkins19@bloomberg.net;

  17. Six arrested after holding sit-in inside Obama campaign headquarters
    August 17, 2012 by legitgov
    ShareThis

    Six arrested after holding sit-in inside Obama campaign headquarters 16 Aug 2012

    Six out of seven protesters were arrested Thursday night after holding a sit-in inside President Obama’s campaign headquarters and refusing to leave. The protesters marched to the headquarters after a 5 p.m. rally in Frank Ogawa Plaza in support of Bradley Manning, a former U.S. Army intelligence analyst accused of leaking classified information to WikiLeaks. The march of several dozen protesters arrived at the campaign headquarters on Telegraph Avenue about an hour later, and seven protesters entered the building.

  18. 40% have left banks, huh? That’s a good start. Now, it needs to come here!

    http://blogs.marketwatch.com/thetell/2012/08/17/brits-lose-trust-in-banking-system/

    Brits lose trust in banking system
    August 17, 2012, 6:32 AM

    Reuters

    The British banking system has lately found itself engulfed in a storm of bad news, ranging from interest-rate scandals to technical glitches to money-laundering accusations, leaving a significant mark on confidence in the home banking sector.

    A whopping 62% of the Brits don’t trust the banks and more than a third admit they haven’t trusted them since the U.K. slipped into recession, according to research published by Currencies.co.uk on Friday.

    Recent controversies about the country’s leading banks have fueled mistrust among the British population and 40% have started to move their business away from banks to peer-to-peer lending companies, personal loan providers and currency specialists, the study said.

    The survey was conducted online.

    “Undoubtedly we are seeing a change in the financial-services sector whereby dissatisfied customers are ditching their banks and it is encouraging that some people are wisely choosing specialists for transactions such as foreign exchange,” said Stephen Hughes, director of Currencies.co.uk, in a press release.

    This summer hasn’t been great for U.K. banks when it comes to staying out of the bad news radar.

    In late June, Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC ended up in the limelight after a technical glitch left millions of customers without access to their money. Chief Executive Stephen Hester waived his annual bonus after the incident.

    HSBC Holdings PLC and Standard Chartered PLC were also main characters in the British bank news flow over the summer after separate allegations of money laundering. The incidents ended up costing Standard Chartered a $340 million settlement, while HSBC in its recent earnings statement announced a provision of $700 million to cover potential fines related to money-laundering allegations.

    In July, Barclays PLC claimed both public and market attention after Chief Executive Bob Diamond resigned on the back of an investigation into alleged manipulation of the London Interbank Offered Rate.

    The Libor probe later expanded to include HSBC and RBS.

    The Libor scandal didn’t go down well with British bank clients and 30% of those surveyed stated that the rate-fixing-scandal alone affected their confidence in the banks. In addition, 59% of those surveyed said high bankers’ bonuses lead to lower trust in the sector.

  19. UKG,

    I hope NG posts the entire Stopa post: the question comes back all the time and, for once, someone gives the clearest possible explanation of why the IRS don’t have a leg to stand on.

  20. Enraged! Outstanding!

  21. I have a stinking suspicion that my Student Loan is a part of SLABS (Student Loan Asset Backed Securities). Is there a way to track the Security? Mr. Garfield can you chime in on this? — Randy

  22. I meant “Unless you fight, you lose your arguments before the IRS”

  23. This doesn’t belong on this page but it does belong on this site: deficiency judgment and whether anyone owes the bank.

    Once again, without filing suit first or having put up a defense in court, it will NOT work since nothing will have been officially contested. In other words, if you fight, you lose your arguments before the IRS.

    http://www.stayinmyhome.com/blog/

    Expiration of the Mortgage Debt Relief Act … Is it a Problem?

    Posted on August 14th, 2012 by Mark Stopa

    So if you’re insolvent, whether the Act is extended is irrelevant – you won’t owe taxes.

    Fourth, I’m going to share the way I’ve handled this situation on many occasions.

    Under the IRS Code, tax liability flows from a deficiency waiver because of debt forgiveness. The term “waiver” says it all – the bank is “waiving” its right to collect the deficiency, and by waiving the homeowner’s obligation to pay, the bank is forgiving the debt. That debt forgiveness is what creates tax liability under IRS Code. Deficiency waiver = debt forgiveness = tax liability.

    But what if there was no obligation to pay the deficiency in the first place? What if there was no entitlement to a deficiency at all? As I see it, if there’s no entitlement to a deficiency, then there’s no “waiver,” no debt forgiveness, and, hence, no tax liability. No deficiency waiver = no debt forgiveness = no tax liability.

    How is that possible? How could that be? It’s actually quite simple. Mortgage foreclosure cases – at least the ones in my office – are contested. We contest the amount of the debt and we challenge the bank’s entitlement to anything at all, much less the full amount sought. When we’re making these challenges, this can easily create a situation where the parties are willing to compromise – by entering a Final Judgment of Foreclosure, one which waives the deficiency. We consent to a foreclosure, and the bank agrees to waive the deficiency … everyone wins. Except I don’t call it a ”waiver,” as it’s not a “waiver.” Instead, I want that Final Judgment to say “Plaintiff is not entitled to a deficiency against any defendants.”

    The distinction may appear subtle, but I think it makes all the difference in the world. Think about it. If a Final Judgment says Plaintiff is “not entitled to a deficiency against any defendants,” then how could there be any tax liability? No entitlement to a deficiency = no debt forgiveness = no tax liability.

    How can this argument possibly fly? For me, it’s a compilation of factors. First, we are challenging the debt – both the amount owed and that creditor’s right to collect. The Final Judgment represents a compromise of that settlement. We don’t think we owed that bank anything, but to resolve the dispute, we’ll agree we owe the bank the house – but nothing else. When both sides agree that is all that was owed, and there was no deficiency, how can the IRS possibly disagree? In that same vein, if the court which presided over the dispute rules that the bank is not owed a deficiency, and the parties so agreed, how can the IRS possibly disagree?

    I suppose the IRS might disagree, and might try to pursue a claim for taxes. But guess what that means? In my view, that means they’d have to prove that XYZ Bank, as Trustee for the ABC Trust (or whatever alphabet soup trust was suing for foreclosure) was actually entitled to more money than the house was worth. After all, for the IRS to be owed anything, they’d have to prove debt forgiveness, which would require proof that the homeowner owed more to that plaintiff than the house was actually worth. Now, think about that for a minute … the banks themselves are having a miserable enough time as it is proving what they are owed. Do we really think the IRS is going to try to start proving what these banks were/are owed? I don’t. I’m certainly skeptical, anyway.

    If this sounds like a cheap lawyer trick, think about it like this … there are many, many instances (not just in foreclosure cases) where parties disagree about the amount owed. Reaching a compromise of that dispute is routinely encouraged … in many walks of life. I suppose it’s possible, but it’s hard for me to imagine that the IRS will start going behind an agreement of the parties, and a Final Judgment of a court, and take the position “even though the parties agreed and even though the court ruled there was no debt forgiveness, there actually was debt forgiveness, so you owe taxes.”

  24. The Week they claim I was deathly ill with Pneumonia

  25. This whole system is flawed. I keep getting told I have a great case, yet just gave up trying to find a lawyer.

    I would give a attorney 90% of everything, and I already signed over 90% of what ever was left to LA and Ventura County. As even though it seems they were acting against me, they should get the money.

    Maybe now that it’s obvious I am not trying to get rich, I will get some support. I just want the truth, some answers.

    I have not been perfect in the past, but this was wrong what has happened to me.

    This was not right what they did to me, to Richard, if he did not do it, and now they have tapped into the bank account, diverted the funds to a foreign company, and then using the debit number assigned to me, have caused massive amounts of merchandise ordered to me, and all these pay by month subscriptions, and magazines.

    Then they just tapped into the county files, and altered my medical records. They altered them to look like the week in 1994 that I was literally dying of pneumonia and needed ER, was a week I was perfectly well, and planning a birthday party.

    I could not even give this house away!

  26. The only way to see any action is to simply stop paying everything until meaningful regulations have be enacted. Not voted (for Pete’s sake, we don’t need new laws. We only need to go back to the old ones that worked!) but implemented as they were eons ago.

    And we need to see all the bad laws struck down once and for all.

  27. thankyou ,so much for speaking the truth,

  28. Last week or so, I came accross an article discussing student loans and bankruptcy. The article made claims that the
    debt could in fact be 86’d yet in bankruptcy (and this was post-bk
    amendments), but sort of like walking a tight wire, very narrow exception. Do NOT take my word or the article for truth if you find it or others. I saved the article, but Mr. Nobody ate it from my computer so can’t link it. I am only mentioning it so that those deeply impacted by student loan debt might explore any possibilities if they choose. The assgt of the debt is also a subject of litigation. I came accross plenty of those suckers over the years.
    Again, do NOT take my lay impressions as merit for any of this. Do research, and it may take a lot, get a lawyer. Even if any of this is true and I don’t say it is, it could be a lot of work and grief and money. Does one want it?
    Not legal advise. Ask a lawyer.

  29. Right on

  30. Student loans are going to be the next big economic crash followed very quickly by credit cards.If they can’t get you one way they will find another road in till they do.Bankers ,Regulators and the rest should be put out of business forever.These loans follow you for the rest of your life.We need to change this now or we will be in perpetual servitude.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: