He said the law was first changed to make school loans nondischargeable because graduates with professional degrees would abuse the process by filing for bankruptcy shortly after graduating since they had the requisite debt burden even though they had valuable degrees. This was obviously a problem, so they changed the law. You said you disagreed with this assessment.
In the post we’re discussing, he asked if you disagreed with his claim about why the law was changed (and had a source to support this) or if you disagreed with the decision to apply this to all student loans and not just those financing professional degrees.
I’m sorry you have a hard time comprehending this. It’s really fairly simple.
Much better!
He needs you for rewrite.
I disagree with the reasons that have been given as to why the loans were made non-dischargeable. I do not disagree that those claims may have the reasons that were given.. I suspect they were, and I have a vague recollection of the arguments at the time that is consistent with that.
Yet I was also a borrower. Not a lot. About $10,000 debt after four years graduating in 1976, my starting salary was $12,000, as a systems analyst. That would be equivalent in burden and salary to say, a systems engineer of today with a debt burden of $50,000, and a starting salary of $60,000. My debt was dischargeable, iirc. My debt was higher than many at the time, so I believe. Had my family and personal circumstance been equivalent and were I to have graduated today I estimate my debt burden would be $85,000. Yet I did not default, nor did I hear of any acquaintances who defaulted, nor did any bank or school representative ever mention or allude to any wide-spread defaulting.
A few years ago I worked in debt collections. I did some research into the business, specifically the history of credit cards, I also followed the recent changes in bankruptcy law closely as they were before the legislature.
Over the course of many years I have made the acquaintance of a number of high-level lobbyists and public relations experts and had discussions about how issues are presented to Congress and the public.
On the basis of those studies, jobs and personal observations I have come to the opinion that when major industry groups come before Congress the motives and the issues they present at face do vary considerably from the prime motives and twists of the issues that most interest the industry.
It’s likely that some number of professionals did default via bankruptcy on student loans. Yet it is more likely, in my considered opinion, that the banking industry made more of that than it was. After all bankruptcy is a legal PROCESS. No creditor is without standing in a bankruptcy — if the creditor has reason to believe that the creditor is pursuing a fraud of a bankruptcy, that claim can be heard and considered in the bankruptcy court!
Yet short-sighted greed is a stronger motive, a constant of human motivation. Aesop’s Goose That Laid The Golden Egg, among other ancient wisdoms tell the tale. The goose is killed for the immediate golden egg, greed shortens the view — acts as a focusing motive! Over-focusing.
Never forget that about humans.
There are plenty of despicable deadbeats who borrow what they NEVER intend to repay. But what I learned in debt collections is that most people will pay, except that they hit temporary hard times. The hard cases, the real bums and cheats are few and far between.
I guess I can say my experience says in a gut check summary that not that many students were defaulting.