Why I Cry For America

[FLBK7]

That was the excuse they used anyway, though the numbers of those kinds of people was exceedingly small. The law that was already in place required that student loans be at least 7 years old before they could be discharged. On top of that, there was the substantial abuse standard that allowed a trustee to object if a high income earner tried to discharge his debts.

It was an open secret that upon graduation, the Ivy League doctors and lawyers would then take (relatively) low-paying jobs at clinics and non-profits. On purpose.

[backtoschool]

When I entered into my agreement with the lender the Constitution was in force (pending Obama's dream of destroying it ). There existed no law or rule that allowed me the right to change the terms of the mortgage. I had two options. Pay as agreed or bk the debt. Both the lender and i knew these options existed. I assume the lender set the offered interest rate knowing I might one day file BK.

If the two parties agree to modify the agreement I'm all for it in accordance with my belief in the free market. If the lender is forced to modify it because the borrower misrepresented himself at acquisition or over-extended himself then I have an issue with the process. I also have a problem with fat cat pols in DC demanding that banks modify existing agreements and especially with these fat cats limiting the bonuses paid to Wall Street fat cats.

I agree we shouldn't limit Wall Street bonuses. Limiting bonuses is a punitive political measure that accomplishes nothing. The people whose bonuses are being limited are getting the same compensation in stock and other incentives, or they are going to another company that is not on the government watch list. I just started a job with a small company that was formed by former Wall Streeter's fleeing the big investment banks.

As to the mortgage modification, well I see your point OF. There isn't currently a law that allows for principal reduction.

I do think however that the people who are asking for the principal reductions are the same people who will enter the bankruptcy or foreclosure process if they do not get the principal reductions. Not giving them the principal reductions is not really saving any money or solving anything in the mid term or the long run.

Of course this is probably a moot point, since principal reductions would be akin for a bank to declaring their housing assets at their actual market value, which they do not want to do. Modifying the housing contract to reflect the house's actual market value, would cause the bank to have to declare a loss on it's books, and to reserve capital to cover that loss, which would lead to less lending, etc...., which would lead to a worsening of the recession and might even lead to a Depression.

[OhioFiler]

Point well taken.


How filing for bankruptcy under the protection of the constitution is different from lowering a mortgage principal under the protection of a law, is not completely clear to me yet however. Why is bankruptcy ok and in accordance with a free market, and lowering a mortgage principal not? Not every law can be explicitly stated in our constitution, but our constitution gives far-reaching umbrella-like protection to all of our laws, unless they are deemed to be unconstitutional, which it is unlikely a mortgage reduction law would be deemed.

When I entered into my agreement with the lender the Constitution was in force (pending Obama's dream of destroying it ). There existed no law or rule that allowed me the right to change the terms of the mortgage. I had two options. Pay as agreed or bk the debt. Both the lender and i knew these options existed. I assume the lender set the offered interest rate knowing I might one day file BK.

If the two parties agree to modify the agreement I'm all for it in accordance with my belief in the free market. If the lender is forced to modify it because the borrower misrepresented himself at acquisition or over-extended himself then I have an issue with the process. I also have a problem with fat cat pols in DC demanding that banks modify existing agreements and especially with these fat cats limiting the bonuses paid to Wall Street fat cats.

[OhioFiler]

Although I do not agree with OF's ultra-conservative views a lot of the time, I do believe he is a valuable contributor to this forum.

Well I can't seem to agree with your ultra-ultra-liberal views a lot of the time either!

[backtoschool]

I understand where you are coming from as well BTS. However, the free market I cite does in fact operate within the confines of a constitution. If I were operating within the confines of an Ivory Tower and pretending laissez faire market was the rule your point would be valid.

Point well taken.


How filing for bankruptcy under the protection of the constitution is different from lowering a mortgage principal under the protection of a law, is not completely clear to me yet however. Why is bankruptcy ok and in accordance with a free market, and lowering a mortgage principal not? Not every law can be explicitly stated in our constitution, but our constitution gives far-reaching umbrella-like protection to all of our laws, unless they are deemed to be unconstitutional, which it is unlikely a mortgage reduction law would be deemed.

[backtoschool]

Ever try being one of them? Of course not. What is absurd is to suggest that there are no poverty/suffering problems in this nation, or that charity/gov. programs have solved it.

If you listened to the news, you would know that increasingly, charities and food banks are running out of supplies as the segment of the population needing help grows and those able to give shrinks.

Is it acceptable to you to expand government assistance to those Americans in need, acknowledging, of course, that taxes will increase? Or, is it only OK to expand government assistance to citizens of other countries when a natural disaster hits? The Americans should pay higher taxes for that, but not to help it's own?

I am not saying that we shouldn't help Haiti, just pointing out that for some reason people don't object to footing the bill for other countries, but God forbid our taxes go to help some struggling American family that has fallen on hard times and can't pay their mortgage.

So, you admitted in your recent post to me that you haven't even filed, Ohiofiler. Creditor? CA? Voyeur? ATTNY? Why you are even on this forum (as Ohiofiler) then is questionable, although not forbidden. I realize our monikers are not our actual names. However, your moniker infers you have filed. Perhaps you could clarify.


Again, in answer to your other post, I consider myself an Independent and registered as one because I find both parties to be in the pockets of big business, with no interest in solving the problems facing middle/lower class Americans.

I actually am a human being who has compassion and empathy for others.

What I am not is some voyeur who lurks on forums meant for those experiencing severe financial dificulties (when I am not) dispersing my views and dispensing advice to those whom I have decieved into thinking I am in the same boat as them, when I am not.

Have a nice day!

I have to disagree with this post sofarsogood2. Ohiofiler has been on this board for a year, contributing and helping others. Sometimes people need to plan their bankruptcy and it takes awhile to file. I myself had to wait 7-8 months from my decision to file, until I actually filed.

Although I do not agree with OF's ultra-conservative views a lot of the time, I do believe he is a valuable contributor to this forum.

[MSbklawyer]

Student loans became non-dischargeable in BK years ago when it finally dawned on our representatives that many opportunists were pursuing medical and law careers at Harvard and Yale on hundreds of thousands in student loans... then filing for BK immediately upon graduation.

That was the excuse they used anyway, though the numbers of those kinds of people was exceedingly small. The law that was already in place required that student loans be at least 7 years old before they could be discharged. On top of that, there was the substantial abuse standard that allowed a trustee to object if a high income earner tried to discharge his debts.

[OhioFiler]

I understand where you are coming from OF, but free markets have little to do with constitutions.

A free market can exist where there is not a constitution in place. Laissez Faire free market economies, by definition, are economies that allow business and trade to operate free of restrictions. Voiding owed debt in bankruptcy would constitute a restriction.

I understand where you are coming from as well BTS. However, the free market I cite does in fact operate within the confines of a constitution. If I were operating within the confines of an Ivory Tower and pretending laissez faire market was the rule your point would be valid.

[OhioFiler]

So, you admitted in your recent post to me that you haven't even filed, Ohiofiler. Creditor? CA? Voyeur? ATTNY? Why you are even on this forum (as Ohiofiler) then is questionable, although not forbidden. I realize our monikers are not our actual names. However, your moniker infers you have filed. Perhaps you could clarify.


I actually am a human being who has compassion and empathy for others.

What I am not is some voyeur who lurks on forums meant for those experiencing severe financial dificulties(sic)( (when I am not) dispersing my views and dispensing advice to those whom I have decieved(sic) into thinking I am in the same boat as them, when I am not.

Have a nice day!

You are officially on my list of ignorees for your grossly inaccurate assumptions of why I am on this board and your obvious anger, jealousy and moveon inspired thoughts but primarily because you choose to turn a discussion into a personal attack.

You need to understand that not every person who files BK does so in a specified by you time frame.

Your compassion and empathy "for others" (as opposed to compassion and empathy for yourself?) is on full display here.

If I may offer you advice, I recommend you simply ignore my deceptive posts on here and enjoy your bankruptcy without me.

Have a great day!

[banca rotta]

Student loans became non-dischargeable in BK years ago when it finally dawned on our representatives that many opportunists were pursuing medical and law careers at Harvard and Yale on hundreds of thousands in student loans... then filing for BK immediately upon graduation.

Cause and effect.

I remember they were dischargable before the change in bk laws. I wish they were still dischargable. This way just as banks aren't lending much money, credit lines are being pulled, etc., the student loan sharks would be making much less loans and our young would have more affordable educations instead of this nonsense today.

With the world going broke college costs are still rising. Do you think student loans have to do with this? I do.

[FLBK7]

Take a look at student loans for example. Few people if any can discharge these debts so they become balanced in favor of the creditor and colleges are much more expensive because of them. Make them dischargable and watch how much college tuition falls back down to earth.

Student loans became non-dischargeable in BK years ago when it finally dawned on our representatives that many opportunists were pursuing medical and law careers at Harvard and Yale on hundreds of thousands in student loans... then filing for BK immediately upon graduation.

Cause and effect.

[FLBK7]

On the contrary. I entered into all contracts with my creditors with both parties understanding that the Constitution od the United States allowed me the option to fore go paying the debt should it become too difficult. This is in perfect harmony with free market values.

Wow, that sounds quite calculating imo....

[banca rotta]

Did I miss something??? Who said this???

Not me.

Yes, you are suggesting just that. They should take their lumps, but not you-you could get a bail out. Let me ask, if you had been unable to file and get rid of your debt, could you afford a home or apartment or a vehicle? Did your BK not save you from being quite destitute for quite some time? If your answer is no, then perhaps you should not have filed.

It's a moot point. If no one could file then debt wouldn't exist. Prices for homes and cars (if any would even exist) would be very low due to little or no credit.

While I never planned on filing when I racked up debt I will say that if it weren't for bk laws in our constitution I would never, ever take on debt.

There would be too much risk for the borrower and no risk for the lender. Bk levels the playing field. Lenders and investors can make prudent descisions knowing they may get stiffed if they go too far with rates and fees as well as low credit standards.

Take a look at student loans for example. Few people if any can discharge these debts so they become balanced in favor of the creditor and colleges are much more expensive because of them. Make them dischargable and watch how much college tuition falls back down to earth.

Lenders will lend less, less students will go to college, they will lower their costs to make it affordable as it should be!!!!

There would be no lenders, no borrowers, no risk taking, just a bunch of farmers bartering goods without bk.

The point is bk is part of the free markets!!!!! Bailouts are not!

[sofarsogood2]

No child in America has to suffer. This nation through government programs and private charities will provide for ANY citizen in need. It's absurd to make the claim that our country is acting in a way contradictory to what she stands for.

Ever try being one of them? Of course not. What is absurd is to suggest that there are no poverty/suffering problems in this nation, or that charity/gov. programs have solved it.

If you listened to the news, you would know that increasingly, charities and food banks are running out of supplies as the segment of the population needing help grows and those able to give shrinks.

Is it acceptable to you to expand government assistance to those Americans in need, acknowledging, of course, that taxes will increase? Or, is it only OK to expand government assistance to citizens of other countries when a natural disaster hits? The Americans should pay higher taxes for that, but not to help it's own?

I am not saying that we shouldn't help Haiti, just pointing out that for some reason people don't object to footing the bill for other countries, but God forbid our taxes go to help some struggling American family that has fallen on hard times and can't pay their mortgage.

So, you admitted in your recent post to me that you haven't even filed, Ohiofiler. Creditor? CA? Voyeur? ATTNY? Why you are even on this forum (as Ohiofiler) then is questionable, although not forbidden. I realize our monikers are not our actual names. However, your moniker infers you have filed. Perhaps you could clarify.


Again, in answer to your other post, I consider myself an Independent and registered as one because I find both parties to be in the pockets of big business, with no interest in solving the problems facing middle/lower class Americans.

I actually am a human being who has compassion and empathy for others.

What I am not is some voyeur who lurks on forums meant for those experiencing severe financial dificulties (when I am not) dispersing my views and dispensing advice to those whom I have decieved into thinking I am in the same boat as them, when I am not.

Have a nice day!

[backtoschool]

Nope. The contract was written with the understanding that the Constitution was in full force. I would not have entered into the agreement without the protection afforded me by the Constitution. The lender was aware of this and has his own constitutional protections.

I understand where you are coming from OF, but free markets have little to do with constitutions.

A free market can exist where there is not a constitution in place. Laissez Faire free market economies, by definition, are economies that allow business and trade to operate free of restrictions. Voiding owed debt in bankruptcy would constitute a restriction.