Current Events > It's official: Student loan payments will restart in October

(+) Yeah! (+)

TaylorHeinicke posted...

What happens if you just straight up stop paying your student loans

Your credit is forever fucked, can't bankrupt out of those.

pretzelcoatl posted...

That would be insanity. Restarting loans sure, but retaliatory interest rates are a ridiculous concept.

Which makes it all the more real that republicans would try and get that going.

pretzelcoatl posted...

This person agrees with me on one thing but doesn't agree with me on another - they must be a fascist!

I think it was ninjaluver we were responding to, unless that's your alt?

Ultimately I think the lesson is never to bring up issues a right winger can casually lie about, or that aren't currently being debated - because they will lie about it.

Smart folks paid down on the principal as much as possible during the interim.

Smarter folks didn't think fascist republicans and fascist SCOTUS would interfere with a good thing

twanderer posted...

Smart folks paid down on the principal as much as possible during the interim.

The smartest folks (with the means to) wouldve set aside their payment into a savings account just in case this ordeal fell through, so when/if it does, theyll have a chunk of money to kamikaze the loans down, and if it panned out, then its a nice rainy day fund.

It really feels like this topic devolved into "Fuck you I got mine!" vs "Fuck you, gimmie!"

tremain07 posted...

It really feels like this topic devolved into "Fuck you I got mine!" vs "Fuck you, gimmie!"

It really didnt

samsungsalt posted...

The smartest folks (with the means to) wouldve set aside their payment into a savings account just in case this ordeal fell through, so when/if it does, theyll have a chunk of money to kamikaze the loans down, and if it panned out, then its a nice rainy day fund.

Sounds good, until you realize that money likely got spent on rent and food with the way prices have spiked over the last few years.

legendary_zell posted...

I think most people would agree that this is a nonsensical stance. If literal children "agree" to a fundamentally unfair, unjust, and unconscionable agreement, there's no justification for holding them to it when the problem is solved. An unconscionable agreement extracted under duress or otherwise unfairly isn't worth the paper its printed on. The only way to decide otherwise is to simultaneously ignore the systemic unfairness in the agreement, while elevating agreements and contract to an absurd level.

A kid who signs a contract to perform child labor should not have to honor that "agreement" when we ban child labor. A black potential homeowner should not have to keep paying without receiving equity when they enter an "agreement" to contract buy. Asserting so destroys the importance of recognizing that something is unfair.

Middle class people are not the only ones who benefit from loan forgiveness. Working class black and brown people benefit disproportionately from loan forgiveness at all levels of the higher education system.

I asked you for evidence to support that last paragraph and you haven't posted it. Until you do, that's nothing more than morally motivated economic theorizing.

DarthAragorn posted...

This guy's logic: slavery is bad and should be abolished for future people, but those already enslaved should just deal with it because it wouldn't be fair or some shit idk

I know you guys did not just try to compare student loans to slavery and child labor...lol. If I ever made an analogy this disingenuous and offensive I would 100% be moderated. Just like that guy who tried to compare dog breeds to human races.

The only reason you won't be is because the mod in this topic has already revealed he has loans himself that he wants forgiven.

Where did this "literal children" shit even come from? The vast majority of student loans require you to be an adult to take them.

Student loans are not some unconscionable agreement made under duress. Many, many people decline to take student loans. Many people also pay off their student loans. The agreement is shitty, and the system should be overhauled, but it's not some unconscionable nightmare that children were forcibly coerced into.

As for your requested "evidence", this is an absurd request because this is a basic and universally known tenet of capitalism. The government handing out money to people or increasing the money supply (these are identical) causes inflation and increased cost of goods. You could google this in 5 seconds, but I'll spoonfeed you. Do you not believe that stimulus checks Contributed to inflation and rising prices?

https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/042015/how-does-money-supply-affect-inflation.asp

Ninjaluver posted...

Where did this "literal children" shit even come from? The vast majority of student loans require you to be an adult to take them.

https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=Can+a+17+year+old+take+out+a+student+loan%3F

Yes, 17 year olds are children. Puberty does not make you an adult, experience does. If you want to split hairs about when that line forms, that's on you. But to assume all 17-18 year olds are wise enough to make a 15 year commitment to predatory student loans is foolish. I already covered why this is a bad take in two of my earlier comments. Unless you mean to imply that society doesn't insist you go to college, which is just so provably incorrect I doubt anyone needs me to post about why that is.

Ninjaluver posted...

As for your requested "evidence", this is an absurd request because this is a basic and universally known tenet of capitalism. The government handing out money to people or increasing the money supply (these are identical) causes inflation and increased cost of goods. You could google this in 5 seconds, but I'll spoonfeed you.

• There are situations where increases in the money supply do not cause inflation, and other economic conditions like hyperinflation or deflation may occur instead.

Line from your article, so it's clearly not an absolute like you say it is.

Ninjaluver posted...

I know you guys did not just try to compare student loans to slavery and child labor...lol. If I ever made an analogy this disingenuous and offensive I would 100% be moderated. Just like that guy who tried to compare dog breeds to human races.

His whole point was that you are okay with people who've already been victimized by the system being stuck with it, while also being privy to the fact this the entire structure of this system is terrible and needs an overhaul. His comparison while hyperbolic, wasn't incorrect. Again, a "Fuck you to the other people" isn't a good argument for keeping a shitty system in place. Also, about that mod...

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


You want to tell me this is alright? He's payed off his loan by at least 75% percent and he still owes the entirety of his original loan and then some? This is the whole point, he did his work. He took out his loan, he got his degree, but because he can't afford to not work (read, money makes the world go 'round) he's effectively being robbed.

All of this is to say that your entire stance doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Being mad at other people having their debt forgiven because you paid yours doesn't justify a broken system.

DarthAragorn posted...

Again you can save a lot of time by just saying fuck you got mine

Cemith posted...

https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=Can+a+17+year+old+take+out+a+student+loan%3F

Yes, 17 year olds are children. Puberty does not make you an adult, experience does. If you want to split hairs about when that line forms, that's on you. But to assume all 17-18 year olds are wise enough to make a 15 year commitment to predatory student loans is foolish. I already covered why this is a bad take in two of my earlier comments. Unless you mean to imply that society doesn't insist you go to college, which is just so provably incorrect I doubt anyone needs me to post about why that is.

* There are situations where increases in the money supply do not cause inflation, and other economic conditions like hyperinflation or deflation may occur instead.
Line from your article, so it's clearly not an absolute like you say it is.

His whole point was that you are okay with people who've already been victimized by the system being stuck with it, while also being privy to the fact this the entire structure of this system is terrible and needs an overhaul. His comparison while hyperbolic, wasn't incorrect. Again, a "Fuck you to the other people" isn't a good argument for keeping a shitty system in place. Also, about that mod...

You want to tell me this is alright? He's payed off his loan by at least 75% percent and he still owes the entirety of his original loan and then some? This is the whole point, he did his work. He took out his loan, he got his degree, but because he can't afford to not work (read, money makes the world go 'round) he's effectively being robbed.

All of this is to say that your entire stance doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Being mad at other people having their debt forgiven because you paid yours doesn't justify a broken system.

1. Like I said, for the "vast majority" of student loans, they're taken out by adults (most actually require you to be an adult). For the ones that do allow you to be 17, most of those require a cosigner, i.e. another adult who will then be responsible for paying off that loan.

2. Do you have any evidence to show that this would be one of the unique exceptions where increasing the money supply would not affect inflation? It's hilarious that you thought this was a counter.

Finally, I already said I agree that his situation is a bad one. I want to overhaul the system. But he agreed (btw, I'm willing to bet he did it as an adult!) To borrow money under those terms. He needs to abide by those terms that agreed to.

He may have paid off a substantial amount, but he took a long time to do it. Money now is worth more than money later. That's why interest exists. That's the entire concept of a loan. Whoever his lender is, they went without that amount for X period of time when that amount could have been generating profit elsewhere. So of course just returning the original amount years later isn't good enough. You need to compensate for the value and opportunity lost to the lender.

Ninjaluver posted...

1. Like I said, for the "vast majority" of student loans, they're taken out by adults (most actually require you to be an adult). For the ones that do allow you to be 17, most of those require a cosigner, i.e. another adult who will then be responsible for paying off that loan.

Hm, a cosigner huh? And who do you think is going to cosign a 17 year old's loan?... Oh yeah!

Cemith posted...

2.) Likely have been under the care of their parents, whom pressure them into taking loans out for college because that's what they did 20 odd years ago, as though it's even remotely the same economy.

Ninjaluver posted...

2. Do you have any evidence to show that this would be one of the unique exceptions where increasing the money supply would not affect inflation? It's hilarious that you thought this was a counter.

Do you have any evidence that it would? That's not how the burden of proof works, chief. You made the claim that it'd be bad for the economy and then swiftly posted an article that can explicitly contradict your stance. "It'll be bad for the economy because of inflation" =/= "Inflation is not always the result."

Ninjaluver posted...

Finally, I already said I agree that his situation is a bad one. I want to overhaul the system. But he agreed (btw, I'm willing to bet he did it as an adult!) To borrow money under those terms. He needs to abide by those terms that agreed to.

Again, and I'm getting pretty tired of repeating myself: It's all fruit of the poisonous tree. He should not have had to take out that loan in the first place, that much you agree with, you said it yourself. He did everything you say people that take out loans should do and got screwed for it. It's clearly not a good system, so making people adhere to it because you had too doesn't make it any more or less valid. It kinda just makes you a dick. Hate to say it. He also didn't specify when he signed them so that's basically a non-sequitur that served no point.

Ninjaluver posted...

He may have paid off a substantial amount, but he took a long time to do it. Money now is worth more than money later. That's why interest exists. That's the entire concept of a loan. Whoever his lender is, they went without that amount for X period of time when that amount could have been generating profit elsewhere. So of course just returning the original amount years later isn't good enough. You need to compensate for the value and opportunity lost to the lender.

I'm acutely aware of why interest exists, but it should be capped because that very same principle stands regardless of if you owe someone $5 dollars over five years or $50,000 over fifteen. His loan repayments nearly doubling in price is complete horseshit and everyone knows it. No one should be stuck with that in any capacity. That's why loans have to be forgiven, he'll be paying off that loan presumably for the next 2 decades even though, according to you, he did everything he was supposed to.

Cemith posted...

Hm, a cosigner huh? And who do you think is going to cosign a 17 year old's loan?... Oh yeah!

Do you have any evidence that it would? That's not how the burden of proof works, chief. You made the claim that it'd be bad for the economy and then swiftly posted an article that can explicitly contradict your stance. "It'll be bad for the economy because of inflation" =/= "Inflation is not always the result."

Again, and I'm getting pretty tired of repeating myself: It's all fruit of the poisonous tree. He should not have had to take out that loan in the first place, that much you agree with, you said it yourself. He did everything you say people that take out loans should do and got screwed for it. It's clearly not a good system, so making people adhere to it because you had too doesn't make it any more or less valid. It kinda just makes you a dick. Hate to say it. He also didn't specify when he signed them so that's basically a non-sequitur that served no point.

I'm acutely aware of why interest exists, but it should be capped because that very same principle stands regardless of if you owe someone $5 dollars over five years or $50,000 over fifteen. His loan repayments nearly doubling in price is complete horseshit and everyone knows it. No one should be stuck with that in any capacity. That's why loans have to be forgiven, he'll be paying off that loan presumably for the next 2 decades even though, according to you, he did everything he was supposed to.

Actually, it's you who is not understanding the burden of proof. I've proved the rule. I've made a prima facie case. When someone makes a prima facie case, the burden of proof shifts to the othe side to show that this meets an exception to the rule.

Ninjaluver posted...

Actually, it's you who is not understanding the burden of proof. I've proved the rule. I've made a prima facie case. When someone makes a prima facie case, the burden of proof shifts to the othe side to show that this meets an exception to the rule.

Who cares if you made a prima facie case? You lied to your law school in order to go through the program. Why should any argument you make be taken in good faith based on your past history.

loafy013 posted...

Who cares if you made a prima facie case? You lied to your law school in order to go through the program. Why should any argument you make be taken in good faith based on your past history.

That's the hill you want to die on? That no argument I make should be taken seriously because I lied about how many hours I was working during law school so that I could afford to pay back my student loans?

Lol. Good luck with that one. You definitely sound reasonable there.

Ninjaluver posted...

That's the hill you want to die on? That no argument I make should be taken seriously because I lied about how many hours I was working during law school so that I could afford to pay back my student loans?

Lol. Good luck with that one. You definitely sound reasonable there.

You cheated the system because the terms of student loans are ridiculous. You refused to play by the rules, but are now trying to take the high ground saying others need to do what they promised.

Ninjaluver posted...

He may have paid off a substantial amount, but he took a long time to do it.

Not to be that guy but whos to say of the loans he did pay off were the ones with lower interest/higher principal balance vs. paying off the monthly rate? In other words, all he was paying was interest that time or a very small principal amount, or even just paying off one specific loan instead of paying off parts of each loan each month.

When I graduated college during the dot com boom, I had less than 20k in debt and paid it off within 5 years all while living on my own working in it. Of course, I was living below my means to do so, but I tried to knock down the higher interest loans first and as much principal on my smaller ones to knock them out. I am curious as to how he paid all of that and still owes a ton of interest, and also what he has done for work since graduating and why he hasnt looked for other jobs. I moved from retail stores to office work to managerial office work all while I was in college full time without any trouble.

Ninjaluver posted...

Actually, it's you who is not understanding the burden of proof. I've proved the rule. I've made a prima facie case. When someone makes a prima facie case, the burden of proof shifts to the othe side to show that this meets an exception to the rule.

So, you're just going to ignore the other two thirds of my post then? Like you did with LegendaryZells?

Again, and I don't know how else to explain this to you, you didn't prove anything. You said in absolutes: "This will cause inflation." And the source you cited said in big black letters "This is not always the case." Either come up with a better source that proves that loan forgiveness would definitely cause inflation, otherwise your entire argument is moot.

So far the only point you've made is that since you paid yours back, it would be "unfair to you" that someone else's was forgiven. Which, again, as I've said more than a handful of times now:

Cemith posted...

2.) "A Giant Fuck You" isn't a baseline for how business and loans should be conducted. Me eating fast food at 3 dollars is cheaper than eating at Chipotle's for $13 isn't a good argument in favor of fucking over Chipotle's stock. That's purely an opinion and has no basis in fact.

So far it only seems like you're okay with other people being screwed because you were. Which suffice to say, is just plain rude.

Okay, I'm going to bed. If this is still up, I'll reply tomorrow.

samsungsalt posted...

Not to be that guy but whos to say of the loans he did pay off were the ones with lower interest/higher principal balance vs. paying off the monthly rate? In other words, all he was paying was interest that time or a very small principal amount, or even just paying off one specific loan instead of paying off parts of each loan each month.

I think what happens a lot of time is you get the statement and send the check in that amount. Any amount over the company either adds to the lowest interest loan or credits your account by that amount and applies it to the next month. You had to jump through hoops to change where the payment went, often calling during a small window of hours. This was the mid to late 90's, so online payments weren't really a thing.

I recall my loan statements being a nightmare to navigate. Like it would list 6 different loans, show the amount owed on each, but it only applied to that month. In March, it shows 2 loans at $300 each, and 4 loans at $0 In April, it is 2 for $300, 2 for $50, and 2 for $0. Thats because I sent them $800 in February due to having a little extra. Instead of that extra $100 being applied to the principle, they just removed it from the cheapest loan the next month. Those extra $0 loans had been paid off years ago, but continued to be listed on the page adding to the clutter.

Cemith posted...

So, you're just going to ignore the other two thirds of my post then? Like you did with LegendaryZells?

Again, and I don't know how else to explain this to you, you didn't prove anything. You said in absolutes: "This will cause inflation." And the source you cited said in big black letters "This is not always the case." Either come up with a better source that proves that loan forgiveness would definitely cause inflation, otherwise your entire argument is moot.

So far the only point you've made is that since you paid yours back, it would be "unfair to you" that someone else's was forgiven. Which, again, as I've said more than a handful of times now:

Cemith posted...

2.) "A Giant Fuck You" isn't a baseline for how business and loans should be conducted. Me eating fast food at 3 dollars is cheaper than eating at Chipotle's for $13 isn't a good argument in favor of fucking over Chipotle's stock. That's purely an opinion and has no basis in fact.

So far it only seems like you're okay with other people being screwed because you were. Which suffice to say, is just plain rude.

Okay, I'm going to bed. If this is still up, I'll reply tomorrow.

The reason I ignored the rest of your post is the very same reason you gave in your post: I'm getting tired of repeating myself. You didn't provide anything new or worthy of a response. Your post added nothing. I'm having the same argument I've already had over and over in this topic.

Sure, we don't know with 100% certainty that this would cause inflation. We also don't know with 100% certainty that the sun will rise tomorrow. A solar flare or a meteor could happen and wipe out all of life on earth.

However, given history and what we know about probability, it's most likely we will live to see the sun rise tomorrow. We see no evidence that the meteor or solar flate is coming. That's the general rule. Just like it's the general rule from what we've observed that almost all times you hand out money to people or increase the supply of money through printing, it causes inflation. Yes, there could be some crazy circumstance or factor that actually leads to it becoming the unique exception and not causing inflation, but we haven't seen any evidence to believe that it would be the exception. You haven't provided any, and you refuse to. So the default assumption here is that it would cause inflation as it does in the vast majority of cases. I operate in reality.

Your argument here is: "yea if I drop this lit match over the gasoline, it will most likely ignite, but we don't KNOW THAT. A wind gust could take the match away when I drop it!!! Thr amtch could be faulty and burn out before it hits the gas. You can't prove to me that this lit match will actually hit the gasoline!!! Show me the evidence that a wind gust won't happen right now!!!"

Im a federal employee, so Im paying the absolute bare minimum and taking that PSLF forgiveness once I hit 120 payments. The monthly payment is only about $400 for me, and considering how much Ill have forgiven I see no reason to rush to pay it off since I already have a house, car, etc. under my own name. The $20k does nothing for me, but I think about people like my brother who got deep into a degree plan only to realize there are limited prospects for his path a bit too late, who are then saddled with tens of thousands of dollars of debt with aggressive interest rates and scummy companies holding the bill. Im hoping the Supreme Court realizes the Missouri case has no standing and does the right thing. Well see.

tremain07 posted...

It really feels like this topic devolved into "Fuck you I got mine!" vs "Fuck you, gimmie!"

lol I have you tagged as "both sides" which 97% of the time means a right winger trying to equivocate terrible right wing views with more reasonable leftist or centrist views.

Ninjaluver posted...

The reason I ignored the rest of your post is the very same reason you gave in your post: I'm getting tired of repeating myself. You didn't provide anything new or worthy of a response. Your post added nothing. I'm having the same argument I've already had over and over in this topic.

Sure, we don't know with 100% certainty that this would cause inflation. We also don't know with 100% certainty that the sun will rise tomorrow. A solar flare or a meteor could happen and wipe out all of life on earth.

However, given history and what we know about probability, it's most likely we will live to see the sun rise tomorrow. We see no evidence that the meteor or solar flate is coming. That's the general rule. Just like it's the general rule from what we've observed that almost all times you hand out money to people or increase the supply of money through printing, it causes inflation. Yes, there could be some crazy circumstance or factor that actually leads to it becoming the unique exception and not causing inflation, but we haven't seen any evidence to believe that it would be the exception. You haven't provided any, and you refuse to. So the default assumption here is that it would cause inflation as it does in the vast majority of cases. I operate in reality.

Your argument here is: "yea if I drop this lit match over the gasoline, it will most likely ignite, but we don't KNOW THAT. A wind gust could take the match away when I drop it!!! Thr amtch could be faulty and burn out before it hits the gas. You can't prove to me that this lit match will actually hit the gasoline!!! Show me the evidence that a wind gust won't happen right now!!!"

Fair enough. I get why repeating yourself is tiresome.

But, you made an unsubstantiated claim and can not provide proof to validate it that in turn also does not contradict it. If your stance can only be defended through absolutes and hypotheticals, it is not a stance worth interrogating.

You can read here about how, regardless of forgiveness, more opportunities for debt relief would open up the rest of student loan holders to more widespread opportunities in the economy.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/qai/2022/09/07/will-student-loan-forgiveness-help-the-economy-now-or-later/?sh=7828b2891dd3

https://fortune.com/education/articles/how-does-student-loan-debt-forgiveness-impact-borrowers-and-the-economy/

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/08/29/how-student-loan-forgiveness-will-affect-inflation-from-economists.html

I even found this which could substantiate your claim, just cause I'm a nice guy -

https://www.richmondfed.org/research/national_economy/macro_minute/2022/mm_10_11_22

But what some fail to grasp is that inflation is happening regardless, so regular people having more purchasing power to pump back in, again, is only a net good. Seems like most would agree that any inflation from this proposal would be negligible at best.

From the impression I get from your posts, it mostly just sounds like the whole "fuck you I got mine".

Why wait until October? That's the real issue here.

Have_A_Cigar posted...

Why wait until October? That's the real issue here.

Same reason you don't just jam it in. You gotta lube up and give people time first.

Torgo posted...

The thing is, right wingers are groomed in fascist style debate - they will say they agree to making the rich pay back PPP loans now when it doesn't matter and no one in congress is considering legislation related to it.

But really... They don't care except for people like MTG and statutory-Gaetz getting to keep theirs because it pisses off the libz.

Lol.

Everywhere else on the internet, I am mocked for being a "far left extremist", but here on the CE board, I'm now a "right-wing fascist".

Only on GameFAQs.....

Heineken14 posted...

Same reason you don't just jam it in. You gotta lube up and give people time first.

lmfao... well said and I get it now. Thanks for the anal-ogy.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Not wanting to completely forgive student loans is now a "far-right" talking point. What world do you live in?

Now I'm curious. What percentage of the left do you believe actually supports complete and total student loan forgiveness? For reference, the current Biden administration wanted to forgive just $10,000 and even that wasn't very popular among the left.

It's cruelty!

It's far right cruelty to expect people to pay their bills, but hey, I guess the cruelty is the point with conservatives.

They make me sick!

Savoots posted...

It's cruelty!

It's far right cruelty to expect people to pay their bills, but hey, I guess the cruelty is the point with conservatives.

They make me sick!

If conservatives really cared about accountability of paying ones own bills, they wouldn't have accepted their PPP loan forgiveness. Forgiveness that was more than 10 or 20k.

So this isn't the winning angle you thought it was.

Ninjaluver posted...

Not wanting to completely forgive student loans is now a "far-right" talking point. What world do you live in?

Now I'm curious. What percentage of the left do you believe actually supports complete and total student loan forgiveness? For reference, the current Biden administration wanted to forgive just $10,000 and even that wasn't very popular among the left.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/9/1/9/AAFeIUAAEl7P.jpg

this was the vote to repeal the student loan forgiveness

loafy013 posted...

Sounds good, until you realize that money likely got spent on rent and food with the way prices have spiked over the last few years.

Or you get diagnosed with cancer or some other sort of medical issue and all your plans of savings get torn to hell. Or an accident to you or your family. Basically life.