Isn’t that what’s been happening more or less since the Reagan coalition began changing rules?
It’s been “supply side” narratives to justify rules that generally coddle people who live on their money instead of working. We need a demand side economy.
Or we drag banker corpses through the streets until the debt is considered odious and gets forgiven.
That works.
Except that the bankers will hire mercenaries cough sorry, private defense contractors to shoot people that try to accomplish that act after the first few attempts are made, and any bankers lost to attrition in this manner will immediately be replaced by their subordinates (who will probably be privately thankful for the promotion).
The system needs to be dismantled, instead of smashing the individual cogs.
I think the real answer is non violent and to just not comply. The bankers are nice. Rich campaign doners are always good… but the rich eat their own readily.
We all just point and say… that’s got to go, were not going this anymore. And we don’t. And three months later it’s official.
Yes, but people die. It’s a slower process, but student loans aren’t guaranteed against the math of not getting your money back.
That’s okay, they’ve already shown that they’re willing to go after family members when the student debt holders die.
Not necessarily. Federal student loans are guaranteed to be discharged by the death of the borrower. Private loans on the other hand may not have the same protections.
Only if they sign something. Otherwise they have precisely zero recourse. You can’t be made responsible for another person’s debt vicariously.
Again not necessarily true. If your spouse dies and you are in a community property state you can be on the hook to pay off the loan (often immediately in a lump sum no less) even if you didn’t cosign.
Yes, it’s incredibly shitty.
Plus the fact that it might be illegal doesn’t stop unethical debt collectors from threatening family members of the debt holder in the hopes of scaring up payments.
Marriage is different. That’s not the same as being vicariously liable for your kid’s debt. As for threats? Let them threaten. Unless they send someone to beat you up (highly illegal) there’s nothing to worry about. If they persist, you can sue them and win. I’ve had an annoying debt collector try to get money I didn’t owe from me. The threat of a lawsuit scared them off really quick.
I just wrote this letter to the editor for the local paper. Replace it with the equivalent information for your location and publicize it in the local media. It certainly can’t hurt for the people who have a large debt to contact the congressmen about their plight. I think contacting the candidates might be even more effective than contacting the incumbents…
Dear Editor,
If you or a family member is suffering due to large student debt and debt collectors related to that debt, I suggest that you not feel powerless. Contact Senators Dan Coats xxxx://www.coats.senate.gov/contact/ and Joe Donnelly xxxxs://www.donnelly.senate.gov/contact/email-joe and Representative Marlin Stutzman xxxx://stutzman.house.gov/contacts/new with messages describing your situation. If you have specific suggestions, include them too.
Letters talking about your issues and voting plans to five candidates for the Senate and House, Todd Young contact@toddyoung.org, Baron Hill info@baronhillforindiana.com, Tommy A. Schrader [I found no contact info after a diligent search], Pepper Snyder, xxxx://www.pepperforcongress.com/contact_us and Jim Banks xxxx://www.jimbanks.us/contact are also worth the effort.
If you want to go the extra mile, also send a paper letter to any or all of these eight incumbents and candidates through regular mail. Paper letters, although they are extra work, also show a higher level of commitment to wanting a solution.
If you are suffering because of student loans, I strongly encourage you to let the people who can make a difference clearly understand your need for a solution.
Replace xxxx with http. I made the change to make the BBS software happy.
Rolling Jubillee strategy mentioned in John Oliver story . . .
…
[D]ebt-buying for charity was pioneered by Rolling Jubilee, an offshoot of the Occupy Wall Street movement. . . . [I]n September 2014, Rolling Jubilee announced that it had bought another $3.8m worth of student debt belonging to more than 2,700 Everest College students. The debt had cost the activists about $100,000.
“The Rolling Jubilee doesn’t actually solve the problem. The Rolling Jubilee is a tactic and a valuable one because it exposes how debt operates,” Thomas Gokey, one of the organizers, said.
“It punches a hole through the morality of debt, through this idea that you owe X amount of dollars that the 1% says you owe. In reality, that debt is worth significantly less. The 1% is selling it to each other at bargain-based prices. You don’t actually owe that.”
Rolling Jubilee, which hopes to inspire debtors to get together and exert their collective power, has raised more than $700,000 and abolished $31,982,455.76 worth of debt.
…
This topic was automatically closed after 260 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
