60 Minutes busted swapping Harris interview answers

[gil]

I think most people support bankruptcy laws in cases where someone had exactly ZERO other options.

Unfortunately, that's not what happens in a majority of cases. It's mostly used as a crutch by people to hand their debts off to the rest of us to pay.

You know, the Asian population went through many of the same struggles, racism and oppression that Blacks did in the 40's and 50's, yet file hardly any bankruptcies, comparitively speaking. Gil, can you tell me why that's the case?

Honestly, that is my impression. In my searches today, I ran across the term "strategic bankruptcy."

I also wonder what the costs are to the court system (supported by taxpayers) for bankruptcy cases.

[Walla Walla Dawg II]

I don't believe that student loans can be cancelled with bankruptcy.

I also don't think that student loans have an overly high interest rate.

So PAY OFF YOUR STUDENT LOANS.

[bpj]

Pretty simple isn't it? Bankruptcies don't put the debt burden of the people filing onto the backs of the rest of the population as national debt, it screws over private companies and people that loaned money to other people who probably couldn't afford it to begin with.

Even bankruptcies don't allow the borrowers to wipe out student debt because nobody forced these losers to pursue their useless liberal arts degrees.

Yes, that is a difference (public cost to forgiving student loans versus private cost to bankruptcy settlements). But the private cost of bankruptcy settlements (i.e., individuals or businesses not paying their debt) still comes back in the economy. If a business has bed debts, either the owners/shareholders take a hit, or they raise prices (meaning their customers take a hit). As an individual, do I care if my taxes go up or prices of the things I buy go up? Either way, I'm out money through no fault of my own.

I'm not going to act like Visa and Mastercard having to absorb some losses behind their usury is killing their business or our economy. Their business model is no doubt built around a percentage of losses. Their investors know what they've signed up for.

Big difference between trying to saddle the taxpayers with shouldering student debt that these people went out of their way to sign up for.

[gil]

Pretty simple isn't it? Bankruptcies don't put the debt burden of the people filing onto the backs of the rest of the population as national debt, it screws over private companies and people that loaned money to other people who probably couldn't afford it to begin with.

Even bankruptcies don't allow the borrowers to wipe out student debt because nobody forced these losers to pursue their useless liberal arts degrees.

Yes, that is a difference (public cost to forgiving student loans versus private cost to bankruptcy settlements). But the private cost of bankruptcy settlements (i.e., individuals or businesses not paying their debt) still comes back in the economy. If a business has bed debts, either the owners/shareholders take a hit, or they raise prices (meaning their customers take a hit). As an individual, do I care if my taxes go up or prices of the things I buy go up? Either way, I'm out money through no fault of my own.

I'm not going to act like Visa and Mastercard having to absorb some losses behind their usury is killing their business or our economy. Their business model is no doubt built around a percentage of losses. Their investors know what they've signed up for.

Big difference between trying to saddle the taxpayers with shouldering student debt that these people went out of their way to sign up for.

I think we accept a lot of things as just "the cost of doing business". Visa, MC, etc charge higher fees to merchants based on higher costs. Merchants charge higher prices based on higher costs. It's just like brick and mortar retailers planning for a certain amount of "shrinkage" (shoplifting and other theft). They plan for it, it doesn't kill their business, they just pass on the costs ... to us. These are not victimless crimes and they drag on the economy for the benefit of the perpetrator. Bankruptcy only benefits the individual or entity declaring bankruptcy and "restructuring" debts. It's selfish.

[Walla Walla Dawg II]

Pretty simple isn't it? Bankruptcies don't put the debt burden of the people filing onto the backs of the rest of the population as national debt, it screws over private companies and people that loaned money to other people who probably couldn't afford it to begin with.

Even bankruptcies don't allow the borrowers to wipe out student debt because nobody forced these losers to pursue their useless liberal arts degrees.

Yes, that is a difference (public cost to forgiving student loans versus private cost to bankruptcy settlements). But the private cost of bankruptcy settlements (i.e., individuals or businesses not paying their debt) still comes back in the economy. If a business has bed debts, either the owners/shareholders take a hit, or they raise prices (meaning their customers take a hit). As an individual, do I care if my taxes go up or prices of the things I buy go up? Either way, I'm out money through no fault of my own.

I'm not going to act like Visa and Mastercard having to absorb some losses behind their usury is killing their business or our economy. Their business model is no doubt built around a percentage of losses. Their investors know what they've signed up for.

Big difference between trying to saddle the taxpayers with shouldering student debt that these people went out of their way to sign up for.

DING DING DING!!!

We have a winner.

[bpj]

It's not the tax payers problem these people got loans for school to get jobs that don't earn enough to pay their bills and loans.

Not anyone else's fault they couldn't understand that racking up all those student loans for a degree that doesn't pay for itself is a bad idea.

And nobody's defending bankruptcy no matter how hard you try to deflect the conversation.

[Walla Walla Dawg II]

That about covers it.

[gil]

It's not the tax payers problem these people got loans for school to get jobs that don't earn enough to pay their bills and loans.

Not anyone else's fault they couldn't understand that racking up all those student loans for a degree that doesn't pay for itself is a bad idea.

And nobody's defending bankruptcy no matter how hard you try to deflect the conversation.

You could pretty much say the same thing about people (or companies) filing for bankruptcy, couldn't you? "Not anyone else's fault that they could understand that racking up all those costs and overestimating revenues is a bad idea."

So we are agreed that the arguments against forgiving student loans are the same arguments against allowing debt cancellation through bankruptcy? I'm fine with that.

[bpj]

It's not the tax payers problem these people got loans for school to get jobs that don't earn enough to pay their bills and loans.

Not anyone else's fault they couldn't understand that racking up all those student loans for a degree that doesn't pay for itself is a bad idea.

And nobody's defending bankruptcy no matter how hard you try to deflect the conversation.

You could pretty much say the same thing about people (or companies) filing for bankruptcy, couldn't you? "Not anyone else's fault that they could understand that racking up all those costs and overestimating revenues is a bad idea."

So we are agreed that the arguments against forgiving student loans are the same arguments against allowing debt cancellation through bankruptcy? I'm fine with that.

I think everyone can agree that you shouldn't take loans you can't pay back.

You can believe whatever else beyond that you'd like to.

[gil]

It's not the tax payers problem these people got loans for school to get jobs that don't earn enough to pay their bills and loans.

Not anyone else's fault they couldn't understand that racking up all those student loans for a degree that doesn't pay for itself is a bad idea.

And nobody's defending bankruptcy no matter how hard you try to deflect the conversation.

You could pretty much say the same thing about people (or companies) filing for bankruptcy, couldn't you? "Not anyone else's fault that they could understand that racking up all those costs and overestimating revenues is a bad idea."

So we are agreed that the arguments against forgiving student loans are the same arguments against allowing debt cancellation through bankruptcy? I'm fine with that.

I think everyone can agree that you shouldn't take loans you can't pay back.

You can believe whatever else beyond that you'd like to.

I don't think we are disagreeing, bpj.

When it comes to businesses, as much as I consider myself a solid free-market capitalist, I see some truth in the old adage that goes something like this: "Big business are free-market capitalists when it comes to revenues, but socialists when it comes to costs." In other words, rake in the profits when they are high, and look to government for help when you can't cover your costs. And filing for bankruptcy is part of that "socialist" tendency.