11-26-2013, 07:40 PM
I had been told that one could not take bankruptcy on student loans. I did search the web and what I found was that it could be taken under the bruner law established in NY. Generally it said that you must have made an honest attempt in the past to repay the loan and given your income and expenses, undue hardship would occur for a long period of time. No 10 year time period was mentioned. One thing seems clear though and that is once bankruptcy has been taken and all other debts have been discharged, one would have a difficult getting any, much less all the student loans discharged if they had any income at all.
Originally Posted by shinyhead
11-26-2013, 08:38 PM
You will have to believe me on this one. My personal situation, several years ago was bleak. Barely making it on the salary I was pulling in. I had to decide to pay rent and buy food or pay student loans. I chose to survive and sacrifice my tax refund since they (student loan agency) wouldn't give me deferrments, I defaulted and quit paying them all together. Had a drunk driver t-bone me and racked up some serious medical bills. My employer sut down operations and I was out of a job. I fully expected the attorney to tell me that I could discharge all my debts except my student loans. Much to my surprise, he said I could discharge all of my debts, including the student loans. I had a minimum wage job when I went to see the attorney and he said no problem. Filed chapter 7, all debts gone. Not proud of it, but I just thought I'd let you know from first hand experience that student loans can be discharged. Unfortunately, many young folks will fall into the same trap that I did. "guaranteed" student loans with low interest rates and payments affordable. don't believe it. they want their money just like a bank. you borrowed this much, and this is your payment. so the information they give the young kid trying to use the student loans to pay for their education is simply not true. It is deception at it's finest.
Originally Posted by caryalsobrook
11-26-2013, 11:02 PM
I believe they would call your case "undue hardship". We actually have the same opinion concerning student loans and you summed it up in your last sentence. "It is deception at it's finest."
Originally Posted by shinyhead
11-27-2013, 12:32 AM
Nope. Read my posts. I said work 3 months at $10 an hour for 3 months and you do not have to pay federal income taxes.
Originally Posted by luvmylabs23139
I also looked at a website that calculates what 18,000 in 1971 is equivalent to in 2013 dollars. It is $104,000. In re reading the posts, I should have done the math for 1976. In 1976, 18,000 was equivalent to $74,000. Someone else compared this to making $10 an hour today. $10 an hour today is equivalent to making $2.44 an hour back in 1976.
Last edited by Henry V; 11-27-2013 at 12:35 AM.
11-27-2013, 12:47 AM
Originally Posted by caryalsobrook
11-27-2013, 06:54 AM
I can't get this thing to copy your post so due to memory I will have to take it in parts. About subsidies, I told you how to look up my history and we could discuss it. You have chosen not to. I have removed all my land from CRP which is considered a subsidy. If you want to know how, ask. I have no crop insurance, nor have I ever collected on it. It is impossible to figure out what if any is a subsidy or how much it is. One just takes the checks and deposits them. I would GLADLY give up the subsidy and ALSO THE STRINGS ATTACHED, but the man who farms my land could not compete with other farmers. He would have to quit farming my land.
Originally Posted by Henry V
3/4ths of those with have student loans greater than $14,000 are either delinquent or in default. WHAT ARE YOU DOING TO GET RID OF STUDENT LOANS????I at least say that farm subsidies are wrong. When are you going to admit that student loans are wrong and are also nothing more than a subsidy??
11-27-2013, 07:00 AM
Pretty amazing to watch the progressives talk out of both sides of their collective mouths!!!!
The economy is improving & BOOMING, unemployment is at a tolerable rate, yet everyone is in dire straits and needs a nipple (Gov't program) to suckle!!!
Which is it?
11-27-2013, 07:45 AM
The term "single payer" is a lie at the worst and propaganda at best. I am sure that in the past I have used the term "single payer" for fear that many would not know what I meant should I use the accurate term "single employer". I have explained these terms to you and you evidently prefer the lie "single payer". I will leave it to others to assume the reasons you do so.
Originally Posted by Henry V
The industrialized countries you speak of with Single Employer systems have experienced a GDP growth rate of about 1% in the last 10 years. Not enough to even maintain the standard of living with normal population growth. Talk about poor outcomes.
You talk about the "cost of healthcare as a % of GDP". Buzz posted a graph showing this very thing, thinking as you that it supported government control of healthcare. He just missed the FACT that the entry of the government into healthcare with Medicare and Medicaid, was the cause. I mean no disrespect challenging him to post the graph again but I do admit it does make me smile.
You talk about cost vs. outcome. I personally have had patients in the past from both W. Germany and England who sought treatment, because they could not get the treatment they wanted in their system, nor could they pay for it. Since those countries did not perform those procedures, THEY NEVER HAD A POOR OUTCOME RELATED TO THOSE PROCEDURES. Does that make sense to you?
Let me give you a more personal example and one that is applicable here. My brother in law, retired from the Army, had a bridge fail. When he went to the VA for treatment, expecting a root canal and another bridge, he was told that "WE DON'T DO THAT HERE". Since he thought he could "get treatment", from the VA, he had not gotten a private dentist since I retired. Needless to say I got a call. "Where do I go. Who will see me? I am in PAIN. HELP!!!! I pulled a favor from a friend and had him call in a script fro an antibiotic and pain medicine, something he would never do normally, not knowing the patient. They drove up and because I asked, he saw him the next day for treatment. HE PAID and was glad to. He received treatment he could not get at the VA, let alone in the countries you mention. Never fear, the VA had ZERO poor outcomes for that particular treatment, BECAUSE THEY DON'T PROVIDE IT!!
11-27-2013, 07:58 AM
When will you understand that salaries +benefits are the employers' cost of labor? They could care less whether it was 100% salary or 100% benefits. Their only goal is to offer a mix that will attract those employees they desire.
I once had a person tell me that "he would quit if he could find a job that paid more". Well whoop-te-doo, I would sell my corn to someone who would pay me more than the market price!
11-27-2013, 10:31 AM
An interesting conversation...I think we all know there is no easy answer(s) on how to get things "on track". It is not as easy as, go work hard, you will be able to make a decent living. Of course, that depends on everyones definition of a decent living. It is not as easy as, locating and then sending illegals back to their home country (with or without their citizen children), since American companies will just go to their home country for lower wage workers and products that seem to increase in costs. I do guess that is part of a free world economy. We are all part of and reliant on the government for services, no one in this country does not utilize or work for government/government services, whether it be police, fire, medicare, etc...What we do know is that corporate and CEO incomes are at record levels, while wages are not even close to keeping pace. Is that the right of the corporation/ceo? Well, of course. I feel the question is, do we develop solutions that are best for corporations or everyone as an individualists or the country as a whole (balance of all of the above). We do know that the best way out of poverty/social development is education. This is especially true as we look to our society as it will be in the future, not as it was in the past. We know that many of our future jobs are not even in existence today, thanks to technology. According to the latest stats, 60% of jobs in 2018 will require a college degree. In 2011, 66% of high school graduates attended college and 59% of those graduated within 6 years. On the surface, seems like we are in the ball park. As we know, many are graduating from college with incredibly high loans that will impact them for years beyond graduation. Obviously, that is one of the costs of getting to college, when you are from a family that is not able to save the $20,000+ it costs. The high costs of 4 year schools is one of leading reasons for the the growth in 2 year community colleges (not a bad thing). We could go to work for a year, go to college for a year, work for a year, etc...and while that is a solution, I don't know that it is a workable solution for the masses. As a community, helping parents understand/learn methods and the importance of saving for college would help. As we all know, people who come from educated families or families with wealth, tend to stay/improve that status, and those who come from poverty/undereducated tend to stay in that status. My experience is that those with the background know how to navigate the systems, financial aide, college investments, connections, etc... and those who have no experience don't know what/how to do. One of the big reasons we have a culture of poverty, or wealth, depending on your background. Is it the government or societies place to help this segment of our society? Maybe only if we want all of our communities to improve. I do feel, that we will not improve as a society, if our biggest employers continue to amass incredible wealth, while those who are the reason for the wealth continue to survive in poverty. I brought up the point of CEO making their massive salaries, and I feel in most cases they should be earning large salaries. However, should they be making 1200 times the salary of their workers? Should our largest employer in the country, with 1.3 million jobs in the US (2.2 worldwide), pay their average worker an average of $8.81 and hour which translates to $15,576 a year, assuming 34 hours per week, 52 weeks a year? For a family of four, the 2010 poverty rate is $20,050. In 2010 the CEO made 18.7 million dollars in compensation. Can they do it? Obviously, they do. Is it right? Is it best for the country as we are trying to put people to work and help people to a "better" way of life? Not picking on Walmart, but since they are in the news and do make for a great example...