A 21-year-old who's refusing to pay back her student loans compares her cause to Rosa Parks' fight

[Padawanbater2]

She pays it back, because that's what she agreed to do.

If somehow this is a negative for society, then burn it down because that society is fucked if an individual must yield what is owed to them because its somehow better for everyone else that they do no receive payment.

How much do you think a person in indefinite debt contributes to the national economy?

 

[spandy]

How much do you think a person in indefinite debt contributes to the national economy?

Next time you go grocery shopping, watch who is keeping the beer and tobacco companies in business.

They be contributing all the time. Just because you owe a bank, doesn't mean you aren't putting coin in others pockets and just ignoring your bank bill. I collet rent on all our units monthly. Some are hard up, others doing fine. We get our rent either way, and then we go spend it and round and round it goes. Heating and Air got 700 off me just the other day. Round and round and round ......

 

[ginwilly]

How much do you think a person in indefinite debt contributes to the national economy?

LOL, hope you have a point here because pretty much all of us are in indefinite debt. If you are not, you're either too young to have purchased your home yet or old enough to have paid it off.

 

[Padawanbater2]

They be contributing all the time.

..Do you think a person who is well off, not worrying about paying their bills contributes more or less to the national economy than a person struggling day to day wondering where their next meal is coming from?

LOL, hope you have a point here because pretty much all of us are in indefinite debt. If you are not, you're either too young to have purchased your home yet or old enough to have paid it off.

How does "all of us are in debt" answer the question that I asked?

How much do you think a person in indefinite debt contributes to the national economy?

 

[ginwilly]

..Do you think a person who is well off, not worrying about paying their bills contributes more or less to the national economy than a person struggling day to day wondering where their next meal is coming from?

How does "all of us are in debt" answer the question that I asked?

How much do you think a person in indefinite debt contributes to the national economy?

Nice talk man, but by the questions you just asked, I can tell two things right off the bat. You have never owned your own property and you don't support yourself. Get back to me when you've lived a little more. You are going to be arguing from a base of how you think it is instead of reality. Could be a fun philosophical discussion with you, but some other time maybe. I'm out for now.

I'll ask you one to chew on a bit. Who contributed more to the economy, Henry Ford or the guy that put the steering wheel on at the end of the line?

 

[Padawanbater2]

Nice talk man, but by the questions you just asked, I can tell two things right off the bat. You have never owned your own property and you don't support yourself. Get back to me when you've lived a little more. You are going to be arguing from a base of how you think it is instead of reality. Could be a fun philosophical discussion with you, but some other time maybe. I'm out for now.

I'll ask you one to chew on a bit. Who contributed more to the economy, Henry Ford or the guy that put the steering wheel on at the end of the line?

You'd be wrong on both accounts

Henry Ford contributed more to the national economy. Does that mean he should be compensated 1,500x's the amount of his average worker? Should he be bailed out by the government if his company fails, regardless of his contributions to the national economy?

 

[UncleBuck]

Nice talk man, but by the questions you just asked, I can tell two things right off the bat. You have never owned your own property and you don't support yourself. Get back to me when you've lived a little more. You are going to be arguing from a base of how you think it is instead of reality. Could be a fun philosophical discussion with you, but some other time maybe. I'm out for now.

I'll ask you one to chew on a bit. Who contributed more to the economy, Henry Ford or the guy that put the steering wheel on at the end of the line?

wow, an entire post of ad homs from a drunken pill popping racist.

 

[Rob Roy]

If the economic benefit to society was greater by not paying back the loan, would you support not paying it back or support paying it back on principle even though it might be worse for society?

Hypothetically speaking

If the economic benefit to society was greater would you approve of enslaving 1/4 of the population so the other 3/4 can play online all day?

An economic benefit argument, should not be argued without considering the unintended consequences that might come with it. Peace.

 

[shishkaboy]

Lets say you went to get some weed on consignment. Right after I pick up the pound, on my way out of the spot, a dude comes up and robs you for the bud. You later find out that this same thing has happened to several others and all of you owe the connect $5000 each. If you really believed that this guy set you up to get robbed, would you still pay back the $5000?.
I have seen this type of hustles way too many times. There is the party variation where everyone pays like $10 to get in the party, then the "police" come and take all the drugs people had on them, but nobody goes to jail.
I am just trying to show how this young lady must be thinking/feeling about the school.
My gf actually went to one of those schools, claimed it was accredited and prepared you for the nationwide certification test. When she finished with $20,000 in loans, she didnt even have all the prerequisites she needed to even take the test.
All I am saying is hear this girl out before passing judgement.
Imo, the scammer should be held responsible, anyone trying to profit from poor people trying to better for themselves is disgusting. I am not saying that she doent have any responsibility in the matter, but its more than obvious who profited.
Has anyone here read the Declaration of Independence, actually read it. It has all the proof that the banking systems are copying the exact same tactics that they declared were unjust. Once the perpetual debt game was figured out, we got the federal reserve.

 

[shishkaboy]

Classic ethical dilemma, deontology vs consequential-ism.
Do we do what the rules say or do we do what is better for the most people?
I would imagine that there are many moral relativist on this site, by most of the responses I read tho.

 

[Rob Roy]

Classic ethical dilemma, deontology vs consequential-ism.
Do we do what the rules say or do we do what is better for the most people?
I would imagine that there are many moral relativist on this site, by most of the responses I read tho.

The way you framed the question can be a bit misleading.

If the rules create an act of aggression against an otherwise peaceful person, ignore the rule. It's systemically flawed.

Also, "what is better for most people" can be misleading as well and is a bit incomplete when viewed by itself. It needs to be put into context. It shouldn't be viewed ONLY in the context of the end result, as the means and method of achieving a given result should be part of the analysis too.

To assume that actions which benefit alot of people are always justified because more people benefit is wrong and fails to consider the totality of a given situation. If more people benefit, yet some people suffer a loss of freedom in order to achieve that benefit, that means should be rejected in favor of a different means.

Peace.

 

[spandy]

Classic ethical dilemma, deontology vs consequential-ism.
Do we do what the rules say or do we do what is better for the most people?
I would imagine that there are many moral relativist on this site, by most of the responses I read tho.

So If I robbed 3/4 of your family and took all their possessions and money and I then distributed all the gains to my entire family, MOST of the people involved would benefit, assuming similar sized families.

Be happy for morals.

 

[WeedFreak78]

My mother just went through this BS. She applied and got accepted to a college, got a Govt. loan..2 months after starting the college closed it's doors, no notice, nothing, she showed up for class and the doors were locked and a sign in the window. She had over $16g's in loans. After almost a yr, she was absolved of all debt, the state found out that this particular college knew it was financially failing, months before my mother applied, along with falsifying documents and signing up homeless for more Govt. subsidies to name a few things, and ruled that she, and many others were defrauded. Many education loans are govt backed and you can only get them by meeting certain criteria, one of which is going to a school that meets certain govt. standards. If the Govt. gives a loan with that stipulation, it should be up to the Govt. to ensure these colleges are meeting their imposed standards. If not, the Govt., as well as the schools promising certain outcomes, aren't holding up their end of the agreement, therefore it should not be the burden of the loan holder who made every attempt to satisfy the contract, rather the parties who willingly did not follow said contract. I see it as a failure of Govt and they are mostly responsible, I know that puts burden on the whole, but the whole allow the govt to be wasteful and inefficient.

I see the point about the loan holder making a separate contract with the financial institution for the loan than the contract with the college, having to personally be responsible for the loan, and going after the college for reimbursement..but this isn't reality and if we took this attitude these colleges would continue to do this, financial destroying tens of thousands, if not more.

 

[shishkaboy]

So If I robbed 3/4 of your family and took all their possessions and money and I then distributed all the gains to my entire family, MOST of the people involved would benefit, assuming similar sized families.

Be happy for morals.

I am not arguing for either side, only pointing out the previous arguments basis'.
Obviously, robbery is wrong. Its against the law. But tell that to Ghandi and he woulnt hear it. The law is definitely not the determining factor on all issues, just look at the cannabis policy.

But we can change the policy, that is the best thing about our society. We learn and grow from our mistakes. Slavery was legal, but the laws changed.

I argue that slavery is still alive tho, it has changed a little and is not just hurting the blacks anymore. We are all working to pay off a house, a car, student loans, credit cards. A very small percentage of people are not in debt.
Most of the wealth is held by a few, no matter our income level, we are still in debt. The funniest thing to me is, we never even really get to see or hold the cash, a few keystrokes and it all could be worth nothing.

A municipal judge and ethics professor gave me an interesting analogy that I will share.
We were talking about when we must choose between 2 bad situations "lesser of 2 evils".
He drew a picture of a ship, traveling up. In its path, was a sea monster and a whirlpool. Since he had to go between the 2 dangers, the line he drew stayed "as far away from both as possible" as he navigated the course.
I personally think that subscribing whole heartedly to any ideology is dangerous, and prefer to objectively think about each situation.

 

[see4]

What's your opinion about the bank bailouts?

Bailouts were necessary. Without bailouts, the world would have experienced an economic depression far greater than that of the Great Depression in the early 20th century. There would have been no macroeconomic recovery from that.

 

[WeedFreak78]

Bailouts were necessary. Without bailouts, the world would have experienced an economic depression far greater than that of the Great Depression in the early 20th century. There would have been no macroeconomic recovery from that.

Should have let it happen. The rich make poor decisions and get all the help they want, the poor make a bad decision and oh well your on your own..this economic system is gamed. I also don't see mad max type anarchy and desolation because of total collapse of our system, even though I realize millions would have suffered in innumerable ways, it needs to happen for people to realize it's all smoke and mirrors.

 

[Rob Roy]

Bailouts were necessary. Without bailouts, the world would have experienced an economic depression far greater than that of the Great Depression in the early 20th century. There would have been no macroeconomic recovery

How does giving money that doesn't belong to you to an entity that has proven, despite the already existing cronyism, that it sucks at being a well managed business send a good message ?

It almost sounds like you are saying that if enough people are affected by something inherently wrong, that it is okay to perpetuate the thing that is inherently wrong.

Sort of like teaching kids at government schools that bullying is wrong, then putting an automatic ransom (backed by a gun) on their parents house to ensure payment.

 

[Rob Roy]

I am not arguing for either side, only pointing out the previous arguments basis'.
Obviously, robbery is wrong. Its against the law. But tell that to Ghandi and he woulnt hear it. The law is definitely not the determining factor on all issues, just look at the cannabis policy.

But we can change the policy, that is the best thing about our society. We learn and grow from our mistakes. Slavery was legal, but the laws changed.

I argue that slavery is still alive tho, it has changed a little and is not just hurting the blacks anymore. We are all working to pay off a house, a car, student loans, credit cards. A very small percentage of people are not in debt.
Most of the wealth is held by a few, no matter our income level, we are still in debt. The funniest thing to me is, we never even really get to see or hold the cash, a few keystrokes and it all could be worth nothing.

A municipal judge and ethics professor gave me an interesting analogy that I will share.
We were talking about when we must choose between 2 bad situations "lesser of 2 evils".
He drew a picture of a ship, traveling up. In its path, was a sea monster and a whirlpool. Since he had to go between the 2 dangers, the line he drew stayed "as far away from both as possible" as he navigated the course.
I personally think that subscribing whole heartedly to any ideology is dangerous, and prefer to objectively think about each situation.

How much of your labor by % can be taxed before some form of slavery exists?

Also, it's interesting that a municipal judge is teaching ethics. Laughable actually. No doubt that pecker head put people in jail for a non crime and slept well that night.

 

[ginwilly]

Bailouts were necessary. Without bailouts, the world would have experienced an economic depression far greater than that of the Great Depression in the early 20th century. There would have been no macroeconomic recovery from that.

They didn't have to happen at 100 cents on the dollar though. Too big to fail got bigger, regulations imposed hurt the smaller banks further entrenching the too big to fail.

It's a revolving door between DC and Wallstreet. This is not party exclusive.

Know what New Zealand did? "you broke it, you fix it". They came out of it with a more secure financial system, we came out of it with more of the same.

 

[shishkaboy]

How much of your labor by % can be taxed before some form of slavery exists?

Also, it's interesting that a municipal judge is teaching ethics. Laughable actually. No doubt that pecker head put people in jail for a non crime and slept well that night.

That is a really good question, I dont know.
But we established a very long time ago that its not good to have a central bank, that determines its own policy.

It was a basic ethics class and he did a great job, Imo.