The Student DebtCropper System: Even the Destitute Hounded by Debt Collectors

Kimura

VIP Member
Nov 12, 2012
1,497
92
83
Bassano del Grappa
The Student DebtCropper System: Even the Destitute Hounded by Debt Collectors


As most people who have passing familiarity with student debt in the US know, it’s a millstone that is brutally difficult to remove. But it turns out that even the limited ways out are often not available in practice thanks to the hyper-aggressive conduct of a critical government contractor.

Unlike every other type of obligation save child support and criminal penalties, it can’t be discharged in bankruptcy. The lone type of exception is “undue hardship”: when a borrower is so clearly incapable of ever paying that it’s ridiculous to keep pressing them for the money.

The undue hardship standard is very difficult to meet, so one would think given how stringent it is, and therefore the comparatively small number of cases that are involved, that the student debt collectors would accept this minuscule level of losses and focus their resources on people with means.

But it instead seems that the debt police are unable to contain themselves. A New York Times story discusses bankruptcy court abuses by the organization that is the main contractor to the Department of Education on these cases, the Educational Credit Management Corporation:

A review of hundreds of pages of court documents as well as interviews with consumer advocates, experts and bankruptcy lawyers suggest that Educational Credit’s pursuit of student borrowers has veered more than occasionally into dubious terrain. A law professor and critic of Educational Credit, Rafael Pardo of Emory University, estimates that the agency oversteps in dozens of cases per year.

Others have also been highly critical.

A panel of bankruptcy appeal judges in 2012 denounced what it called Educational Credit’s “waste of judicial resources,” and said that the agency’s collection activities “constituted an abuse of the bankruptcy process and defiance of the court’s authority.”

For a group of bankruptcy appeal judges to make a public statement of this sort is extremely unusual and strong evidence that the critics are on solid ground. The Times starts with a case of Stacy Jorgensen who had $43,000 of student debt as well as large medical bills due to fighting pancreatic cancer. When she filed for bankruptcy, Educational Credit’s position was tantamount to that she had to be a terminal case before any relief was warranted:

“The mere possibility of recurrence is not enough,” a lawyer representing the agency said. “Survival rates for younger patients tend to be higher,” another wrote, citing a study presented in court.

Mind you, Educational Credit’s position was that Jorgenson should not get any sort of break.

This sort of case, where creditors continue to pursue borrowers who’ve discharged their debt in bankruptcy, is sadly familiar to bankruptcy attorneys when the borrower is fighting to keep their home. But what makes this case egregious that the debt had actually been repaid, yet Educational Credit kept trying to defy the court:

The case that caused the bankruptcy judges to accuse the agency of abuse concerned Barbara Hann, who took a particularly drawn-out beating from Educational Credit. In 2004, when Ms. Hann filed for bankruptcy, Educational Credit claimed that she owed over $50,000 in outstanding debt. In a hearing that Educational Credit did not attend, Ms. Hann provided ample evidence that she had, in fact, already repaid her student loans in full.

But when her bankruptcy case ended in 2010, Educational Credit began hounding Ms. Hann anew, and, on behalf of the government, garnished her Social Security — all to repay a loan that she had long since paid off.

When Ms. Hann took the issue to a New Hampshire court, the judge sanctioned Educational Credit, citing the lawyers’ “violation of the Bankruptcy Code’s discharge injunction.”

Educational Credit went on to appeal the sanctions twice, earning a reprimand from Judge Norman H. Stahl of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, who agreed with the bankruptcy judges that the agency “had abused the bankruptcy process.”

Asked for comment, Educational Credit responded that the case was not related to undue hardship and that it was based on “complicated issues of legal procedure.”

The “take no prisoners” approach of Educational Credit is an overreaction to the failure to make much of any debt collection efforts for student loans, resulting in the failure of the largest student loan guarantor in the early 1990s. Congress stepped in and gave student lenders what amounts to senior standing, allowing them eve to garnish Social Security payments. But Educational Credit has also helped to push the envelope:

One of the places where Educational Credit has had the biggest impact has been to shape the meaning of the phrase “undue hardship,” the standard required since the 1970s for relief from student debt. In 2009, for example, the agency persuaded the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit to adopt stricter standards. One argument it made was that if student borrowers seeking bankruptcy could qualify for a repayment plan tied to their incomes they were, by definition, ineligible for relief.

The dissenting judge, Kermit E. Bye, said the decision “improperly limits the inherent discretion afforded to bankruptcy judges when evaluating requests” for relief. He also said the new standards subjected debtors to a higher burden of proof than was actually required by law.

Even if this sort of coverage leads to restrictions on debt collection as a sadistic extreme sport, it will provide relief only to the most distressed student debtors. Sadly, the laws on the books allow for plenty of leeching of student lenders without breaking them on the rack.

The Student DebtCropper System: Even the Destitute Hounded by Debt Collectors | naked capitalism
 
It's become quite the fashion trend to borrow money with no intention of paying it back.
 
Education should be a RIGHT!!!!

The college bubble is bursting and the effects will be far worse than the housing bubble because there is literally nothing that can be sold off. All that malinvestment was backed by nothing.
 
It's become quite the fashion trend to borrow money with no intention of paying it back.

What logic is there to have your citizens increase their debt load when we have an economy that isn't creating the jobs which are a needed to pay back said loans?

A well educated population is the greatest asset that a nation can have, but our leaders and special interests believe otherwise. They seem to think profits are more important.

Total fucking idiocy up and down the line.
 
Last edited:
Education should be a RIGHT!!!!

The college bubble is bursting and the effects will be far worse than the housing bubble because there is literally nothing that can be sold off. All that malinvestment was backed by nothing.

Not really. The government doesn't need to earn profits on student loans at all. It could lend at 0% for financial aid. As the currency issuer it doesn't require the fiat, so the interest paid by students from educators is a tax on education itself.

This is basically national assisted suicide in the end.
 
Obama needs to bail out the students the way he bailed out Fannie, Freddie and the US auto industry
 
Obama needs to bail out the students the way he bailed out Fannie, Freddie and the US auto industry

Students don't need a bailout. The government should not loan out $$$$ for education (I used 0% as an example in my previous post, not as a literal policy policy proposal), but rather providing education. Loaning fiat makes no sense when it can just be funded directly. If we don't go this route, then the government will have to cap increases at some point, but direct funding is a preferable method.
 
It's become quite the fashion trend to borrow money with no intention of paying it back.

What logic is there to have your citizens increase their debt load when we have an economy that isn't creating the jobs which are a needed to pay back said loans?

A well educated population is the greatest asset that a nation can have, but our leaders and special interests believe otherwise. They seem to think profits are more important.

Total fucking idiocy up and down the line.

I agree 100%.
An educated public is essential...however...this does not mean everyone should go to college.
That is the problem. Government Pell grants and subsidized loans for kids who did not even graduate high school and barely passed a GED is just plain stupid.
It is not uncommon for state ran community colleges to have a fail rate above 90%!! What a magnificent waste of taxpayer dollars. And many of them getting room and board paid by taxpayers as well.
What is the chance of collecting student debt from someone who spent two years partying and occasionally going to class - failing - and now works for $9 an hour??
 
Education should be a RIGHT!!!!

The college bubble is bursting and the effects will be far worse than the housing bubble because there is literally nothing that can be sold off. All that malinvestment was backed by nothing.

Not really. The government doesn't need to earn profits on student loans at all. It could lend at 0% for financial aid. As the currency issuer it doesn't require the fiat, so the interest paid by students from educators is a tax on education itself.

This is basically national assisted suicide in the end.

My point was that people take on loans for something that has less and less of a pay back while the loans are getting bigger and bigger due to higher tuition rates. The bubble bursting will be on people not able to pay debts or hardly able to keep up while working jobs that are not even in the field they got their education for.


Basically, if they never went to college these 26 year old children would have earned far more money thus giving them more upward mobility. Instead they opted to sink years of their time (time investment) as well as money they borrowed or came from their parents (savings) on something with little to no return.


The the crash will be an expansion of people in prolonged poverty. The Government might not take much of a hit on the loans but the reduced taxes collected due to low paying jobs and welfare dependency of these college educated kids will more than make up for Governments ability to print money backed by nothing.

In all it will have done as predicted. Government gave money to students through a loan, made it easily obtainable and that malinvestment will come back and hurt the populous as a whole 10 fold. Parents supporting their 30 year old broke child, an that 30 year old baby 10 years behind where they would have been if they had never gone to college. Less taxes collected will be the harm to Government.
 
It's become quite the fashion trend to borrow money with no intention of paying it back.

What logic is there to have your citizens increase their debt load when we have an economy that isn't creating the jobs which are a needed to pay back said loans?

A well educated population is the greatest asset that a nation can have, but our leaders and special interests believe otherwise. They seem to think profits are more important.

Total fucking idiocy up and down the line.

I agree 100%.
An educated public is essential...however...this does not mean everyone should go to college.
That is the problem. Government Pell grants and subsidized loans for kids who did not even graduate high school and barely passed a GED is just plain stupid.
It is not uncommon for state ran community colleges to have a fail rate above 90%!! What a magnificent waste of taxpayer dollars. And many of them getting room and board paid by taxpayers as well.
What is the chance of collecting student debt from someone who spent two years partying and occasionally going to class - failing - and now works for $9 an hour??

I also don't think EVERYONE needs to attend college, and our educational problems can be discussed in a separate thread altogether. :)

However, it's not an accurate assessment to say that ALL students are partying, failing out of class, and taking their educations for granted. These are blanket generalities.

The current student loan problem is having societal and economic consequences. People are delaying marriage, starting families, purchasing homes, etc. due to these exorbitant loans. They're an economic drag.
 
It depends what kind of loan it is.
A federal loan can be repaid using an income based repayment plan.
A private loan is subject to the institution that it was borrowed from.
 
What logic is there to have your citizens increase their debt load when we have an economy that isn't creating the jobs which are a needed to pay back said loans?

A well educated population is the greatest asset that a nation can have, but our leaders and special interests believe otherwise. They seem to think profits are more important.

Total fucking idiocy up and down the line.

I agree 100%.
An educated public is essential...however...this does not mean everyone should go to college.
That is the problem. Government Pell grants and subsidized loans for kids who did not even graduate high school and barely passed a GED is just plain stupid.
It is not uncommon for state ran community colleges to have a fail rate above 90%!! What a magnificent waste of taxpayer dollars. And many of them getting room and board paid by taxpayers as well.
What is the chance of collecting student debt from someone who spent two years partying and occasionally going to class - failing - and now works for $9 an hour??

I also don't think EVERYONE needs to attend college, and our educational problems can be discussed in a separate thread altogether. :)

However, it's not an accurate assessment to say that ALL students are partying, failing out of class, and taking their educations for granted. These are blanket generalities.

The current student loan problem is having societal and economic consequences. People are delaying marriage, starting families, purchasing homes, etc. due to these exorbitant loans. They're an economic drag.

I agree. That was mostly what I was getting at about the 30 year old child. I they just started working at 18-20 and moved up slowly they would have made 50-100k in 10 years and possibly have a job in the 50-80k a year by the time they are 30. A house, maybe some family, married, not living at home. Instead the malinvestment of that loan costed the Government trillions in lost tax revenues over that 10 years as well as hurting parents that had to support these children and the kids themselves.
 
It depends what kind of loan it is.
A federal loan can be repaid using an income based repayment plan.
A private loan is subject to the institution that it was borrowed from.

Correct, the privet loan is required to have some sort of plan, the federal loan is about buying votes through getting people money they have no plan to pay back. The economic consequences of malinvestment that is in the trillions brought on by federal loans will be a bubble that will burst slowly and for 10-20 years.
 
My point was that people take on loans for something that has less and less of a pay back while the loans are getting bigger and bigger due to higher tuition rates. The bubble bursting will be on people not able to pay debts or hardly able to keep up while working jobs that are not even in the field they got their education for.

Why should they have to take out loans to begin with? The government doesn't need to make a profit by loaning out its own fiat which is can freely issue. The current student loan system is laying an UNFAIR TAX upon our children who would like to pursue higher education which is in the country's long term interest. It should be made a easy as possible for them financially.

Then it can become a tax reform issue perhaps... which should be easier now politically because the banks have blown themselves out here and dont "have a dog in the hunt" anymore...

No, they don't, but some Congressman still think banks are a better risk than our own children.

Basically, if they never went to college these 26 year old children would have earned far more money thus giving them more upward mobility. Instead they opted to sink years of their time (time investment) as well as money they borrowed or came from their parents (savings) on something with little to no return.

Not necessarily without any type of vocational skills of some sort. I don't think everyone needs to attend college, but we have to compete with the EU, Japan, South Korea, China, etc.

The the crash will be an expansion of people in prolonged poverty. The Government might not take much of a hit on the loans but the reduced taxes collected due to low paying jobs and welfare dependency of these college educated kids will more than make up for Governments ability to print money backed by nothing.

In all it will have done as predicted. Government gave money to students through a loan, made it easily obtainable and that malinvestment will come back and hurt the populous as a whole 10 fold. Parents supporting their 30 year old broke child, an that 30 year old baby 10 years behind where they would have been if they had never gone to college. Less taxes collected will be the harm to Government.

Less taxes collected by the government doesn't harm the government. The government doesn't recycle money like a recycling plant, that's not how monetary operations function under the current fiat arrangement.

I do agree the societal consequences are enormous.

By the way, this whole idea that "malinvestment" is to blame for tuition prices or distorting market transactions is pure Austrian tautology.
 
It depends what kind of loan it is.
A federal loan can be repaid using an income based repayment plan.
A private loan is subject to the institution that it was borrowed from.

Correct, the privet loan is required to have some sort of plan, the federal loan is about buying votes through getting people money they have no plan to pay back. The economic consequences of malinvestment that is in the trillions brought on by federal loans will be a bubble that will burst slowly and for 10-20 years.

I paid back all my fed loans.
I was fortunate enough to go when a University cost 20 bucks a credit hour. I worked through college and took out low dollar amounts.
 

Forum List

Back
Top