So you're saying I doubt stuff, while you proceed serenely forward, untroubled by any pesky facts that contradict your thesis? :-)
-
-
Replying to @Noahpinion
Haha, no, I'm saying that you are very energetically arguing against a point I didn't make while very smugly congratulating yourself while not exactly demonstrating a great command of the subject.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @doubtthat11
But none of that is true. I guess I haven't deleted my tweets and blocked you yet, if that qualifies as "energetic". You've failed to engage with my central point (i.e. that loan processors aren't a major factor in the student debt crisis). And my command of the subject is great.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Noahpinion
It depends on what you mean by that. They aren't driving the problem, that's a massive, broad societal issue that involves states taking on more health care expenses, cutting educational funding... But they are a source of misery for millions and millions of borrowers.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @doubtthat11
No they're not the source of misery. They're merely the implementation of the misery. Less "predatory" processors that allowed people to de-facto default on their loans without harassment would be fine, but there's a reason the govt. doesn't hire or create such processors.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Noahpinion
I sinderely don't follow. They are actively engaging in damaging practices. The Consumer protection board found this. States have filed lawsuits. Obama era protections limited some of the behavior, then Trump admin pulled back and the complaints are up.https://www.consumerreports.org/student-loans/student-loan-servicers-complaints-mount-as-protections-erode/ …
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @doubtthat11
Yes. The point is, hiring (or creating) processors that don't do shitty things to harass people to repay their loans is basically letting people de-facto default. Which is fine, though not nearly as good as formally letting people default. There's a reason neither has been done.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Noahpinion
Yes, I agree. My argument was not to eliminate repayment enforcement, but to rein in the crappy behavior. Like, they do similar shit to, say, Wells Fargo - soaking people with bullshit fees, being deceptive...but I still think there shoud be banks.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @doubtthat11
I agree. They should. They should also forgive part of student debt. BUT. Student loans are 45% of the federal govt.'s financial asset portfolio. So it's understandable that they don't want to do this.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Noahpinion
Right, which, circling back, is why something like eliminating part of it - interest portion, which I was sincerely asking you about in my first post - or more expansive forgiveness programs may be a way to help without trying to go for it all.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.