Thread: Married Men buried by Wives' Student Debt

Originally Posted by LizardPerson

Those predatory lenders deserve 100% to have to eat those loans, or go after the predatory universities to get it back. Lending somebody $100k they cannot bankruptcy away for a useless degree that will never make decent money is modern day slavery, and anybody participating in it knew what they were doing is wrong.

Not sure I agree on this. These lenders did not force these women to get the loan to begin with. These women knew what they were doing and I would argue that they weren't "preyed" upon at all. It's not fair for the lender to get stiffed nor should it be for them to screen these women as to which degree is "worthless".

I could foresee that if these loan companies did get stiffed, getting a loan would require all sorts of red tape.

Honestly, I don't really care as women shouldn't even be getting an education. They belong at home to make babies.

Originally Posted by sam luis obispo

About a decade ago, the federal government absorbed the student loan program. IIRC the banks signed over that debt to the government.

And we the taxpayer paid for these useless, irresponsible women.

Originally Posted by Bonobo Protocol

And we the taxpayer paid for these useless, irresponsible women.

Don't leave out the useless, irresponsible, cuck-wagon universities that spawned these useless stupid mentally challenged safe space seeking idiots!

Originally Posted by mgtower

Don't leave out the useless, irresponsible, cuck-wagon universities that spawned these useless stupid mentally challenged safe space seeking idiots!

By the late 1970s, the last of the younger baby boomers were finally graduating or dropping out of the universities, and the older baby boomers were starting to take over the faculties.

At one time, the high cost of education limited college entrance to the rich and the smart. The rich could afford it, and the smart earned scholarships.

The military draft, especially in peacetime, was a great way to absorb excess unemployed youth.

But the waning of the collegiate baby boomers in the early 1970s coincided with the end of the military draft and the first of several recessions.
What were the universities going to do with all the excess capacity they built up, first for the returning veterans using their GI Bill benefits in the 1940s and 1950s, and then the baby boomers of the 1960s?

Lay offs? Scale back? Well, they didn't want to lay anyone off, and you can't take a campus building and give it back to the bank, sub lease it out to a private company, or turn it into a condo.

When Gen X is such a small generation, how does academia make baby boomer levels of money off of them?

"Normalize" college education and debt.

Starting in the late 1960s/early 1970s, I was subjected to constant public service advertising campaigns with the following slogan:
"To get a good job, you need a good education."

It became a mantra. It was as accepted as saying water was wet and fire was hot.

Financial aid was expanded to let almost everyone in. Cheeks were needed to be let in to warm those seats. Let no seat go un occupied. Let no college professor be laid off. Let no contractor building more swimming pools, labs, dormitories, class rooms, and library expansion go without work. Hire millions of new administrators.

The best crime is the victimless crime. Nobody ever calls 9-11 and say, "Hello, police? I just called to say I bought some illegal drugs/did some illegal gambling/went to an illegal brothel/went to an unlicensed bar and had a great time."

Then there a crimes where the victim does not know they are a victim.

Both the housing and education bubbles are example. The economy is pumped up with worthless money, the "credit" that is extended, to artificially pump up the market for these goods.

The provider doesn't complain. (housing developers, construction companies, real estate and furniture industries for housing; educators/universities in the case of education)
The banks don't complain.
The consumer doesn't complain.

However, the person whose savings and currency is being debased is getting screwed, but he doesn't complain.

Originally Posted by sam luis obispo

Don't blame the "player," blame "the game."

By the late 1970s, the last of the younger baby boomers were finally graduating or dropping out of the universities, and the older baby boomers were starting to take over the faculties.

At one time, the high cost of education limited college entrance to the rich and the smart. The rich could afford it, and the smart earned scholarships.

The military draft, especially in peacetime, was a great way to absorb excess unemployed youth.

But the waning of the collegiate baby boomers in the early 1970s coincided with the end of the military draft and the first of several recessions.
What were the universities going to do with all the excess capacity they built up, first for the returning veterans using their GI Bill benefits in the 1940s and 1950s, and then the baby boomers of the 1960s?

Lay offs? Scale back? Well, they didn't want to lay anyone off, and you can't take a campus building and give it back to the bank, sub lease it out to a private company, or turn it into a condo.

When Gen X is such a small generation, how does academia make baby boomer levels of money off of them?

"Normalize" college education and debt.

Starting in the late 1960s/early 1970s, I was subjected to constant public service advertising campaigns with the following slogan:
"To get a good job, you need a good education."

It became a mantra. It was as accepted as saying water was wet and fire was hot.

Financial aid was expanded to let almost everyone in. Cheeks were needed to be let in to warm those seats. Let no seat go un occupied. Let no college professor be laid off. Let no contractor building more swimming pools, labs, dormitories, class rooms, and library expansion go without work. Hire millions of new administrators.

The best crime is the victimless crime. Nobody ever calls 9-11 and say, "Hello, police? I just called to say I bought some illegal drugs/did some illegal gambling/went to an illegal brothel/went to an unlicensed bar and had a great time."

Then there a crimes where the victim does not know they are a victim.

Both the housing and education bubbles are example. The economy is pumped up with worthless money, the "credit" that is extended, to artificially pump up the market for these goods.

The provider doesn't complain. (housing developers, construction companies, real estate and furniture industries for housing; educators/universities in the case of education)
The banks don't complain.
The consumer doesn't complain.

However, the person whose savings and currency is being debased is getting screwed, but he doesn't complain.

Government is an entity not subject to market forces, their umbrellas don't rip, fold, or collapse, they only shed the floodwaters of socialism on the free market drowning and killing it by the laws of a dictated market place like Venezuela and others that nationalized everything, thereby creating a system where everything runs up debt, destabilizes the currency via hyperinflation and shrinking the gov umbrellas to only the select few that gained absolute power and plan to keep it.

Debt slavery and hyperinflation is nothing new, and it's our turn to go down that rabbit hole as Covid losses and hardships are to be endured by the selected 2nd class citizen deemed "non essential".

We're already down that road past the point of no return, the riots we saw in all the liberal cities are nothing compared to what's coming.

Here comes the second housing market collapse where more houses will become vacant and homelessness the new pandemic.

Originally Posted by mgtower

Here comes the second housing market collapse where more houses will become vacant and homelessness the new pandemic.

You don't see a glut of housing and commercial real estate going vacant?

Originally Posted by Bonobo Protocol

Not sure I agree on this. These lenders did not force these women to get the loan to begin with. These women knew what they were doing and I would argue that they weren't "preyed" upon at all.

Story time! I dated this one chick for a while. She was not "normal" college age, but she lacked any formal education or lucrative job skills. I told her that I could use my connections to get her a $15/hour job doing some super entry level IT stuff like desktop support or call center work. I forget exactly how this happened, but she found herself in contact with some shady for-profit college recruiters, where she could get some kind of medical documenting degree and was promised she could make $20/hour if she just went $30k in debt (which was a lie, and I knew that, but whatever). I was making waaaaaay more that $20/hour at the time, so you would think I would have more credibility on how to make money than some recruiter she'll never see again, but you can imagine where this goes. Gets the degree, I dump her midway through (greatly upsetting to her since I was supposed to be her safety net for every avoidable mistake she ever made), she never finds a job in her field, drives for Uber now, never paid a dime.

Point being, there are absolutely a bunch of recruiters doing anything they can to sell these degrees to people that obviously will never become anything with these degrees. Some of these recruiters are sociopaths who just don't give AF that they are ruining lives for personal gain. Some of the recruiters are just idiots who are being used by sociopaths who just don't give AF that they are ruining people's lives for personal gain. But absolutely there are dumb impressionable people (such as women) being preyed on by an industry that knows very, very well what the outcomes of selling these degrees will be.

...and that is just one story, I have multiple similar stories from my relationshit history.

Originally Posted by Bonobo Protocol

It's not fair for the lender to get stiffed nor should it be for them to screen these women as to which degree is "worthless".

With all due respect, you are very wrong about that, sir. The present situation is that the hypothetical husband has to pay for it, or else the taxpayer, how is that fair? Lenders have to eat the losses from bad mortgages and repo a house, they have to repo bad car loans and take a loss on the depreciation. Why are college debt lenders so special that they can lend to anybody for any reason and should always get paid by somebody? Lenders in any other situation have to check who they are lending money to (and for what exactly) if they want to make money, as should the college loan industry.

Originally Posted by LizardPerson

Lenders have to eat the losses from bad mortgages and repo a house, they have to repo bad car loans and take a loss on the depreciation.

I missed the closest example of all, the business loan. A lender that lends money to a business without vetting the business itself and the purpose of the loan should pretty much expect to lose that money. Most of these business loans are going to LLCs and similar. "Limited Liability Corporation", but of course, all corporations have exceedingly limited liability. Once again, debt holders can come after the assets when they do not get paid, but that is after the company has already been looted by execs.

Even citizens have limited liability. You can always file bankruptcy. Of course, you won't be able to borrow money or probably even get a good job after that, but it makes the debt go away, assuming you can come up with thousands of dollars to file bankruptcy in the first place. So once again, I ask, what makes college debt so special that it should be treated any differently than any other debt? Or are we suggesting that lenders themselves are special and should be able to approve every single loan application and always be paid by somebody, even if the original debt-taker (predictably) cannot pay?

Originally Posted by sam luis obispo

You don't see a glut of housing and commercial real estate going vacant?

About 20% of the housing in my village is vacant repossessions.
They lend 90% to almost anyone, interest rate 1% for the first year.

My (former) Asian misses ran out on a $50,000 loan, waited out the 5 year bankruptcy period, then bought a new house with a 90% mortgage (another $50k) a month after the 5 years expired using forged wage slips (never had a legit job in her life), and me providing the 10% deposit. She's long gone, I still live in the house and make the repayments, $300/month 'rent' for a 3 bedroom house isn't a bad deal IMHO, no liability on my part, I can just leave any time and leave the bank to cry.

Originally Posted by sam luis obispo

At one time, the high cost of education limited college entrance to the rich and the smart. The rich could afford it, and the smart earned scholarships.
The military draft, especially in peacetime, was a great way to absorb excess unemployed youth..

Things were a bit different here, tuition fees were not introduced until 1998. Back in the old days school kids were streamed into 2 ability groups from the age of 11. The bright kid from a poor background had a chance getting a good university education, today he doesn't stand a chance.

In the old days university education was a place for the best few percent, in 1997 the New Labour government made it a target to send 50% of people to university. Most of which are not suitable and end up doing "soft subjects" with no career and a mountain of debt to show for it. I can't help thinking that this was purely to keep young people off the official unemployment figures.

When I was at school (aged 16 - 18) all the teachers talked about was sending people to university, jobs were almost never mentioned. When I told the teachers I wanted to leave school at 18 and get a job they looked at me baffled, the only help I got was one interview with a careers advisor 6 weeks before I left.

Originally Posted by sam luis obispo

You don't see a glut of housing and commercial real estate going vacant?

Perhaps reframing the question is in order, but anyway, to the point, Americans are in debt up to their eyeballs and so is their government, and now gov is shuttering small business via Covid lockdowns, all the while seeking to further indebt the treasury with more bailouts, in other words they're using economic rope and tackle now to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.

Those of us that were responsible and starved to stay clear of debt will be made to pay for the folly of others when the system and all its minions turns authoritarian, then we throw in the towel, stop caring, stop working, and start starving while being tax raped for all our wealth and personal property. As so many other nations have already turned.

Government is the disease, not the cure.

I can't even count the number of houses, mills, factories, and infrastructure that rotted away or gone up in flames here in the massive American Rustbelt that reaches coast to coast along the northern tear of states, with Detroit being the epicenter. In fact, allot of the wildlife is returning to reclaim the vacant land.

Being debt free as possible means I am not waiting for .gov to send me a check. This is why steering clear of such women is paramount because they will try to guilt you in associating their mistakes as part of your own.

People ask me all the time why I am not married and my response is because I am normal. The normies look back at me like I am abnormal ironically because they think following a narrow pathway is normal. Meanwhile I see my life with endless possibilities because I am not married to a woman. I am not married to a job. And I am not married to a way of living.

The more older I become the more confident I become regarding what I want in life. And my fuse and patience for those that disrespect my choices has become a lot shorter. It may have taken me longer to gain my independence but I think the year 2020 was my turning point. While everyone else was seeing the end of the tunnel what I saw was the light of endless possibilities. Many people see lack of opportunity while I see an abundance of opportunities.

Being with a woman with massive debt accomplishes what? It proves you can't make smart decisions and also proves you are too codependent as a man.

Women are in debt up to their eyeballs. I briefly dated after my last divorce. They are awful with money. Even the ones that you think have money, are leveraged up one paycheck away from disaster. I think the car makers came up with 7 year loans for them. I did have a slightly different response from a friend then Nomad. It was my first red pill moment

I told a friend about the dating scene. He is married, but asked "Why are you dating?" I couldnt come up with an answer. It was my first red pill moment. At the moment I realized I survived women, and I dont have to put up with their entitlement, debt, attitude, demand on my time etc... I guess I was really blue pilled prior to that.