@no1marauder saidany bankruptcy can face adversary proceedings, not just student loans.
I did address it.
"Undue hardship" is a more rigorous test than "hardship".
Try reading the site I provided you. For one thing, someone who wants to file for relief from student loan debt in bankruptcy has to file for an adversary proceeding, something not required for almost all other debt. For another, they have to satisfy the three pronged test I gave you which other debts don't.
Is that really so hard to understand?
https://www.cacb.uscourts.gov/faq/bankruptcy-case-vs-adversary-proceeding-what-difference
student loan bankruptcy faces the brunner test, same as all other cases. you are s**tweaseling
@no1marauder saidirs is not a VOLUNTARY contract
LMAO! IRS debt gets negotiated or forgiven all the time; I haven't seen you railing against that practice.
Bankruptcy "undoes contracts" for some but not others for millions each year. Your objections are incoherent given long established acceptable practice in other areas.
Advocating unpopular positions either way might cost someone politically. That's called representative democracy.
@no1marauder saidThey voluntarily entered into a contract.
Unless you're objecting to any forgiveness of debt, your position is logically incoherent.
Railing against people who find it difficult or impossible to pay their debts might give you some sense of superiority but there are plenty of government programs that provide for forgiveness of debt. Objecting to a proposal to forgive one type which is presently treated more harshly by law makes little rational sense.
Took a benefit.
Want to keep the benefit.
Don't want to pay for their obligation.
Don't want others who paid their hard earned money to get the same deal.
Your position is completely ridiculous. You should be spokesman for Russia.
@vivify saidYou are the one with no sense here.....
That makes no sense.
If I give out a loan for school, does someone who paid tuition out of pocket have the right to complain if I choose to forgive that debt?
"If I give out a loan for school...". Vivify, you here equate yourself with the government, an institute of all the people, all the tax payers. Your giving out the loan is not the same thing as the government of the people giving out the loan.
Help.
@no1marauder saidA good point, but govt decisions to erase IRS debt are based on certain criteria for each taxpayer. So, I think you are saying that the govt should be able to erase certain student loans on certain criteria, but not all student loans. How in the WORLD could there be a difference from one student to another?
It's like saying the government shouldn't forgive IRS debts for anybody unless they reimburse everybody for taxes paid in prior years. But the IRS negotiates down or outright forgives billions of dollars of tax debt every year. https://www.taxgroupcenter.com/irs-debt-forgiveness-program/
@quackquack saidQQ nails it.
They voluntarily entered into a contract.
Took a benefit.
Want to keep the benefit.
Don't want to pay for their obligation.
Don't want others who paid their hard earned money to get the same deal.
Your position is completely ridiculous. You should be spokesman for Russia.
Common sense, logic, rationale, ....all in one post.
1 edit
@mott-the-hoople saidNo, they don't.
any bankruptcy can face adversary proceedings, not just student loans.
https://www.cacb.uscourts.gov/faq/bankruptcy-case-vs-adversary-proceeding-what-difference
student loan bankruptcy faces the brunner test, same as all other cases. you are s**tweaseling
The Brunner test applies only to student loan debt:
"In assessing whether student loan debt may be discharged as an “undue hardship” under section 523(a)(8), the majority of courts follow the three-part test created by the Second Circuit in Brunner v. N.Y. State Higher Educ. Servs. Corp., 831 F.2d 395 (2d Cir. 1987). The “Brunner Test” provides that student loan debt can be discharged if the debtor establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that:
She cannot maintain, based on current income and expenses, a minimal standard of living for herself and her dependents if forced to repay the loans;
Additional circumstances exist indicating that this state of affairs is likely to persist for a significant portion of the repayment period; and
She has made good faith efforts to repay the loans.
In application, the Brunner Test has largely proven to be a difficult burden for debtors to overcome, with discharge of student loan debt often granted only to debtors who have demonstrated dire circumstances impeding their ability to repay the debt in both the present and for the foreseeable future. Some have termed this a “certainty of hopelessness” standard."
https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/second-circuit-stands-by-brunner-test-5487836/
The statute that Brunner analyzed specifically applies to student debt only:
"(8)unless excepting such debt from discharge under this paragraph would impose an undue hardship on the debtor and the debtor’s dependents, for—
(A)
(i)an educational benefit overpayment or loan made, insured, or guaranteed by a governmental unit, or made under any program funded in whole or in part by a governmental unit or nonprofit institution; or
(ii)an obligation to repay funds received as an educational benefit, scholarship, or stipend; or
(B)any other educational loan that is a qualified education loan, as defined in section 221(d)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, incurred by a debtor who is an individual;"
11 U.S.C. § 523(a) (8) (B)
@no1marauder said"Railing against people who find it difficult to pay their debts....". So, you are saying he is AGAINST those people. No, contrare', he is against the disparity waged on society by govt, which picks and chooses.......he is NOT against the people. He is FOR the people left in the cold. You libs can sure'nuff skew a point.
Unless you're objecting to any forgiveness of debt, your position is logically incoherent.
Railing against people who find it difficult or impossible to pay their debts might give you some sense of superiority but there are plenty of government programs that provide for forgiveness of debt. Objecting to a proposal to forgive one type which is presently treated more harshly by law makes little rational sense.
1 edit
@no1marauder saidYou know, I am not being a smart alec, but I guess many people who are not (poor) could demonstrate some loss of minimal standard of living, and get our already-generous govt to pay all their bills. Gaming the system.
No, they don't.
The Brunner test applies only to student loan debt:
"In assessing whether student loan debt may be discharged as an “undue hardship” under section 523(a)(8), the majority of courts follow the three-part test created by the Second Circuit in Brunner v. N.Y. State Higher Educ. Servs. Corp., 831 F.2d 395 (2d Cir. 1987). The “Brunner Test” provides that ...[text shortened]... ness” standard."
https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/second-circuit-stands-by-brunner-test-5487836/
Libs want utopia, flower petals on the water. Hell, you may get it. Where do I sign up? I have some losses that have caused me despair in my standard of living! You fellers are quite cavalier in having the govt, with my taxes, pay for mistakes of others. I think I will adopt 5 kids and get a lot of money from the government.
Would it be cool to start a thread styled "Government'.?
1 edit
@averagejoe1 saidOf course, he's against "those people". He wants the government to continue to treat them in a manner more harshly then others with debt.
"Railing against people who find it difficult to pay their debts....". So, you are saying he is AGAINST those people. No, contrare', he is against the disparity waged on society by govt, which picks and chooses.......he is NOT against the people. He is FOR the people left in the cold. You libs can sure'nuff skew a point.
His "reasoning" is ridiculous; if government in a bankruptcy proceeding discharges an unsecured debt used for buying a dishwasher, it doesn't reimburse everybody else who brought and paid for a dishwasher. But that's what he is actually proposing as far as student loan debt.
@no1marauder saidNote the fallacy of these posts, that one can ‘pick and choose’ debts to have discharged in bankruptcy. The jester says above, that debts like medical expenses can be discharged in bankruptcy. And maybe a VISA debt or two?
Of course, he's against "those people". He wants the government to continue to treat them in a manner more harshly then others with debt.
His "reasoning" is ridiculous; if government in a bankruptcy proceeding discharges an unsecured debt used for buying a dishwasher, it doesn't reimburse everybody else who brought and paid for a dishwasher. But that's what he is actually proposing as far as student loan debt.
Like magic. Poof. That is wrong of course, and itmakes our readers think life would go on with all of their assets intact. Those posts are absolutely void of truth and fact. Too bad for the forum. A lot of nothing.
@no1marauder saida judge can apply any rules in a bankruptcy case. Nothing is written in stone.
No, they don't.
The Brunner test applies only to student loan debt:
"In assessing whether student loan debt may be discharged as an “undue hardship” under section 523(a)(8), the majority of courts follow the three-part test created by the Second Circuit in Brunner v. N.Y. State Higher Educ. Servs. Corp., 831 F.2d 395 (2d Cir. 1987). The “Brunner Test” provides that ...[text shortened]... ness” standard."
https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/second-circuit-stands-by-brunner-test-5487836/
All cases face some form of means testing, it is not apply and you are approved for any bankruptcy.
@jimm619 saidThis is where the person who seems to know all about BANKRUPTCY!!! does not know anything. he is saying that 'any debt' may be forgiven, but he is saying that you can pick out the one you want to be forgiven???? Jesus. He wrote about this for days, and it is false. Bankruptcy affects a person's total picture.
Your question is preposterous,
yet you ask over, and over, and over.
ANY DEBT may be forgiven.....
through the legal process called, 'BANKRUPTCY,'
EXCEPTING for STUDENT LOANS.
What is so difficult to understand?