All education at all levels must be free.

If you want to get into UCLA maybe your grades have to be better than if you want to get into Chico State, for instance, so you have to qualify but there should not be a single penny of cost for higher education, in fact, some countries PAY THEIR STUDENTS TO GO TO SCHOOL

GEEZ, I WONDER WHY

Which is awful, don't get me wrong. But that's the risk you take with co-signing anything. If they haven't co-signed, then how can it be possible that they are responsible for debts incurred by their adult children?

But I guess the idea is that parents should be able to get loans for their kids by assuming responsibility for payments if their kids default.

Then they should be able to say, "I was tricked! I'm too stupid to read what I wrote! Please don't assume I'm responsible."

What's said is the cynical attempt to make exceptional, heart-wrenching instances--"Parents lost their child, now they're also on the hook for $30k in debt"--into a sort of general case. Then it's okay to overlook the vast majority of cases in which the kids are irresponsible (upbringing?) or don't have jobs (bad major? no acceptable job? or just bad economy?) to say the parents are allowed to be irresponsible.

When I was establishing a credit rating a friend co-signed for a loan. Turns out he was in no real position to help out--his hours were cut a few weeks later. Every month, a couple of days before my payment was due, he made sure I'd paid. He wasn't about to let his own shaky credit rating go belly-up because I screwed up.

responsible for their debts. No one expects to lose their child, but it certainly happens, and at least you'd be able to pay off the loans.

you could get a huge amount of term life insurance for a very reasonable cost. Seems like it would be worth the investment if you are on the hook for their debts (of any kind).

Term life insurance is generally inexpensive, especially for young people. It's something that should always be considered if you're going to co-sign. Stuff happens.

All parties are liable for the entire amount of a loan. They knowingly agreed to this and are now complaining.

Perhaps you can take a moment to pause in shitting all over this grieving family to tell us why you think they must be stupid or must think that the laws don't apply to them?

I think it's entirely possible that they simply didn't anticipate that their child would die suddenly and unexpectedly. Does that mean that they're stupid, or that they think laws don't apply to them?

I think it's also entirely possible that they didn't realize that these predatory and usurious loans would be as inescapable, or that the lender would show so little flexibility in structuring a repayment. That may mean that they failed to understand the particulars of the loan, but it doesn't make them stupid nor does it mean that they think that laws don't apply to them.

It is entirely possible as well that they don't think that the law should apply to anyone, that no one should be permanently saddled with crippling and inescapable debt.

I know that it's easier and more enjoyable to piss down on people while perched on your high horse, but it might be worthwhile to consider that your kneejerk, blame-the-victim summation isn't the only possible interpretation of the facts.



We can always rely on DU's proud progressive membership to take the opportunity to stomp on someone who's grieving or suffering or generally being fucked by the system.

I'm also bothered by the acrimony heaped on grieving parents. Your comments are a perfect response to it.

Don't pretend like I have to hold back on discussing the underlying issue on a message board. It is not as if I am having this discussion in the mortuary.

This NOT a difficult concept to understand. If I sign my name to a loan, I am responsible for it. PERIOD. END OF SENTENCE. I agree it is a shitty circumstance they are in, but you are ignorant if you think someone will give you money and tell you to not worry about paying it back.

Instead, I'm pointing out that you're shitting all over a grieving and suffering family. You happily allow the almighty dollar to overrule compassion or sympathy. You are welcome to hold these views, but I don't find them especially progressive.

While I'm at it, another alternative to your bullshit false dichotomy is that the parents understood that they would be on the hook for the predatory and usurious loan if their child defaulted, but they incorrectly believed that the loan would be discharged upon death. You've demonstrated that empathy doesn't come easily for you, so I don't expect you to understand this possibility, but there it is.

Yet another alternative is that the parents misunderstood the nature of the loan. That misunderstanding doesn't excuse the debt, but it shows that their error may have another cause besides stupidity or a belief that the law doesn't apply to them.


If you default on a credit card, a mortgage, a car loan and a cellphone contract, you can declare bankruptcy and cure the debt, in much the same way that multi-billion dollar companies escape debt every day of the week. I see no reason why student loans should be treated differently.

It's interesting that you argue so passionately to protect the lenders.

Lenders set the loan rates based on risk and if they have to factor in the risk of the borrower declaring bankruptcy, they will charge a higher rate. I don't have a good feel for what the increase would be, but in any case, the net result would be fewer students able to afford college.

Last edited Wed Jun 8, 2016, 07:54 AM - Edit history (1)

Since there is currently no real risk of default, interest rates should be zero or close to zero. All student loan debt accruing interest at greater than zero percent (or even pegged to the inflation rate) should be dischargable via bankrupcty. The loan principal would still have to be repaid, but people could escape the crushing and destructive weight of multiply compounded interest and the aggressive fee structure.

They can't afford it now, either. I don't see how a lifetime of student loan debtis better than a lifetime without student loan debt. If the past decade has told us anything, it's that a degree is no guarantee of employability. If, on average, a degree gets you nothing other than six-figure debt, you're better off without it.

But this, too, is a matter of blaming the victim. If universities and lenders didn't work together to up the ante year after year--at many times the rate of inflation--we wouldn't be facing this national catastrophe. Let the schools and lenders suffer the risk that they've so cheerfully outsourced to the borrowers.

At the very least, the lenders should be required to provide detailed and comprehensible amortization schedules for student loans, so that the borrowers have a chance to understand how one semester can turn in to $75K in inescapable debt.

Zero risk of default? The borrower can simply not pay and default on the loan. If he does so, his credit rating goes into the toilet and he's shut out of any credit - it's a crappy life, but it happens. The fact that the borrower hasn't declared bankruptcy isn't much consolation to the bank - the loan remains unpaid and the bank is still out the money. That is certainly a risk and the banks consider it when they set the rates.

As for a zero interest rate, that is ridiculous on its face. Banks are in business to make money, just like any other business.

I agree with you about piling up six figure debt to get a degree with no marketable skills. Students and parents need to look carefully at the financial realities of a college education. An engineering or accounting degree is more likely to land a decent job than liberal arts. If you really want to study art history, a community college would make more sense than a six figure loan for an Ivy League School. College is in general too expensive, but as Judge Smails said, "The world needs ditch diggers too".

Amortization schedules are not difficult to work out and I agree the bank should provide one if asked (maybe even whether asked or not). As for the consequences of not paying back the loan, I think the onus should be on the borrower to review the terms of the loan and understand what they are getting into. Same logic applies for the potential consequences of co-signing.

Assuming that the borrower has any income at all, his wages will be garnished until he comes out of default, regardless of the hardship that this inflicts, and then the repayment will continue until the debt is cured. Unless the borrower is lucky enough to die or become permanently and totally disabled, the lender will get its money. The lender faces no risk except delayed repayment, and the penalties and interest on the loan will greatly exceed any losses to which the lender is exposed in the meantime.

Well, yeah. But there's no justification for interest rates that exceed the rate of inflation, since the risk of default, again, is very close to zero. And there should be a lifetime cap on penalties, not to exceed--say--15 percent of the borrowed principal. Inescapable debt is not a blank check for the lenders to fuck their victims for decades at a time, but that's how it's been used and continues to be used.

Since we are facing a nationwide catastrophe of student loan debt, I'd say that something needs to change on the supply side, rather than scolding the millions of victims. The language of the loan agreement should be in plain English easily accessible to the average reader; I can think of no reason why the terms can't be entirely laid out in 200 words or less. We're not talking about an intricate, nuanced debt instrument spanning national borders with fifty-nine cosignors; it's an straightforward agreement between two or three parties at most.

You're not actually proposing any solutions, by the way. You're articulating various methods by which we can continue to shit on the grieving family and everyone else who's been fucked over by student loans. There is no shortage of people eager to say "what you should have done is this," which is simply a frenzy of victim-blaming. What we need are people who are able to say "here is what you can do now."

Seriously? You channel the worst caricature of entitled Republican assholery for your mantra? Smails can stuff his ugly hat up his ass.

Lenders will look at a base rate (one that reflects zero or negligible risk) and assign a premium to that. 10 Year Treasuries are frequently used for that. On top of that the bank adds a premium that reflects credit and other risks. The bottom line in assigning the credit risk premium is whether the loan gets repaid, when it gets repaid and what the bank has to go through to get repaid. The banks know that a significant number of loans will wind up in default and of those, many will go unpaid for years because the borrower has no wages to garnish or simply vanishes. If you don't make the loan payments when and as due, you're in default and given the large numbers of people in that position, saying there is no default risk is ludicrous. There really is credit risk associated with student loans and just saying there isn't doesn't make it so.

I did propose a solution. That solution is looking at the cost of a college education and the employment prospects associated with the degree you'll get. If no one is hiring in the field you want to select, does it make sense to borrow $100,000 plus to get a degree? Parents and student need to evaluate that before they borrow the $100K. Spending a fortune on a degree for which there is no demand in the job market is stupid. In other words, the solution is to do some research and try to make a reasoned, intelligent decisions about the college you select, the degree you pursue and how much debt you take on. If more parent and students did this, the demand for high priced college degrees would diminish and those high priced schools would have to lower tuition to remain competitive.

Laugh once in a while. I thought Caddyshack was a scream. I guess you didn't.

A solution would ameliorate the financial catastrophe now crippling a significant portion of the middle and lower classes. What you claim is a solution is in fact little more than a smug, scolding proposal for people who haven't yet been fucked over by the system, but it's no solution at all for the millions who already have been. The people who are suffering in financial disaster now should be a higher priority than people who are not.

Also, it's absolute bullshit to require students to predict the whims of the global job market ten years in advance, which is exactly what you're blaming them for failing to do.

I've heard plenty of this before from the I've-got-mine-Jack crowd, and it's been crap in 100% of the cases.

Regardless of the film, your unrestrained joy at the ongoing capitalist fuck-over of millions of victims is neither amusing nor progressive.

Nice discussing this, but I don't think we'll get anywhere by going further.

I don't know the family and will most likely never meet them.

As to why the loan cannot be discharged in bankruptcy, that is an interesting concept. Conceptually, I believe the reasoning is that, in exchange for student loans, you receive an asset that has value (the knowledge in your head that should give you employment for your working career) and is NOT worthless. Typically, in a bankruptcy case, you have to list your assets. How do you value the education you received that will be (hopefully) paying dividends for decades to come?

That said, that is a different issue. I am saying someone is an idiot if they don't realize consigning a loan makes you liable for the note. The topic of the thread is "Thanks GOP. Parent's Of Deceased Children Inherit Their Student Loan Debt.". Of course you will be responsible for paying off a note that you consigned, if the other party cannot pay (no matter the reason).

As I said below, any cosigner could mitigate this by spending $5 a month on a term life policy of the student.

I see what you're getting at there, though I still find it problematic. Since education doesn't guarantee employability (or even provide much of an advantage outside of high-level professional fields), the argument is unpersuasive, even if education in itself is "NOT worthless." The fact that I get to keep "the knowledge in your head" shouldn't render the loan impervious to bankruptcy. I mean, if I ran up $40,000 on my Visa because I used my cards to pay for my appendectomy with complications, I could still discharge the credit card debt through bankruptcy, even though the incision has healed and I continue to recieve a benefit that is not worthless.

If these people wanted to be treated fairly they should have been corporations!

This is bad enough, and an awful thing to have to go through. But it doesn't apply to all student loan debt.

ALL college loans should be made by the government with only enough interest to pay for operating costs.

Because our congress and political reps are mostly people with money who have no sense of community, only the Republican I've got mine to hell with you ideology. We need some representatives in our government who have experienced poverty/low income. Some one who KNOWS how the system works against the common man.
With the Supremes screw up of OKing money in politics decent people cannot get ahead

anytime in the next twenty years, the return of debtors' prison is a lead pipe lock, Good way to take a few million more undesirables out of circulation and put more billions in the pockets of the prison-industrial complex.

a bank like they had it doing, the student HAS to have a cosigner. Otherwise they probably couldn't get a loan because most of them are not employed full time, or not old enough, and don't have a credit rating to be able to do it themselves. Therefore, the parents are put on the hook if they want their child to get an education.

Honestly, I am surprised banks don't offer it, as it would be another source of revenue for them.

Or actually require it like mortgage insurance.

I've heard enough stories about life insurance (especially related to mortgage insurance) where they try to weasel out of paying. I guess it's better than nothing at all, but I wouldn't count on life insurance 100% to pay in the case of death. If they can find a way to not pay, they will find it. There was a recent case on the news in Canada where this guy died, and the insurance company refused to pay up, because he was on a medication off-label, and it was a heart medication, but he was on it for some other reason so he didn't list it as heart medication. This guy died of a heart attack. Even though the insurance company had every single medical record (including why he was on the meds) they denied the claim because he didn't let them know he had a heart condition (even though he didn't know and couldn't have known).

Also, the law as it is, if your adult child gets in a head on collision and dies, the insurance company can say it *might* have been suicide so they don't have to pay. EVEN IF someone ELSE is found responsible in a court of law, it doesn't matter. Insurance companies can still deny those claims on LESS than 'reasonable suspicion'.

Honestly, there is no way to win here.

If they co-signed a car loan and they died they'd be on the hook for that too. These debts are done through a bank, they are not the government Stafford loans.

The best advice is don't co-sign a loan. Or if you are co-signing also get life insurance.

IF a parent co-signed.

This information was provided earlier up-thread and was removed. I don't see any reason for it to have been done, but if this info is accurate it is worth consideration.

the parents co-signed themselves for the loan. If they did not co-sign, if the loan was only in the student's name, then they are not legally responsible and cannot be held as such. That does not mean that banks will not try to "guilt" the grieving parents into paying, as they've been known to do (because most people don't know that they are not legally responsible if they didn't co-sign) because they basically don't give a shit and only care about their money, but people don't have to go along with it and can tell the banks where to shove it.

The fact that student loans cannot be discharged in bankruptcy is one of the most odious things to come out of that odious, POS bankruptcy "reform" bill.