Should student loan debt be easier to discharge in bankruptcy?

I think bankruptcy should include college loans. College loans are so hard to finance because companies and colleges take advantage of students. The job market is bad and people are starving to death. This is not fair.

You should be allowed to declare bankruptcy on college loans

Well, this turned into nothing. My basic argument was going to be that because bankruptcy is a risk that the company will not get their investment back, removing that risk reduces the overall risk. Lower risk equates to lower rates. Lower rates equate to more people being able to afford. When colleges can choose between more people, they can choose better people, and thus have better success and better help the future economy. Though, since my opponent never presented an argument to work from, I am not putting any effort into this. Voters can decide if I should get a win, or just keep this tied. Either way.

I will allow my opponent to start first, and I will let them know that I will focus my arguments on how excluding the loans from bankruptcy allows reduced risk and so reduced rates for students.

Personal bankruptcy was designed to relieve a person of unsecured debt. Credit cards are unsecured debt because there is no collateral used to secure the loan.Most people are brought up to believe that not paying back a loan is "stealing". That's not the case with credit cards for 2 reasons:1. The money you "borrow" from a credit card is not real money from a bank. The money gets created by the bank out of thin air, so anything you "pay back" is 100% profit for the bank.http://zeitgeistmovie.com...2. The crazy interest rates of 20% or higher are really stealing from the public. If a person puts their money in the bank they get 1% interest, but if they borrow in a credit card they pay 20%. The ONLY "negative" or consequence of declaring bankruptcy is that it will be on your record. This is not as bad as it sounds. 1. Because after 7 years, nobody will care and 7 years is not a long time.2. During those 7 years, you will probably not need credit.3. Even if you did need credit during those 7 years it wouldn't be impossible to get it. If you build up your credit score, you will get many offers for credit cards. It's possible to get up to $50,000 or more in credit cards. just by paying the minimum balanceIf you are a college student, your student loans can not be forgiven with bankruptcy. However, you can pay back your student loans with credit cards. The same is true if you owe the IRS. You can't get rid of what you owe to the IRS with bankruptcy. but you can pay the IRS off with credit cards.If you have $50,000 is student loans or $50,000 you owe to the IRS, it would be very simple to just pay them off with credit cards and declare bankruptcy. Starting life with a zero balance rather than -$50,000 is much better. If no bankruptcy, in 20 years you would have the money paid back and be at zero or with bankruptcy, you could save money and be at +$50,000 or more due to interest. That's worth it!If you don't have college debt or IRS debt, it would still be worth spending the $50,000. You can buy new car, fly around the world, get new clothes and electronic devices.If you declare bankruptcy, they can't take any of that away from you. The car should last you 7 years so you wouldn't need a car loan again. Instead of spending 20 years to pay the $50,000 back, you can start at zero with $50,000 worth of things and SAVE money instead of paying back credit cards. Not only is it worth it, You'd be crazy NOT to do it! You get $50,000 for free and in return you get a mark on your record that nobody will care about after 7 years.No brainier!

Personal Bankruptcy is worth doing

Personal bankruptcy was designed to relieve a person of unsecured debt. Credit cards are unsecured debt because there is no collateral used to secure the loan.Most people are brought up to believe that not paying back a loan is "stealing". That's not the case with credit cards for 2 reasons:1. The money you "borrow" from a credit card is not real money from a bank. The money gets created by the bank out of thin air, so anything you "pay back" is 100% profit for the bank.http://zeitgeistmovie.com...#2. The crazy interest rates of 20% or higher are really stealing from the public. If a person puts their money in the bank they get 1% interest, but if they borrow in a credit card they pay 20%. The ONLY "negative" or consequence of declaring bankruptcy is that it will be on your record. This is not as bad as it sounds. 1. Because after 7 years, nobody will care and 7 years is not a long time.2. During those 7 years, you will probably not need credit.3. Even if you did need credit during those 7 years it wouldn't be impossible to get it. If you build up your credit score, you will get many offers for credit cards. It's possible to get up to $50,000 or more in credit cards. just by paying the minimum balanceIf you are a college student, your student loans can not be forgiven with bankruptcy. However, you can pay back your student loans with credit cards. The same is true if you owe the IRS. You can't get rid of what you owe to the IRS with bankruptcy. but you can pay the IRS off with credit cards.If you have $50,000 is student loans or $50,000 you owe to the IRS, it would be very simple to just pay them off with credit cards and declare bankruptcy. Starting life with a zero balance rather than -$50,000 is much better. If no bankruptcy, in 20 years you would have the money paid back and be at zero or with bankruptcy, you could save money and be at +$50,000 or more due to interest. That's worth it!If you don't have college debt or IRS debt, it would still be worth spending the $50,000. You can buy new car, fly around the world, get new clothes and electronic devices.If you declare bankruptcy, they can't take any of that away from you. The car should last you 7 years so you wouldn't need a car loan again. Instead of spending 20 years to pay the $50,000 back, you can start at zero with $50,000 worth of things and SAVE money instead of paying back credit cards. Not only is it worth it, You'd be crazy NOT to do it! You get $50,000 for free and in return you get a mark on your record that nobody will care about after 7 years.No brainier!

Personal Bankruptcy is worth doing

Looks as though this may be me talking to myself for another four rounds. I will be arguing as per the expanded topic in round one that bankruptcy is not bad. Bankruptcy is good as it allows for the forgiveness of debts to those that have got themselves into unsustainable financial positions. Without this recourse, they and their families would become financial slaves to their creditors for the rest of their lives without any means of escape. Although it may seem unfair for their creditors, they too have this avenue open to them so are given the exact same advantage. In addition debtor control is a primary business function that should be managed effectively to limit the financial impacts of the bankruptcy of debtors to businesses.

Personal Bankruptcy is Anti-Libertarian

This round intentionally left blank, so as to give fair and equitable character space to both my opponent and I. I would request that judges not penalize my opponent for forfeiting that last round. Cheers

Federal Student Loans Should Be Abolished.

It wouldn't be necessary for them to do this if the world economy didn't discriminate against poorer, relatively under-developed countries in the way that it does. We should drop third world loans and instead offer non-repayable support, meanwhile working to make the global economic system fairer for everyone.

Dropping the debts may encourage the debtors to purposely take out loans that they cannot repay

Hello, this will be a debate on whether or not federal student loans should be abolished. As pro, I will affirm that the federal student loan system is more harmful than beneficial to society, and that there are better alternatives to the current system. Con will be defending the status quo. I would like a debater who has had at least 3 debates completed. The debate will be 4 rounds, with an 8,000 character limit. First round may be for acceptance only or for con's first arguments, depending on what con wishes to do. I hope for a great debate!

The idea that this is only an illusionary loss of money for the creditor is wrong. When they hold others debts they have an asset that will be recovered in the future and they are also gaining from the interest on those loans. In practice forgiveness then is transferring debt from the peripheral countries balance sheet to the core countries who then may themselves take a knock from the markets as a result of having much higher debt to GDP.

Debt forgiveness is more practical than bailouts

To clarify, I will be arguing that the government's "forgiveness" of consumer debt through bankruptcy is wrong. Arguments will be focused on Ch. 7 bankruptcies. The First Round will be for acceptance only and any additional definitions. Libertarianism - A political philosophy that believes people should be allowed to do and say what they want, so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of another person, without interference from the government. Ch. 7 Bankruptcy - The legal process by which all obligations to pay all general unsecured debt is discharged (wiped away). Secured debt is rarely discharged in any bankruptcy. Debt - Any obligation to pay another person/company. Debt can be contractual or court ordered (child support, lawsuits, etc...). General unsecured debt - All debt that is not secured by any collateral property. Such debt includes, but is not limited to, credit cards, medical bills, and payday loans. Secured debt - Any debt that is secured by some form of collateral property. Such debt includes, but is not limited to, home mortgages and car loans.

Personal Bankruptcy is Anti-Libertarian

Too bad, I was looking forward to this debate. My opponent concedes that in spite of all his arguments, student loan debt is still extremely necessary.

Student Loan Debt

Personal Bankruptcy is one of the worst choices a person can make. To be fair and honest, I"ll say there are benefits, much in the same way doing heroin feels great"for a while"then things start to go downhill. Benefits: You will be protected from the majority of a wide array of debt collectors. You will, on a chapter 13 plan, be able to pay back mortgage, etc., etc., at a chosen rate. Consequences: Bankruptcy will destroy your reputation. By law, bankruptcy is on the public record. People all around you will find out about it. Many of these people will not be kind, including people in your circle of friends, or even your family. You can bet it will be truly stressful. First off, your credit will be absolutely destroyed for some time. Credit companies will make life hell. Banks and the like won"t give out mortgages, car loans, etc., so good luck buying things. It will become more difficult to get a good job, being that many employers nowadays check credit information before hiring. Future landlords will decline you, because they will check your credit. Your insurance may very well take a leap into the heavens, and, if you discharged medical debts, your health is at risk, because hospitals and the like won"t want to treat you. If you discharge a mortgage or a car loan, you may lost them to the bank. Aside from those reasons above, you must calculate how you will feel, as a person, who cheated the system, which is what you are doing. You are a failure and a liar in some respects. Unfortunately, many folks are forced into bankruptcy, but to choose to declare bankruptcy to worm your way out of paying off debt"that is not okay. That is how the U.S. got itself into its current state.

Personal Bankruptcy is worth doing

Daniel Gross. "In Defense of Detroit". Newsweek. 13 Nov. 2008 - "is a Chapter 11 filing the best way to reach these goals [of reforming of the autos]? Answering yes presumes that the case would be resolved quickly, that the entities would be able to obtain ample debtor-in-possession financing, that parties with legitimate legal claims on the company's assets and cash flows would give them up willingly. But many of the questions surrounding the Big Three's future can't be resolved in law firm conference rooms or in the chambers of bankruptcy court, and won't center around legal questions."

Bankruptcy is not best way to turnaround autos

I accept.

Bailouts rely upon the countries that are providing the bail out to come up with the money with which to bail out the nation that is in need of credit. This will impact upon their national budgets and they may even need to raise taxes as a result. With debt forgiveness there is no need for new money to be provided as debt is simply being cancelled. The debtor would no longer need to repay the money. Neither they nor the creditors will need to find new money. The creditor is losing money but for the most part this is illusionary as they can’t really have been sure that they were going to get the money back when the country is in need of bailouts; Greece's debt is rising from 175% of GDP in 2012 to 183% in 2013 despite bailouts, can creditors keep expecting to get all their money back as debt keeps rising?[1] In this case because of the close links between European states the creditors will benefit as much as the debtors; the debtors would once more be able to buy creditors goods and services so benefiting all parties economies. [1] Panaritis, Elena, ‘Debt Forgiveness In Inevitable and Will Save the Euro’, Huffington Post, 6 December 2012

Okay, I think you are misinformed. Chapter 13 is not only for businesses, rather, Chapter 11 is only for businesses. Chapter 7: "A bankruptcy proceeding in which a company stops all operations and goes completely out of business. A trustee is appointed to liquidate (sell) the company's assets, and the money is used to pay off debt." Chapter 13: "U.S. bankruptcy proceeding in which the debtor undertakes a reorganization of his or her finances under the supervision and approval of the courts. As part of the reorganization, the debtor must submit and follow through with a plan to repay outstanding creditors within three to five years." Chapter 11: "a form of bankruptcy that involves a reorganization of a debtor's business affairs and assets. It is generally filed by corporations which require time to restructure their debts." http://www.investopedia.com... http://www.investopedia.com... http://www.investopedia.com... http://credit.about.com... As for your bizarre notion: "It's legal and it's free money the bank created just for you. It stimulates the economy and gets new money circulated into the system, and doesn't hurt the banks." It is not "free money". You took money and exchanged it for goods and/or services. Do you honestly think that money just appears? It wasn"t "created" any more than the digital number on your bank machine shows how much money you have in your account. Money isn"t kept in bank vaults anymore, you"re right. It"s a digital notation, but when you click withdraw $60, you still get real money. I"d appreciate it if you didn"t insult my intelligence. "With chapter 7 you can keep your home and your car." No, under C. 7, your assets are liquidated to repay a debt. That is the definition. However, under C. 7, in personal bankruptcy, you are allowed to keep certain things called "Exempt Property". This law is more lenient in some states. There is always a chance you could lose both your car and your house, depending on their value"and your state. The bottom line is this: By declaring bankruptcy, you are damaging your chances at success. You are contributing to the debt; to the current state of American economics in a deeply negative way. Even if you emerge scott-free, which is very rare, you are screwing someone over to do it. There is no free lunch, as I like to say. Its capitalism, you work for what you have. You are not given it. Bankruptcy will ruin you and your reputation, I"ve seen it before. It"s not worth it.

Personal Bankruptcy is worth doing

Debt forgiveness does not preclude stipulations that the debtor nation must restructure their economy so that they regain competitiveness. Creditors can simply refuse to lend to the debtor in the future if they are not clearly cleaning up their act. We should also remember that such moral hazard does not just apply to the borrower but to the lender as well. If lenders know that they will always get their money back as a result of a bailout then what reason do they have to make prudent lending decisions?

Moral hazard

Debt forgiveness is more practical than bailouts

debt forgiveness rather than bailouts in the Euro crisis

Student loans are a problem is society. They leave people in debt and it is almost impossible to afford college without loans and not be struggling to pay it off. Student loan rates have only been increasing and putting more people into debt. Take this fact for example from ProCon.org: "Student loan debt often forces college graduates to live with their parents and delay marriage, financial independence, and other adult milestones. According to a 2012 Federal Reserve Study, 30-year-olds who have never taken out a student loan are now more likely to own homes than those who have taken out loans. Auto loans are also trending down at faster rates for those with student debt history than for those without. [35] In 2013, student loan borrowers delayed retirement saving (41%), car purchases (40%), home purchases (29%), and marriage (15%). [38] Less than 50% of women and 30% of men had passed the "transition to adulthood" milestones by age 30 (finishing school, moving out of their parents' homes, being financially independent, marrying, and having children); in 1960, 77% of women and 65% of men had completed these milestones by age 30. [39" Student loans hold people back. And free college is possible. It is very likely in the near future we can have free college. "The Atlantic.com published an article in Jan 2014 that claimed the federal government would only have to spend "a mere $62.6 billion dollars" to make tuition at public colleges free for undergraduates in 2012." Sources used: http://college-education.procon.org... http://www.collegerank.net...

Free college education

Shareholders’ interests are poorly protected if at all in Chapter 11-style bankruptcies. Usually, such a process will substantially reduce or even wipe out altogether the shareholders’ interest in the company (in which case they typically pass to the creditors). This is a court-backed removal of their property rights. It is not fair that the interests of the creditors or other parties should be put ahead of the interests of the shareholders in this way, especially because the shareholders like the creditors perform an important role in providing the risk capital which is necessary for businesses to function and grow.

Reorganisation can help to protect the interests of employees and other stakeholders. Forcing a com...

Golly - have another three rounds to go of this... My previous arguments remain unchallenged...

Personal Bankruptcy is Anti-Libertarian

Well, I guess that's that. Extend all arguments.

As above....

Personal Bankruptcy is Anti-Libertarian

Debt of law school limits opportunities

Law school

Bankruptcy law should protect those who cannot protect themselves. Opponents of Chapter 11-style provisions often argue that they do not provide sufficient protection to creditors, who provide important risk capital to businesses. However, this ignores the reality that creditors are often well able to protect their own interests and so do not need much if any additional protection through the bankruptcy regime. They are often sophisticated financial institutions or trade creditors, who have deep pockets and an ability to diversify their portfolio of loans easily and so reduce or hedge their risk. By contrast, other stakeholders are less sophisticated and cannot control their risk as easily through diversification. For example, a company winding up may harm an employee who earns £10,000 annually much more than a bank which has lent the business £100,000.

Bankruptcy law should protect those who cannot protect themselves. Opponents of Chapter 11-style pr...

University fees are usually quite high. When fees are put in place in countries, many people find it extremely difficult to find the funds to pay for it, leading many people to seek school loans. In the United States, obtaining loans for university is the norm. These loans can put pressure on students to perform well.[1] But can lead to students dropping out. Debt encourages individuals to take jobs for which they are not necessarily best suited in order to get started on debt repayment immediately after leaving higher education. Furthermore, repayment of loans can take many years, leaving individuals with debt worries for much of their working lives.[2] With free university education everyone can go to college without crushing debt burden allowing them to study what they wish.  [1] Kane, Thomas. 1999. The Price of Admission: Rethinking How Americans Pay for College. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. [2] Hill, Christine. 2007. “Still Paying Off that Student Loan”. National Public Radio. Available: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6915549

The burden of fees and loans are too great to expect young people to shoulder

Both debtor and creditor are to blame for debt

In conclusion, vote for me as my arguments stand unopposed. and just to ensure that I have at least one reference...... (1) (1).. https://nicetomeetyouimmike.files.wordpress.com...

Personal Bankruptcy is Anti-Libertarian

Chapter 11 provisions encourage risk taking by entrepreneurs, ensuring that the penalties for failure are not so terrible as to deter people from ever wanting to start up their own business. Outside America (e.g. in Europe) the legal consequences of business failure and bankruptcy are often so bad (e.g. liquidation rather than reorganisation is the norm, barring those involved from being company directors, taking all their personal assets including their home, making it hard to ever borrow money again for any purpose) that many men and women who have bright ideas are afraid to pursue them. Not coincidentally, the USA has a much more dynamic economy than other developed countries without Chapter 11-style provisions, creating many more new businesses and therefore more jobs.

Chapter 11 provisions encourage risk taking by entrepreneurs, ensuring that the penalties for failur...

Creditors deserve protection in bankruptcy. It is untrue that creditors are necessarily better able to protect themselves than other parties. Many of them may not be sophisticated, because for example they are small trade partners (e.g. unpaid suppliers, or customers who have prepaid for goods which never arrive) with little choice to be creditors, or family or friends lending money, or else because sophistication would be unduly expensive in terms of research and monitoring costs. In addition, they may not easily be able to control their risks through diversifying their portfolio. Even if they can, the law should not discriminate against creditors just because they protect themselves better than other parties.

University should be free for all. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, for the 2007-2008 year, the average student loan debt of graduating college seniors was about $23,000. This means that when a person graduates from college, instead of working to make money for their future, they are working to make money to pay back their past. True, an education allows for a better future, but so many students are stuck paying back loans for years after their graduation that they can’t do things that, such as travel, that students in other countries, where education is free can do. It is unfair that if one does not come from a wealthy family, they are stuck paying back loans for x number of years. While their friends who had their education paid have the opportunity to go doing things such as traveling, those who owe money are forced to find a job right away that they may not necessarily love, because they have to pay back their loans.

No debt

I regret that my opponent was unavailable last round. Unfortunately, this is my last round, so I will not be able to respond to any of his arguments against my second round. Therefore, I would like to refer anyone reading this debate to my second round for detailed arguments. I doubt you want to read all that again. Finally, I will briefly reiterate my points. America is in a recession. This recession is being caused by issues with finance management, which leads to home foreclosures and reduced consumer spending. I have presented logical arguments saying that a personal finance class would help people apply sound fiscal principles to their own lives and that it will not interfere with current curriculums. I have also shown that similar approaches have had positive effects in the past, most notably in relieving the worst of The Great Depression. This class will not only be beneficial on a national scale, but will also improve the individual lives of those who might otherwise have experienced detrimental financial difficulties. It is a necessary and effective measure, and I thus encourage a Pro vote. Thank you to Higgins for taking me up on this; not many people want to talk about finance when the debate over, say, personal freedoms in wartime is so much more emotional and exciting. Thank you to anyone who reads this debate. I appreciate feedback of any sort. And with that, farewell (for now).

One Personal Finance Credit Should Be Required In High School

Cameron Strachter wrote in the Wall Street Journal: "Rather than keeping options open, the crushing debt of law school often slams doors shut, pushing law students to find the highest-paying job they can and forever deferring dreams of anything else."[2]

Debt of law school limits opportunities

I accept.....

Personal Bankruptcy is Anti-Libertarian

If the dropping of the debts was announced then the countries would immediately take out new loans that they couldn’t repay, knowing that the debt would be dropped. They may also start defaulting on loan repayments until the debts were dropped.

Debt forgiveness spreads the burden of debt

While powerful countries that support the IMF and the World Bank are certainly much wealthier than the world’s poorest countries, the amount of debt that we are talking about is still extremely large. Even though lenders try to spread their risk, natural disasters often affect more than one country (e.g. Caribbean hurricanes, the Asian tsunami) and so debt-relief could be demanded for a number of states simultaneously, making it unaffordable. Regional lenders (e.g. the African Development Bank) rightly specialise in a particular part of the world where they can bring expertise to bear; they could be wiped out if many of their loans were cancelled after a regional disaster. In addition, existing debt-relief schemes have been negotiated over very long period. This means countries, banks and multilateral institutions have had years to prepare their balance sheets for the losses write-offs involve. Sudden debt-relief following a natural disaster would be much more destabilising.

Sovereign and commercial creditors can afford to cancel this debt. The sums involved may be huge to...

Chapter 11 bankruptcy may not deter car consumers

Bailout of US automakers

It's obvious that by opponent has never declared bankruptcy and doesn't know what he/she is talking about.I am speaking from experience.Chapter 13 is for business. The debate is about PERSONAL bankruptcy (chapter 7) "Bankruptcy will destroy your reputation. By law, bankruptcy is on the public record. People all around you will find out about it. Many of these people will not be kind, including people in your circle of friends, or even your family. You can bet it will be truly stressful."OK I'll admit my credit score went rock bottom after the first year after bankruptcy, but I didn't need any credit, so I didn't care. No stress at all. Friends and family didn't even know.,,,and so what if they did. It didn't hurt them. "First off, your credit will be absolutely destroyed for some time. Credit companies will make life hell. Banks and the like won"t give out mortgages, car loans, etc., so good luck buying things."I already had a new car (for free) so I didn't need a car loan. I put down $100 on a "pre-paid" credit card and kept that in good standing, which pretty much repaired my credit score in less than a year.In only 2 years after my bankruptcy, I got a Fannie May mortgage and got a house with only $10,000 down.After 7 years my bankruptcy was too old for anyone to care about and I refinanced my house from 8%to 3.5%. That's better than some people without a bankruptcy. "It will become more difficult to get a good job, being that many employers nowadays check credit information before hiring." If you have a career and and a good work reputation, you'll get plenty of work. Companies care more about whether you can do the job or not. "Future landlords will decline you, because they will check your credit."Who needs a landlord when you can own your own home!?"Your insurance may very well take a leap into the heavens, and, if you discharged medical debts, your health is at risk, because hospitals and the like won"t want to treat you."LOL...my insurance was just fine and every emergency room, by law, can't turn you away from treatment."If you discharge a mortgage or a car loan, you may lost them to the bank."With chapter 7 you can keep your home and your car."Aside from those reasons above, you must calculate how you will feel, as a person, who cheated the system, which is what you are doing. You are a failure and a liar in some respects."I didn't cheat anybody. I "borrowed" money that didn't even exist. The bank made the money out of thin air and lent it to me. I'm not the bad guy. Getting $50,000 for free is far from a failure.Summary: I spent $50,000 on trips, a new car, clothes, restaurants and electronic equipment. I had the time of my life and the worst thing that happened was that I had to use a pre-paid credit card for a year. I kept everything and got a mortgage 2 years later. It didn't hurt my job, my insurance or my friendships. I would do it again in a heartbeat and so should everybody else. It's legal and it's free money the bank created just for you. It stimulates the economy and gets new money circulated into the system, and doesn't hurt the banks.

Personal Bankruptcy is worth doing

yes, the provision of loans should be finished because these loans are a major reason for countries to stay underdeveloped. the countries should be encouraged to help themselves to rise and get a place in the world market that will help them become truly independent. Once a country gets into debts they are hardly ever able to pay them back that creates a lot of problems to the people living in that country as they are the one who have to give taxes. then not all the politicians are good enough to utilize the money for the betterment of the country but they put the money into their pockets and demand for more funds. so i say that yes, the provision of loans to the LEDCs should be abolished.

provision of loans to LEDCs should be finished

The Pro has forfeited two rounds in order. He has not responded with a counter argument, so I will declare myself victor.

Lowered 2yr. tuition helps in successful completion and maintains the 4yr. college debt.

I will separate my arguments into 5 sections so as to make them more structured. Federal Student Loans Have Caused an Education Bubble Over the past few decades, tuition has skyrocketed inside the United States. Between 1978 and 2012, the tuition in the US has increased 1210%, or 12-fold. (1) This is also 4 times faster than the increase in the consumer price index. This is obviously a huge problem, so the first steps we must take to come up with a solution is to look for the cause or causes. Veronique de Rugy, a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, stated that "The basic problem is simple: Give everyone $100 to pay for higher education and colleges will raise their prices by $100, negating the value of the aid. And inflation-adjusted aid--most of it federal--has certainly gone up, ballooning from $4,602 per undergraduate in 1990-91 to $12,455 in 2010-11. As it did in the housing market, free or reduced priced has artificially inflated the price of college education. Thus begins a classic upward price spiral caused by government intervention: Subsidies raise prices, leading to higher subsidies, which raise prices even more. Yet this higher education bubble, like the housing bubble, will eventually pop. Meanwhile, large numbers of students will graduate with more debt than they would have in an unsubsidized market. "(1) Patrick Hedger, a policy analyst from FreedomWorks, found that “Students are taking out cheap loans as liberally as colleges spend their tuition. With money readily available at low rates to anyone who asks, students never think twice and colleges have no incentive to keep prices low. The end result is tens of thousands of dollars worth of each student’s tuition being spent by universities on superfluous things designed simply to draw more and more students and their government-backed blank checks. "(2) Federal Student Loans Have Cause a Rise in Tuition As a result of the Education Bubble, tuition has been artificially inflated through government intervention. Chris Edwards, from the Cato Institute, explains that “It is a matter of supply and demand. More and more Americans have sought a college education which has pushed prices higher. Ordinarily, such upward pressure would be restrained by consumer willingness to pay, but as government subsidies have helped absorb tuition increase, the public’s budget constraint has been lifted. ”(3) Peter Wood, a professor at Boston University noted that federal subsidies “are seen by colleges and universities as money that is there for the taking … tuition is set high enough to capture those funds and whatever else we think can be extracted from parents. (4) Federal Student Loans have Harmed Students Not only do student loans cause a rise in tuition, they also harm students various ways. A. Cause Unemployment In 2012, about 1.5 million, or 56%, of bachelor’s degree-holders under the age of 25 last year were jobless or underemployed, the highest since in of least 11 years. (5) How could this have happened? Patrick Hedger explains "“Federal student loans, which are soon to be the only education loans available, severely up start the market and are directly responsible for the surge of under-and unemployed youths with bachelor’s degrees. ” B. Students are Negatively Impacted by Debt The American Association of State Colleges and Universities found that “Students often see higher education as the primary path to upward mobility, but when they accumulate excessive debt, this pathway quickly becomes riddled with pitfalls. Students graduate with debt may put off life milestones such as buying a car, owning a home, getting married, or entering certain low paying professions like teaching or social work. ” (6) Also from the AASCU, “Particularly worrisome is that the number of college graduates with $40,000 in student loan debt has increase 10-fold in the past decade. Those numbers pose long-term threats to recent college graduates lifelong decisions, but the financial future of borrowers who do not earn a degree is even bleaker. ” C. Student Loans Harms Students' Credit Score Student loans also put many students at risk of ruining their credit score if they fail to pay off the extremely high debt on time. “Because your student loans are little to be your first significant loan into the world of credit, it’s imperative that you handle these loans wisely. ” “Missing even one payment can trash your Credit Score. And a bad Credit Score can lead to higher costs for loans, higher insurance premiums, and trouble when attempting to get a job or an apartment. ”(7) Defaulting on a student loan goes on your credit report and can seriously hinder your ability to get a loan later in your life. Student Loan defaulters are restricted in their access to bankruptcy protection. The IRS can seize defaulters’ income tax refunds, and students who default on an education are prohibited from participating in the student loan program thereafter. (8) Sadly, many students end up defaulting on their loans, ruining their credit scores. Last year one in 10 recent borrowers defaulted on their federal student loans within the first two years, the highest default rate since 1995, according to annual figures made public Monday by the Department of Education. (9) Alternatives My opponent will likely state that federal student loans are necessary for our education system. I will contend there are better alternatives. Tax Credits I support the expansion of the tax credit system for low-income students. Currently, there are various tax credits already available to students. (10) The American Opportunity Tax Credit those eligible qualify for the maximum annual credit of $2,500 per student. The Lifetime Learning may allow students and parents to claim up to $2,000 for qualified education expenses paid for all students enrolled in eligible educational institutions. Deductions are also available to student, The tuition and fees deduction can reduce the amount of your income subject to tax by up to $4,000. The benefits of the tax credit system is it decreases the cost burden on low-income workers without putting poor students into huge amounts of debt. Another benefit is it doesn't cost other taxpayers anything, it simply decreases taxes for the individuals it's intended to help. Work and Study Working while going to college is a viable alternative to students who need money to pay for tuition. Not only does the money you earn pay for the tuition, but there are also other benefits. One benefit of working while in college is that it can help build your resume, regardless if the job is in your field, according to a Scholarships. com article on balancing work and college. (11) There are also Vocational Programs, Grants, Direct Aid, Scholarships, and investment plans. As I've run out of time and characters, I will go into alternatives deeper next round. Sources 1. . http://mercatus.org... 2. . http://dailycaller.com... 3. . http://www.downsizinggovernment.org... 4. . http://www.cato.org... 5. . http://www.theatlantic.com... 6. . http://www.aascu.org... 7. . http://articles.latimes.com... 8. Chang, Cello. “The Impact of College Debt and costs”. Dis. California State Polytechnic University. Pomona. 2000. Print. P.12 9. . http://www.irs.gov... 10. . http://www.benefits.gov... 11. . http://www.schools.com...

There is no doubt that poverty is a serious issue in the world today and that a solution is needed. Debt relief, however, has so far proven to be fairly inefficient in terms of getting countries back on the road to development. In fact, most countries whose debt has been forgiven have not managed to escape the cycle of poverty. Debt relief alone will not be a solution in desperate situations where corruption, totalitarian governments and criminal gangs rule. It is better when natural disasters occur to provide short-term humanitarian assistance in the form of emergency supplies, specialist teams and money for rebuilding. Unlike debt relief, such aid can be focused on areas in real need and monitored to ensure it reaches those suffering in the disaster zone.

Debt relief is much needed for the world’s poorest nations and the only way to ensure that they get ...

I should have NEVER allowed a 13 year old to debate me. Of course I get a forfeit!

Personal Bankruptcy is worth doing

Not everyone incurs significant debts from law school.

Law school

"Saving Detroit". Economist. 13 Nov. 2008 - "The carmakers retort that being in Chapter 11 will poison their business. Buying a new car is a long-term gamble on there being dealers, spare parts and a thriving second-hand market for your vehicle. Drivers overwhelmingly tell surveys that they would not take the risk when Mercedes and Toyota make perfectly good alternatives. But $50 billion is a lot to stake on a hunch. A wiser bet is that whatever consumers say today, the stigma of being in Chapter 11 would fade, obscured by price cuts, advertising and most of all news that the car companies were tackling their remaining problems. Remember that, in many ways, Chapter 11 is more stable and predictable than depending upon the government."

Chapter 11 bankruptcy may not deter car consumers

Hello, I am What50 representing The Brotherhood. I contend the proposition that American College students should receive free education. I wanna thank Pro for making this debate, and hopefully we can have an excellent though provoking debate. Definitions: Debt: The state of owning money Student Loan: A student loan is a type of loan designed to help students pay for post-secondary education and the associated fees, such as tuition, books and supplies, and living expenses Dropout: Abandoning a course of study American College's should not give out free education because 1.) The cost is way too much to make this into a reality 2.) The free education can be wasted if a student feels like dropping out.3.) By providing free education Colleges may drop in value of education quality

Resolved: That American College Students Should Receive Free Education

So you're saying that it's worth being in debt just so that you can have an extra conversational topic? People have conversations about natural disasters, homelessness and terrorist attacks that they see on the news, but that doesn't mean we want these things to continue.

debt unites students

Bailouts are unpopular

Moral hazard

People have claimed that Americans wouldn't buy from a company that declared bankruptcy. The fact is people are already not buying the cars or there wouldn't be a problem. And how exactly is getting a bailout any different than Chapter 11? Both suggest incompetence.

Bailout deters car buyers as much as bankruptcy would.

Chapter 11-style provisions allow a business to reorganise. Often a good business can be crippled by its previously incurred debts. For example, bad management, high interest rates or high research and development costs may mean that a company which otherwise produces positive cash flow ends up saddled with debt obligations which it cannot meet. It seems to be a waste to force the company to stop trading just because of the debt, especially if this does not make it much more likely that the debt will be repaid in any case. A Chapter-11 style approach would allow the company to keep on trading by releasing it from some of its historically incurred obligations.

Chapter 11-style provisions allow a business to reorganise. Often a good business can be crippled by...

Those who get into debt are morally responsible for repayment

National service could be offset against student loans

National service should be re-introduced

The UN is not a loan giver and thus should not have much of a say in debt relief. Loan givers such as the IMF and the World Bank have long-term economic and political interests that could easily be wrecked by UN decisions. For example, the World Bank needs to produce a return on its loans in order to generate income which can then be lent cheaply to poor countries in desperate need of investment capital. If the UN scrapped some of the World Bank’s loans, other developing countries would suffer from the loss of cheap credit for development.\ Even if it were to oversee these interests, a complete UN reform would be needed, transforming it into a bank-like institution – something that might not be desirable. The UN does not have a good track record in managing money and does not have the necessary international legitimacy needed to support such a plan. While the IMF and the World Bank may not be popular institutions, they certainly are well trusted in terms of their ability to pay up or forgive loans.

As IMF debt relief has been perceived to be fairly controversial, particularly given the economic an...

David Lat. "In Defense of Going to Law School." Above the Law. July 13th, 2010: "4. Not everyone graduates with debt (or with as much debt as some people think). I was lucky enough to graduate law school debt-free; my parents paid for my college and law school. And I’m not alone. According to the Law School Survey of Student Engagement (figure 7), over 10 percent of law students will graduate with zero debt, and another 5 percent or so will graduate with less than $20,000 in student loans. So somewhere between 15 and 20 percent of law school graduates leave school with little to no debt — and a valuable professional degree to show for their efforts. There are several reasons why perhaps a fifth of law school graduates have little or no debt. Some have parents, grandparents or spouses who are willing to help out with educational costs. Some have savings from pre-law-school careers, in lucrative fields such as finance or consulting. And some attend reasonably priced state schools and/or receive very generous scholarship money. The dean of one top 25 law school told me earlier this year that about two-thirds of his school’s students receive some form of scholarship aid from the school. [...] So the 'sticker price' of law school, in terms of the cost you see on the law school website or in brochures, can be misleading. Many students aren’t paying full freight — and many of the students who are paying full freight can afford to."

Not everyone incurs significant debts from law school.

While banks may be partially responsible for the crisis we need to remember that it is not all nefarious capitalists who are the losers here. Most of the money that is in any economy is the people's money not the institutions. Everyone has large investments in through their pension funds or their own savings that are then loaned out by the institution into which they have been deposited; hitting banks is then not hitting the capitalist bankers at all but the small lenders who they rely on as they will surely just pass the cost on.

Debt forgiveness spreads the burden of debt

"NECESSARY - AND BAD." Milwauke Journal Sentinel Editorial. August 2nd, 2011: "The deal does allow the nation to dodge a calamitous default - which alone makes it worth supporting. Given the stakes for the economy, we think the decision of some lawmakers to withhold support to be a serious error in judgment."

Debt deal avoids a disastrous default.

Like the weather across Britain, financial burden on students is a unifying conversation topic. Most students will be able to automatically have a connection with another student by moaning about tuition fees. Just like the weather, it is something that Britain loves to moan about. Just as we would not want to lose the weather as a conversational tool, nor would students really like to lose the value of moaning about their financial situation. There is also a point to be made that if most, if not all students are in the same boat, I.e. applying for loans to be there in the first place it would decrease discrimination on a financial level. No more "My Dad is richer than your Dad" bullying.

debt unites students

Sovereign and commercial creditors can afford to cancel this debt. The sums involved may be huge to poor countries, crippling their ability to rebuild after a disaster, but they are relatively small to the western governments, banks and multilateral institutions that hold the loans. Furthermore, lending institutions typically spread their risk, so writing off debt to a particular government struggling to cope with a tragedy will not hit the lenders very hard. Recent progress on debt-relief for the poorest countries has shown that lenders do have the flexibility to cope with writing off some debts without getting into trouble themselves.

If an American college student is able to graduate with less than $10,000 in student loan debt, they are considered lucky (the average is $37,000). However, students from other countries that have tuition free college have that luxury; most of their loans come from living expenses and books. Without the weight of student loan debt, more college graduates might buy houses rather than renting apartments. They might buy cars, spend more on healthy food, travel more: In essence, they could contribute more to the economy & by negating the large bill of a college education, we could see an increase in the amount of students able to attend college. This then creates a more well-educated workforce and a population that has better critical thinking.

Tuition-Free College

Every action has an opportunity cost. If people are willing to take loans it shows they consider the education worth the cost. It can actually be quite beneficial to society at large that university graduates seek swift employment due to debt, since it forces them to become productive members of society more rapidly than they might have done. For example, in Ireland where higher education is free graduates often take a year or two to travel and “find themselves” while giving little or nothing back to the state that has financed their degrees. It is good that people begin contributing to the economic life of society after graduating from university, rather than frittering away their youths in unproductive pursuits.

Loan default rates and bankruptcy rates are at an all time high in the United States. Americans are maxing out credit cards, borrowing money that they can't pay back, and taking out student loans with abnormally high interest rates. Basic financial management skills of even college educated people have become laughable. I believe that a financial management course should be part of the required curriculum at all colleges and universities. This course would allow college students to gain valuable financial knowledge that could be used for the rest of their lives. Basic financial management knowledge would help to lower bankruptcy and loan default rates. It would also help young, impressionable adults learn the dangers of credit card debt and high interest "student loans" that anyone can get. By not having a financial management course as required curriculum at all colleges and universities we are leaving the doors wide open for the continued abuse of our countries' financial system.

A Financial Management Course Should Be Required Curriculum At All Colleges And Universities

There are many problems in modern America, but I feel a substantial one is the lack of personal fiscal responsibility. To put it simply, many people leave high school and enter the "real world" with no idea how to manage, save, and spend money. To support this claim, I point to the recent downturn in the American economy. A substantial portion of the problem has been attributed to home foreclosures. And why are homes being foreclosed upon? For one of four reasons. 1) The bank loaned money to a person or persons it shouldn't have, someone with bad credit or an unsound financial base. 2) Similar to, but not the same as, the first: people took out loans that they could not afford, or agreed to loan or mortgage terms that can charitably be called risky. 3) Those paying a loan or mortgage practiced irresponsible fiscal management and became unable to make their payments. 4) Those paying a loan or mortgage encountered unforeseen financial difficulties. While almost nothing can be done about the fourth cause, the first three could be substantially reduced if only the participants in the venture had a more solid understanding of just how far one can stretch the boundaries of fiscal responsibility. A personal finance class is thus the beginning of a credible solution. People would learn how to budget, to make payments, and avoid risky investments. Furthermore, 70% of the United States' economy is generated and driven by retail sales (statistic from NPR, National Morning News, 3/14/08). When consumers have more buying power (i.e. more money to spend), it provides a solid foundation for the majority of the economy. Therefore, a personal finance class absolutely should be required in high school. Not only would it improve the quality of life for the people who would have to take it (less Ramen, maybe?), but I have also shown that it would help boost the lagging American economy. This would be incalculably beneficial to the American people as a whole.

Taking the issue of aid out of a government-government sphere of dialogue makes a settlement over debt relief such as that proposed by Jubilee 2000 more difficult. The channel through which to solve debt issues is through debt cancellation, not aid redirection. Even if debts are not cancelled, some nations can in fact pay back their debts centrally: in 2006 Nigeria used oil revenues to repay most of its outstanding, long-term foreign debts.\ However, reducing government aid would have immediate damaging effects on those countries that currently are paying off their loans. Debtor countries (in the absence of debt relief) would be left with the immediate choice of defaulting on their loans as Mexico did in 1982 and Thailand did in 1997, resulting in a massive loss of international confidence, or ‘borrowing to repay’ their loans, increasing dependency and poverty.

Much direct aid is simply recycled as debt servicing. A significant proportion (over 60%) of aid fl...

No debt

University Fees Should Be Scrapped

Well then, I accept. I only ask that there is no disrespect, trolling, or semantics in this debate. Good luck!

Personal Bankruptcy is worth doing

Debt relief is much needed for the world’s poorest nations and the only way to ensure that they get back on the road to economic development. Without debt relief, the cycle of poverty, disease and corruption would continue and possibly spread to other parts of the world. Debt relief is particularly needed in countries affected by natural disasters, where much of the aid is focused on solving immediate concerns as opposed to getting the economy back on track. Not only do they desperately need more money to cope with the disaster, but the economic impact of the tragedy reduces their ability to service their loans anyway. What is the point of the developed world promising hundreds of millions of dollars in post-Tsunami aid, if they then take away much more money each year in debt charges?

Dropping the debts may encourage the debtors to purposely take out loans that they cannot repay

All third world debt should be dropped

Before I begin, a brief observation:Pro is making the claim, therefore he has the burden of proof. His burden is to prove that federal student loans should be abolished. As con, my burden is to negate his argument. That could mean that I argue that there is something wrong with the federal student loan system, and that such a problem needs to be addressed, but not addressed in the way PRO proposes OR it could mean that I defend the status quo. It could mean that I argue that the harms PRO seeks to address are not problems, or his solution is not sufficient to address them. All would negate the resolution. Now, I'll talk about PRO's case, and make some counter arguments in response.PRO's Case:PRO's first argument states that federal student loans have caused an education bubble. He reasons that tuition has "skyrocketed" because federal student loans, which he calls a subsidy, cause prices to rise. Indeed, there may be some correlation there, but the fact that students have access to federal student loans is not by itself enough to indicate that those loans specifically caused an increase in tuition prices because there could be any number of other factors. For example, colleges may have had to raise tuition prices because their operating costs increased and federal student loans offset that higher operating cost. It could be that public universities receive less public funding, and therefore universities must offset that shortfall by raising tuition. It could be that universities just do more for students now, and waste resources on things like unnecessarily extravagant dormitories and facilities. It could be that university endowments just aren't as big as they once were and students have to foot the bill in consequence.Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com...So, if tuition prices are something PRO wants to fix, he's ignoring the bigger picture. But, let's talk about the harm of abolishing student loans. Federal student loan interest rates range from about 3.86% - 5%, and their rates are fixed. Source: http://studentaid.ed.gov...Private student loans are usually considerably higher than that. Discover's fixed rate undergraduate student loan rates begin at 6.74% and can rise to 10.99%. Source: https://www.discover.com...Suntrust fixed rate student loans range from 4.751% APR to 10.415% APR. Source: http://www.suntrusteducation.com...Federal student loans more affordable for all students now because the interest rates are lower. If federal student loans were abolished, it is reasonable to infer as well that private student loan rates would increase because of both increased demand for them, and because private institutions would have the luxury to set their borrowing rates much higher. That would increase the overall cost of education much more for all students who must borrow to afford college, and amplify the long term harms that PRO is trying to remediate by abolishing student loans. PRO repeats himself with a second contention that "federal student loans have caused a rise in tuition." PRO contends that tuition prices have been artificially inflated because of government intervention. Yet, the evidence he offers for that, from the Cato institute, suggests that the reason for increased prices is because of supply and demand imbalances, such that because "more Americans have sought education" tuition prices are "higher." So, the cause of tuition increases has more to do with increased demand for higher education than the fact that the federal government makes college comparably more affordable than private lending institutions. PRO's other warrant offers another alternative cause: university greed. Pro cites Peter Wood, a professor at Boston University, who said that "colleges and universities" set tuition "high enough to capture... funds" wherever they "can be extracted from parents." So, while it is the case that money to pay for college is easier to come by where federal student loans are an option, that does not mean that abolishing federal student loans is either going to reduce tuition rates or have any impact to lower the cost of higher education at all so long as colleges retain the incentive to charge higher prices and students have access to private loans. So, PRO's solution is not only insufficient to address the problem he's trying to solve, but it very likely could make the problem worse by increasing the overall cost of education -both tuition prices and interest paid on private student loans.PRO's final argument is that "federal student loans" have harmed students." PRO argues that because in 2012, 56% of bachelors degree holders under the age of 25 were jobless or underemployed and that student loans are directly responsible for unemployment among those with bachelors degrees. He offers no causal link between student loans student loans and unemployment, however. He fails to consider that the number of people who are under the age of 25 who are unemployed or under employed would be higher if those people did not have a bachelors degree, and ignores the possibility that the extant US economic situation is more directly to blame for aggregate high unemployment rates among all Americans and especially among people entering the labor force for the first time. He likewise offers no explanation for how abolishing federal student loans will lower unemployment or underemployment. PRO contends that students are negatively impacted by debt, and therefore student loans should be abolished. But, what PRO fails to consider, which I have addressed earlier, is that in the absence of federal student loans, students who need to borrow to afford college must seek other means. The only other option for the vast majority of those students would be private lenders, whose interest rates are already higher than federal student loan rates and whose interest rates would skyrocket if federal student loans were abolished. The impact of this would be to raise the cost of borrowing money, which would profoundly increase the cost of higher education, which would exacerbate the problem pro is seeking to address rather than remediating it. PRO argues that federal student loans harm student's credit scores, which is just false. Students build credit while they are in college, and their scores are only harmed if they default. If students default on payments, that is because they did not pay back money they borrowed, not because they were leant money in the first place. Pro fails to account for this. Irrelevant AlternativesPRO's alternatives are irrelevant to this debate because the resolution is only about whether or not student loans should be abolished. That there are other alternatives PRO thinks are better than student loans do not help his case because his alternatives (tax credits and work study programs) can coexist along with federal student loans and we know this because, based on the evidence he cited, similar programs already do.I'll look forward to the next round.

Federal Student Loans Should Be Abolished.

Bankruptcy is a special sort of business process and so is not as well thought through by many busin...

Chapter 11-style Bankruptcy Provisions

Bankruptcy is a special sort of business process and so is not as well thought through by many businesses as other processes would be. Bankruptcy effectively reflects a failure on the part of the business and therefore often on the part of the management. They are therefore less willing to spend time in advance planning for it and making the most suitable arrangements for it. This is just as many people who die unexpectedly young in accidents have not ordered their estates in effective ways. It is therefore appropriate that the law takes a more proactive approach to bankruptcy and acts to counterbalance the lack of thought which many companies have put into how they would deal with it.

Bankruptcy is a special sort of business process and so is not as well thought through by many busin...

Bailouts don’t solve the problem

debt forgiveness rather than bailouts in the Euro crisis

Young people might feel cornered into signing up for financial reasons when they otherwise wouldn't. There should be no financial incentive for risking one's life.

National service could be offset against student loans

Debt forgiveness spreads the burden of the debt much better than bailouts do; with bailouts it is entirely states and their taxpayers who come up with the necessary money, with forgiveness private speculators and investors such as banks are hit just like the governments. Nowhere in the Eurozone are the banks popular so it makes political sense that they should bear some of the burden; people and companies that have risked their money should not deserve to always be protected by bailouts. Moreover we must remember that several of the causes of the financial crisis were originally created by the banks – the lenders not the debtors. Most obvious is subprime mortgages which was caused by risky loans.[1] This risk was not just prevalent in mortgages but throughout the financial sector which were using mathematical models to attempt to price risk.[2] Of course government regulation or lack of it can also be considered to be partially responsible for the financial crisis but the point is that the blame, and thus the pain, should be shared. Those who have been a part of the cause of the crisis do not deserve to have their misdeeds rewarded by bailouts. [1] Wallison, Peter J., ‘The True Story of the Financial Crisis’, The American Spectator, May 2011 [2] Salmon, Felix, ‘Recipe for Disaster: The Formula That Killed Wall Street’, Wired, 23 February 2009

The loans are accruing interest quicker than they can be paid off

All third world debt should be dropped

If debt is forgiven is that not just encouraging the borrower to keep on borrowing rather than changing his ways? If debt is forgiven then a borrower may expect that if they get into such dire straits again they will simply have their debts forgiven again. This then would mean the creditor paying over and over again for the debtor's profligacy. The periphery states have to get their books in order rather than expecting the core states to always pick up the tab for them.

Moral hazard

When a drug addict is given more of the drug he craves is it only the addict and not also the dealer who is responsible? Yes the debtor has promised to pay but at some point the lender has to accept that the creditor can't pay or that it is in neither of their interest that they do so. While a state theoretically has almost unlimited access to money to pay their loans through taxation and national assets in practice lenders are aware of this which is why governments such as Greece have been able to borrow up to 175% of GDP. Clearly when a country has borrowed so much even 100% taxation is not going to be enough to pay off the loan. Clearly the people would not accept such punitive taxation, and attempts to increase taxation in Greece have not worked.[1] They may also not be willing to accept selling off land, which often has an emotional importance far beyond the monetary worth of that asset. Since a state and a whole people can't be forced to pay there needs to be a compromise. [1] Panaritis, Elena, ‘Debt Forgiveness In Inevitable and Will Save the Euro’, Huffington Post, 6 December 2012

Those who get into debt are morally responsible for repayment

At some point the US needs to come to terms with its debts and a gradual collapse of confidence in the US’s ability to pay its debts will not help the American economy or anyone else’s. With a declining tax base – both as a result of unemployment and an increasing burden of economic inactivity through retirement, the government will increasingly have to demonstrate that it is ‘good for the money’ rather than just assuming that something will turn up. Despite hundreds of billions poured into the economy since the start of Obama’s time in office, the economy remains stagnant. As a result it’s time for the government to demonstrate that it can use austerity as well as largesse to solve the problem.

A recession is not the point at whcih debts should be paid back. The state should focus on job creation strategies

"I should have NEVER allowed a 13 year old to debate me. Of course I get a forfeit!" -The words of my opponent. In most eyes, these can be hurtful words, and in most eyes, these are rude words, not accepted in debate. So, I ask voters, just because I forfeited one round, not to award conduct points to my opponent because of his third round/comment. Before I begin, I would also like to apologize for my forfeit. I shouldn't have started this debate, because (1) my opponent obviously does not like me, and (2) finals are upcoming, and I was busy studying, so, naturally, time got away from me and it automatically forfeited. So, my opponent won't have any opportunity to present refutations to my arguments. I will not present refutations to his, therefore making it even. Also, before I begin, I would like to point out that my opponent utterly detests me only because of my young age (13), however he does not even state his age, and the one he states is indeed a lie (99). So now, with that aside, I would like to present my main arguments. My opponent has stated that there are only three negative consequences to bankruptcy, however I disagree, and I will prove this throughout my arguments. Argument 1: Personal bankruptcy is not worth doing because it ruins your credit for a minimum . Personal bankruptcy releases you from many debt obligations such as credit cards, however this is shown on the credit reports and drastically lowers your FICO credit score. Not to mention, when bankruptcy is filed, your credit cards are taken away. So, filing bankruptcy means that you're now on a strictly cash spending 'diet', and who uses cash anymore? The majority of people today in the modern world use credit cards. Therefore, personal bankruptcy harms your credit and your spending. Argument 2: Personal bankruptcy is not worth doing because it stigmatizes you as being irresponsible, unreliable, and immoral. When bankruptcy is declared, you have had debts on a number of things, such as a car, a house, a washing machine, dryer, etc. and essentially, you don't pay for it. This is like stealing. You know you can't afford to buy it, yet you purchase it on credit and you don't pay for it, so who then pays for it? The people who pay for it are everyday people like you and me, or the store owner, who has to pay for the person's debt. So when we go to buy it, it's that much more because of the person who declared bankruptcy. Therefore, personal bankruptcy is immoral because it makes other people suffer. Argument 3: Personal bankruptcy is not worth doing because you will become part of a public record. In many court documents, if personal bankruptcy is filed, and this can even extend to the newspaper, all because you stupidly filed personal bankruptcy because it was "worth it" as pro is suggesting. Therefore, you will not be able to keep your finances private if you file personal bankruptcy; your finances will go public, and most people like to keep them private. Voters, before this round is over, let me remind you, that if you file personal bankruptcy, you need a plan to pay it back when your bankruptcy is over. But how will you pay it back if you have bad credit and no credit cards? Can you pay thousands of dollars in cash? Probably not, because you're bankrupt. In conclusion, I believe that personal bankruptcy is not worth doing because it ruins your credit, it stigmatizes you as being irresponsible, immoral, and unreliable while other people suffer for your mistake, and lastly because your finances will go public. Thank you for reading, and please vote for the Con side of this debate. Good luck pro!

Personal Bankruptcy is worth doing

Daniel Gross. "In Defense of Detroit". Newsweek. 13 Nov. 2008 - More significantly, Chapter 11 proceedings for GM would be far more complicated than that of a retailer, or of Lehman Brothers. Recent experience shows that for auto companies, Chapter 11 is like the Hotel California. You can check in any time you like, but you can never be able to leave. Auto parts supplier Delphifiled for Chapter 11 in October 2005, and still languishes there. Getting out of Chapter 11 can be tough when (a) the bankrupt companies are capital-intensive manufacturers; and (b) creditors are reluctant to give up on their claims. Among those with the biggest claims on the automakers, and GM in particular, are the United Auto Workers."

US autos may never get out of Chapter 11 bankruptcy

First, as none of my definitions were argued, they stand as they are for the rest of the round. Second, because my analysis of the resolution was also left untouched, the burdens applied in said analysis also apply for the duration of the round. Finally, my value and criterion analysis were not disputed. Because of this, we will use this ethical analysis for the rest of the round. Neg: C1: I feel the best way to address these arguments in by separating each paragraph and answering them accordingly. P1: First, my opponent makes "the corporations" out to be some kind of boogyman who is conspiring to get the poor defenseless consumers. The truth is, in EVERY SINGLE situation where my opponent claims consumers have no control, it is almost solely up to the consumer. Laid off: Although this will sound harsh, when a company is "forced" to lay off workers, they start at the bottom, the workers who, well, worked worse. By being the best worker, you're chances of being laid off are reduced to almost zero. Rent Increase: This is between the landlord and the person renting. There is no reason why one wouldn't have some kind of warning required in the contract. Furthermore, one can, if the rent is too high move to a cheaper place. Changed Loan: This is also simple consumer failure. Just like when one gets a credit card, one should ALWAYS read the contract. When a contract allows the lender to arbitrarily change the loan on a whim, one should realize that this is probably not someone who they want to get a loan from. Medical: In such instances, one can, unless their credit score is already shot, usually consult with a bank to change their loan repayment plan to something more do-able. Banks aren't out to bankrupt consumers, they don't make profit that way. However, As the neg, as long as I can prove that banning the use of these scores is a bad idea, none of these arguments even matter. P2 Student Loan: First of all, one could choose a cheaper education. Second, one can get a number of subsidized student loans from various government organizations which do not accrue interest until the student is done with their education. Third, one can, as I am, pay the accruing interest on loans quarterly while they are in school. This way, the loans do not become exponentially larger and are payable once schooling is finished. Finally, Pres. Obama has created a program that will remove student loans after 10 years as long as one is working for the government or for a not-for-profit organization such as a school. P3 Flipside: I actually don't know what my opponent is trying to say here. Corporations usually do not have credit scores, and if they do, these scores are not likely used in hiring or the such… If my opponent is referring the people who run these companies, he is wrong. These people are very likely to do what they say they will do and when. If that's not the definition of trust I'm not sure what is. Furthermore, when one is working with one of these people, it is much more likely that they will make their payments on time if they have lots of extra money lying around, which in turn makes they more trustworthy business partners… Therefore, because it is important to be able to trust the people you work for, credit scores are deeply important to the function of business and should not be curtailed. C2: "If one can accept there is a significant portion of cases in which a person's credit score is not within their own control, then it is false to liken it to a criminal record." 1.) I don't accept that. See Contention 1. 2.) Criminal record is also not in one's own hands. Even if we do accept that credit scores are not always in our control, neither are criminal records. If one is caught in the wrong place at the wrong time one can get penalties for crimes they did not commit. To put it simply, The aff is saying: "because people can sometimes be in the wrong place at the wrong time, nobody should be able to use a criminal record to judge people". A credit score is a judgment of how likely someone will, at any given time, pay back a loan on time. The aff is arguing that the use of such a score should be banned because some people are a victim of unfortunate circumstances. This may be a reason to change such a system, but not to ban it outright. "The system of credit bureaus and businesses that use them conspire to form a "guilty until proven innocent" system that undermines peoples' ability to pay their bills and locks them into a nearly-impossible-to-escape trap" 1.) NO, they don't. they aren't the boogyman. (it'd also be kinda cool to see some evidence that all these bad things even happen…) 2.) If you look to my arguments on contention 1 you can see that such things are due to a lack of effort on the part of the consumer, not the evilness of the lender. Furthermore, if people cannot pay their bills, they go bankrupt. Bankruptcy DOES NOT HELP BANKS. When people go bankrupt the bank usually ends up never getting paid back in full. C3: "Given the secretive conspiratorial blacklisting nature of credit bureaus and susceptibility to fraud and abuse" 1.) None of the arguments actually touch on the fact that the banning of the use of these could create harm. Because of this, these arguments are irrelevant and fall. 2.) Evidence. You make baseless accusations against companies without evidence. I can't assume they're evil, and because I'm of the "innocent until proven guilty" nature, because you provide no evidence, all of your arguments against this contention fall. 3.) The claim that making it harder for someone with a low credit score is bad because is exacerbates their problem is flawed logic. If someone has proven that they are untrustworthy enough times to make it that hard for them to get a job, it is likely they would also not be able to hold up their side of the employment contract as well. Furthermore, there are always companies willing to hire people with bad reputation, they just pay less. Through these jobs the person could eventually better their score and thus prove trustworthy enough for a superior job. 4.) Landlady: Without signing a new contract, if your contract has static terms, it cannot be changed. This is, again, a consumer not expending the effort to actually read the documents they are signing. Furthermore, apply all the other arguments from Contention 1 here as well. 5.) More Harms: By banning the use of credit scores, banks would either stop giving out loans altogether or go out of business. Without loans or banks our world would crumble into chaos. Because unthinkable harm would come of banning the use of credit scores, if you look back to utilitarianism you can see that such a ban would, be immoral. AFF CASE: 1.) Affirmative has failed to uphold burden. Even if the affirmative wins every single argument, they still lose. If you look to my Resolutional Analysis in my first post, you can see that the pro must provide an ethical reason why credit scores are wrong. The pro has provided arguments as to why it could be "unfair" but has failed to explain why fairness is important, or why unfairness is bad. Because of this, the pro has failed to uphold their burdens and cannot win. 2.) Ban V change the entire aff case is based on the harms created by people being metaphorically in the wrong place at the wrong time(or not knowing the rules). Just as this is no reason to ban the use of other "scores" this is not a reason to ban the use of credit scores. It is much more reasonable to argue that these could be a reason to change how it measures, but not ban it. all the corruption and fraud in the world do not provide a reason to ban the use of credit scores. At best, they show that there might be a reason to change measurements. In conclusion because of the reasons in my opening post. And because my opponent has failed to uphold their burdens as the aff (or provide any evidence of

The use of credit scores should be tightly curtailed

Lawyers too in debt to advocate for the little guy

Law school

Where would you draw the line? The proposition seems to assume that only developing countries suffer from natural disasters, and so require debt relief. In fact, natural disasters can strike a wide range of countries and it is not clear if your scheme would not also apply to middle-income or even rich states. In recent years the United States has been struck by several devastating hurricanes, and many people believe an enormous Californian earthquake is overdue. Given the huge foreign debts of the US government, why shouldn’t it apply for debt relief too in such situations? And what about Japan, for example after the Kobe earthquake? After all, given the much greater physical infrastructure of such countries compared to developing ones, the cost of damage done by a similar natural disaster will be very much higher.

This scheme is designed to help developing countries recover after terrible tragedies, not to channe...

I have accepted your challenge. I will be arguing against the claims made by the Pro side. I will be using contextual evidence, as well as my deep understanding on the economy. I will be using sources that support my claim and refute the claim of the Pro side. I will also be maintaining a good atmosphere as to make sure that this debate does not become one of slanderous nature but rather a discussion. I will make sure that this debate does not become one of sympathy, but rather that of factual information. I will await your opening statement.

Lowered 2yr. tuition helps in successful completion and maintains the 4yr. college debt.

The professor is only eating off the salary paid to him by the college. The U.S. Department of Education is actually eating off your Indebtedness. The next question you need to ask is "do I really owe a debt"? Is there even a debt to begin with? The college loan in brought into existence by your signature on a promissory note, which springs the money into fruition, which pays the school right away. Then the U.S. department of Education then demands that you pay them, with interest from money that they never in fact gave you to begin with. What's your next step? Challenge the validity of the debt. See if there is actually a bilateral contractual obligation that requires you to pay the debt. See, I laugh at all these Bernie Sanders supporters that demand that we have free college. If they understood how our entire phony fiat currency system works, then they might learn that college is already free in a sense. Not to mention all the grant money, pell grant and everything else that the government already subsidizes. We don't need Bernie's socialist plans to further enslave us all. I would put references, but that was all just off the top of my head. If I get an intelligent response to this, then I might be forced to do a tiny bit of research.

Yummy debtors for lunch.

A Harvard study indicates that a lack of universal health care is a leading cause in 50% of bankruptcies filed annually in the United States.

The lack of universal health care is a leading cause of bankruptcy

Chapter 11 provisions encourage risk taking by entrepreneurs, ensuring that the penalties for failur...

Chapter 11-style Bankruptcy Provisions

Students were easily one of the best off during the recession, which has now after all ended. They don't pay tax and are given a steady reliable income. Graduates have been hit in the same way as everyone else looking for a job, but graduates are by definition no longer students. taking a bit longer to pay back their loans does not affect studetnts until after university, and then only marginally.

The recession is torturing students enough.

Debt burdens are common in the developing world, but natural disasters such as earthquakes, tsunamis...

Debt Relief following natural disasters

"Five Reasons Not to Support a Bailout of Greece", The Heritage Foundation, May 2010 "It was bad enough when the federal government bailed out AIG, and then Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and then many of the mega banks, and then GM and Chrysler. At least these firms had the modest merit of being U.S. companies employing U.S. workers. Even if U.S. government finances were in pristine shape, U.S. taxpayer dollars should not be used to bail out a perennially dysfunctional state. But as spending-driven trillion dollar budget deficits and a presidential debt commission starkly evidence, the U.S. is seriously risking its own Greek-style sovereign debt crisis. Fortunately, the U.S. does not need an IMF bailout; it needs only a President willing to acknowledge that he has led the country on a Grecian spending binge it cannot afford."

U.S. is risking its own sovereign debt crisis

"Saving Detroit". Economist. 13 Nov. 2008 - "The United States created Chapter 11 precisely to help companies that need protection from their creditors while they restructure their liabilities and winnow out the good business from the bad. If the North American businesses of GM and Ford filed for Chapter 11, their activities elsewhere would be largely unaffected. Even in North America, their businesses could continue to make vehicles as they shed costs and renegotiated contracts."

Chapter 11 bankruptcy will help autos restructure and regroup.

Thomas Keeley. "In Defense of AIG Bonuses". DC Republican. March 18, 2009 - "it’s important to remember that bankruptcy is one of the legal protections a business has to get themselves out of the potentially crippling contracts without having to go through a sea of red tape and individual legal proceedings. [...] Just as is the case with any company, AIG had the option to file bankruptcy, go into protection and remove these contracts. However, the United States felt that AIG was too big to fail, and decided that instead of letting them go bankrupt, they would give them the money they needed to continue doing what they thought was needed to become solid again."

AIG did not file for bankruptcy; bonus contracts still valid

I'm not somebody who is a complete opponent of keynesian economics. I believe both models have their place depending on the exact flavor of the current economic atmosphere of the time. I think that if you get control of the insanity of student loan debt, you make the usage of Supply Side Economics more viable. I am a Moderate minded person. I believe both models can work effectively if not handcuffed by other irresonsible practices. * Schools purposefully took advantage of the Federal Student Loan programs. They did not look at a student's credit history. They did not look at a student's income. They did not look at a student's ability to repay the debt. They did not look at anything. They just started giving out free loans and money to anyone and everyone. So guess what schools started doing. They started recruiting students in mass, signing them up for federal loans that these students couldn't even afford, but students with dreams of success signed the dotted line figuring they'd get a good job and pay it back. Later, many did not find good jobs, and these heavy loans that took advantage of this overly generous giving of loans of any amount(withinreason) to anyone killed the economy. Obama actually did a good thing on this one in my opinion by implementing student loan forgiveness. Once the balance becomes stable, I believe Supply Side economics can do fine. The problem was that everyone had such heavy debt that they couldn't get loans for houses, spend extra on clothes, food, trips, etc. This effected the entire infrastructure of the economy. The schools got greedy and the government was too slow to act. https://studentaid.ed.gov... Here are some testimonials in a video simply explaining what the student loan crisis did to people. http://youtu.be... They had went to school, tried to get an education and now are hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt, and they can never pay it back. Can they buy a house? No. Can they take trips? No. Can they buy stuff? No. So guess what. That money is not going back into the economy. * So if people were not loading up on unsermountable student loan debt, Supply Side would have been fine. It works as long as the people are not handcuffed by other legislation and/or policies. * In my opinion, if all of these people were free from this crazy debt, Supply Side works fine. But any "trickling down" that happens is pointless if those recieving it cando nothing with it. Take for example, someone with $50,000 instudent loandebt. They are fighting to make it, they do their taxes, they get a tax return of $5,000. Guess what. It's taken and applied to the federal loan. What part of the sector made money? Some school made money that might go back into education, but the economy sees nothing. All that happened is the government trying to make up loan losses, and the civilian has $0 to spend.

Wealth doesn't "trickle down" from the rich to the poor

Chapter 11-style provisions represent an unwelcome interference in private ordering. All of the parties involved in a company, including employees, shareholders and creditors, voluntarily opt into their involvement with the company. They have the opportunity to weigh up the risks and possible benefits, decide whether they want to be involved and take such steps as they can or desire to control risks. For the courts to intervene in an unpredictable way after the event is an unjustifiable intrusion into the private ordering which the parties have agreed between themselves. This is an intrusion upon important personal liberties and also helps to undermine the certainty and personal autonomy which underpins an environment favourable to business.

Reorganisation can help to protect the interests of employees and other stakeholders. Forcing a com...

Chapter 11-style Bankruptcy Provisions

Bankruptcy law should protect those who cannot protect themselves. Opponents of Chapter 11-style pr...

Chapter 11-style Bankruptcy Provisions