🚀 go-pugleaf

kpollak@nospam.com (Karl Pollak) wrote:

>alchemy@interlog.com (Morton M. Goldmacher) wrote:

>>The bankruptcy process exists to allow individuals who are saddled
>>with extremely high debt to assign all of their assets to be
>>distributed among their creditors and begin life anew.  

>Yes, well, sort of.  The amount of the debts is nor really all that
>relevant as is their relation to the amount of assets of the debtor.
>If I own $3 million worth of assets and have $2 million worth of
>debts, bankruptcy would not be much of a treat.  The general idea is
>that the debtor 

>1,  has assets worth less than half of his liabilities
>2,  the above is not of his own willful doing or extravagance, and
>3,  he is unable to meet his current obligations as they fall due

>>There is no
>>logical reason why student debt ought to be treated differently than
>>any other type of debt.  

>Yes there is.  For two reasons:  it is a debt to the Crown 
who as a result of the student's borrowning, is able to keep paying
overpaid boomer professors their outrageous wages, and is able to buy
social stability on the student's money by giving him a belief that
education will be his/her ticket to the good life, when the real
ticket is mom and daddy's business or social status.
>and the
>assets bought with the proceeds cannot be accurately financially
>gauged, or converted.  Education is a very special kind of asset and I
>see no reason why it should not be treated as such.
Yeah, too many degrees are such that they, and 1.25 will buy a cup of
coffee.

>>The federal government stands in a privileged position with respect to 
>>student debt, because they also legislate bankruptcy.  

>Not so. AFAIK, the Crown no longer has preference, and since it has no
>security for its loan, it ranks with all the other unsecured
>creditors. 
Actually, the Act is also a bank subsidization scheme.

>In vast majority of the cases the distinction is purely
>academic since almost no such bankrupt has any exigible assets at all,
>anyway.

>>Normally, at common law, jumping the queue to short
>>circuit a bankruptcy is an offence.  If the government believes that
>>it is to be preferred among creditors it should argue the case with
>>the banks, mortgage companies and other institutional creditors before
>>enacting legislation.

>Well, uhm, yeah, but ... we're not dealing with common law, this is an
>issue that has been dealt with in statutes for some 150 years.  And
>the preferred position of the Crown has only been eliminated in the
>last 5 or so years.  Until then it was quite clearly understood by all
>other creditors that the Crown stands in a preferred position and why
>it is. In fact, it was not only the Crown itself, but other public
>bodies such as municipalities whose claims were not extinguished by
>bankruptcy or who stood at the top of the cue in distribution of
>proceeds. Claims of employees for wages stood as preferred (up to a
>limit) along with them, as did LAWYER'S FEES. :-)  I have worked in
>that business for well over 15 years and not once have I heard any
>arguments to the contrary.  Not that they would have achieved
>anything.
Lawyer's fees?

>Going back to the idea of exempting student loans from bankruptcy
>altogether, that in itself is not a new idea, either. There are
>several different reasons already on the books why a particular debt
>is not discharged by the bankruptcy. The reasons included loans that
>were used of "necessaries of life".  Fraudulent misrepresentation,
>extravagant living, etc. were other reasons why some debts were not
>discharged.

>That particular clause meant that you could not borrow money for your
>everyday living expenses and then claim bankruptcy.  Sears had been
>using that clause for years to exempt their unsecured credit card
>accounts from bankruptcies quite routinely, even if the items
>purchased were for fancy furniture or mink coats.
In litigation? Or in thread of litigation, qua the Bay and its demand
letters to "shoplifters."
>I think that politically there are very good reasons why student loans
>should not be subject to discharge in bankruptcy.  Just take a survey
>of what it is that our Universities teach nowadays and the great
>numbers of garbage study programs we are offering to students for no
>better reason that to keep them out of the labour market for a few
>years, imparting no tangible skills to them. 
The last part of your statement is unfortunately true, the former sux
because your government entices these young individuals to attend and
take these classes.
>Of course there are a lot of practical courses of study on offer.  But
>there is no denying that to a large extent, institutes of "higher
>learning" are also being abused to simply park the young folks for a
>few years to keep them off welfare.
Again, we are agreed. Where we differ is that I believe the state owes
us a decent standard of living... It is a precondition for our
agreement to accept the rules by which the state purports to govern
us.

>Karl Pollak <kpollak@portal.ca>
>Richmond, British Columbia


"Poverty is the worst form of violence" M. Ghandi
"Is is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a
needle than for a worshipper of mammon to enter the Kingdom
of God."  The Teacher
"Knowledge is maximized by sentient beings doing good."
"The greatest words you can utter in your life time are
these: teach me and I'll teach you."
"Information is everywhere. It is your duty to the universe
and all within it to acquire it, use it, and pass it freely."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
FREE LEONARD PELTIER
FREE BERNARD CORD

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For information about the unique, quality products we sell
please visit our website: www.sasknet.com/~think.


Wishing the world Peace and Prosperity!


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Opportunities always appreciated.