ADVERTISEMENT

$1 Million

BlueRaiderFan

Hall of Famer
Oct 4, 2003
5,590
69
48
Meru, a 37-year-old orthodontist, made a big investment in his education. As of Thursday, he owed $1,060,945.42 in student loans.

Mr. Meru pays only $1,589.97 a month—not enough to cover the interest, so his debt from seven years at the University of Southern California grows by $130 a day. In two decades, his loan balance will be $2 million.

He and his wife, Melissa, have become numb to the burden, focused instead on raising their two daughters. “If you thought about it every single day,” Mrs. Meru said, “you’d have a mental breakdown.”

Due to escalating tuition and easy credit, the U.S. has 101 people who owe at least $1 million in federal student loans, according to the Education Department. Five years ago, 14 people owed that much.

More could join that group. While the typical student borrower owes $17,000, the number of those who owe at least $100,000 has risen to around 2.5 million, nearly 6% of the borrowing pool, Education Department data show.

Pricest Professions

https://www.wsj.com/articles/mike-meru-has-1-million-in-student-loans-how-did-that-happen-1527252975
 
The borrower is slave to the lender. While I agree its immoral to loan all this money so easily. All of these folks took the money. Did this family just ignore it? Its the worst kind of debt for all the reasons you have shared in the past.
 
Once again, poor logic, poor empathy, and a disregard for the plight of your fellow humans. People with credit card debt knew the risks, but our founding fathers have bankruptcy as a constitutional right for a reason, and no, it doesn't matter if it's tax payers money. If they don't want the risk, then they shouldn't lend the money. I'll guarantee you every person on this board had been forgiven for something in their lives where they made a mistake. This is no different.
 
Stop using Bible quotes as a reason to keep people, who have proven they are insolvent, in debt for the rest of their lives. It's immoral and uncaring. Spare me your Dave Ramsey holier than thou mindset in the future. Thanks.
 
If you lend money, you assume the risk that they might not be able to pay it back. Period. End of story.
 
Orthodontist's make on average, Two Hundred Thousand Five Hundred dollars. $205,500.

More than enough to pay back that loan. For several years, he could pay back if he didn't live extravagantly.

The only sympathy I have is his inability to be so smart to finish orthodontist school without knowing simple finance.
 
First of all, you don't know how much this particular orthodontist makes. Secondly, your opinion shouldn't enter into it. Bankruptcy is a constitutionally protected right. Conservatives sure are concerned about the Constitution, until it no longer meets their agenda.
 
I don't care about bankruptcy. I am specifically talking about taking money and making decisions that are not surprises. This isn't a case where there was litigation or some lawsuit that happened. This is someone who knew what amount they were borrowing and the clauses that came along with it.

What the hell are you talking about BRF?
 
If you lend money, you assume the risk that they might not be able to pay it back. Period. End of story.

Well the lender does know that unsecured education loans can't be discharged through bankruptcy. So they clearly knew the risk, it was the borrower that didn't understand the risk.

You do realize there is no collateral with this stuff, I know you know this.

Like I said, the borrower is slave to the lender. This was clear over 2000 years ago and is still clear today.
 
Anyone that thinks a lifetime of indebtedness is reasonable, especially if a person has proven they are insolvent, doesn't believe in upholding the Constitution of the United States. Not only that, they are immoral in character. The punishment for filing is seven years of no or poor credit, not a lifetime as a slave for the student loan industry. If you think it's reasonable, you are morally defunct, at best.
 
Anyone that thinks a lifetime of indebtedness is reasonable, especially if a person has proven they are insolvent, doesn't believe in upholding the Constitution of the United States. Not only that, they are immoral in character. The punishment for filing is seven years of no or poor credit, not a lifetime as a slave for the student loan industry. If you think it's reasonable, you are morally defunct, at best.

I am not making moral judgments, I am not even taking a side. I am pointing out that student loan debt has different rules and anyone using that tool to pay for school should understand that prior to using it. It is this ignorance that lead to many bad decisions.

Sometimes bad things happen to people but many times its their own decisions that lead them to bankruptcy, etc.

As far as what I believe, I do love Jesus, and I am quoting scripture "the borrower is slave to the lender", I think the entire higher education system is immoral - the cost, the easy money, the lack of true education in relation to the cost. I blame politicians - but I could also blame the folks who keep voting for there folks. But anyone applying for the loan had better understand what they are signing...student debt is the WORST debt anyone can have.

And BRF, you taught me this...years ago I didn't know all the rules around it, thank you for educating me.

So instead of the same approach I would suggest you pour your efforts in educating people about the risks and have them think about taking a different approach to get a degree.
 
No, I won't pour everything into that because did for thing the Bible says a lot more about empathy, compassion, and love than it does about "the borrower is slave to the lender." That's bullshit double speak for " I want to keep you in debt, regardless of the Constitution." What should be happening is you and others that know what's going on should be joining me in speaking out against these outrageous policies, that are unconstitutional. We have TOO MANY people in TOO MUCH debt because of these dumbass policies. Why are entities making money on student loans? Shouldn't we be trying to educate our citizens at the lowest cost possible, while still allowing them a good education? Can't you people see that these policies are ruining people's lives? What a bunch of hypocrites. SPEAK UP! CALL YOUR REPS AND VOICE YOUR DISPLEASURE! EMAIL THEM! Jesus would do it...
 
Anyone that thinks a lifetime of indebtedness is reasonable, especially if a person has proven they are insolvent, doesn't believe in upholding the Constitution of the United States.

This guy made a series of poor choices that got him into this.

He was debt-free after under grad. He chose to got to private school USC with an estimated base 400,000 to 500,000 tuition. He could have went to a public school in state in California (UCSF's dental school estimate in 2018 is $138,000). So that was a stupid choice.

He could have went to work for several years, saved up money, and then went back into orthodontics. That's what my friend that graduated from MT at the same time I did was able to do.

They bought a $400,000 the same year he finished his residencey. Again, a poor choice.

During this time they bought a Mercedes Benz with a monthly payment of $390.

And they decided to have 2 children while he was still in residency.


Reading the article, this guy drives a Tesla, he is taking family vacations to Hawaii, and they have what does not sound like a cheap home in Salt Lake City.


My biggest problem with forgiveness programs like this is the tax payers accept the burden of stupid. What about all the people who made good choices? Or actually sacrificed to avoid situations like this. I really have no sympathy for this guy.
 
This guy made a series of poor choices that got him into this.

He was debt-free after under grad. He chose to got to private school USC with an estimated base 400,000 to 500,000 tuition. He could have went to a public school in state in California (UCSF's dental school estimate in 2018 is $138,000). So that was a stupid choice.

He could have went to work for several years, saved up money, and then went back into orthodontics. That's what my friend that graduated from MT at the same time I did was able to do.

They bought a $400,000 the same year he finished his residencey. Again, a poor choice.

During this time they bought a Mercedes Benz with a monthly payment of $390.

And they decided to have 2 children while he was still in residency.


Reading the article, this guy drives a Tesla, he is taking family vacations to Hawaii, and they have what does not sound like a cheap home in Salt Lake City.


My biggest problem with forgiveness programs like this is the tax payers accept the burden of stupid. What about all the people who made good choices? Or actually sacrificed to avoid situations like this. I really have no sympathy for this guy.

First of all, I don't agree with all of your assertions, but let's agree that maybe this guy isn't the best example for bankruptcy. There are still millions out there that are good examples of why we need bankruptcy protections for ALL debt. They are in the Constitution for a reason.
 
First of all, I don't agree with all of your assertions, but let's agree that maybe this guy isn't the best example for bankruptcy. There are still millions out there that are good examples of why we need bankruptcy protections for ALL debt. They are in the Constitution for a reason.

I don’t disagree with your point, if the federal govt got out of student loans.

Privatize student loans, increase funding for Pell Grants, and ensure bankruptcy protection for these loans.

If some can’t afford or acquire the above, and want money from the fed govt, there is the GI bill and peace Corp transition funds.
 
Voluntary bankruptcy should not be rewarded - if so, none of us should pay any of our debts.

Sure they would because there is incentive to keep your house, keep your car, keep good credit, etc etc etc. You people have to start thinking things through. You're watching too much Fox News. Your overloads have you thinking just the way they like you to think.
 
Last edited:
I don’t disagree with your point, if the federal govt got out of student loans.

Privatize student loans, increase funding for Pell Grants, and ensure bankruptcy protection for these loans.

If some can’t afford or acquire the above, and want money from the fed govt, there is the GI bill and peace Corp transition funds.

Less than 1% of borrowers filed bankruptcy on student loans before Congress changed the laws. People filing bankruptcy isn't the issue. The issue is that once schools and banks realized that people couldn't file, the banks were willing to loan copious amounts. The schools saw this and raised tuition in turn. It's the reason that you rarely see a university not raise tuition. They want the money, the banks want the students indebted to them for life so that they can make a ton of money. If you guys could see past the end of your nose, you would realize that restoring bankruptcy protections for student loans will actually help the situation. Very few people historically file for bankruptcy on student loans. Continuing to advocate for keeping bankruptcy protections only hurts your descendants and Americans in general.
 
Less than 1% of borrowers filed bankruptcy on student loans before Congress changed the laws. People filing bankruptcy isn't the issue. The issue is that once schools and banks realized that people couldn't file, the banks were willing to loan copious amounts. The schools saw this and raised tuition in turn. It's the reason that you rarely see a university not raise tuition. They want the money, the banks want the students indebted to them for life so that they can make a ton of money. If you guys could see past the end of your nose, you would realize that restoring bankruptcy protections for student loans will actually help the situation. Very few people historically file for bankruptcy on student loans. Continuing the advocate for keeping bankruptcy protections only hurts your descendants and Americans in general.


Hold your horses...I agreed with you. Bring back bankruptcy protection for private student loans. Let the banks/students work out loan structure.

Increase funding for pell grants as well.

At the same time, I think the fed govt should get out of the student loan business.
 
So basically if they brought that back, then banks wouldn't be as easy to get a loan from. Meaning a lot of kids wouldn't necessarily be able to attend college right out of high school. This would probably lead a lot of them into the trades, something we are currently lacking.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MTLynn
Or..if the kids can't get loans, maybe they would get off their butt and apply for scholarships. There are billions in unclaimed scholarship money every year
 
So basically if they brought that back, then banks wouldn't be as easy to get a loan from. Meaning a lot of kids wouldn't necessarily be able to attend college right out of high school. This would probably lead a lot of them into the trades, something we are currently lacking.

Exactly.

If you can't secure a loan through a bank, then....

Go to trade school. Go to work for a few years, then go to undergrad. Go to community college first and work. Go military and get the GI bill. Go to the peace corp and use the re-entry funds. Pick an undergraduate degree that will actually provide a decent salary. Pick a degree that has tuition re-imbursement programs in the field.

I have no problem giving help to those who come from truly disadvantaged situations. That's what Pell Grants are for. Most of us need to plan, sacrifice, and be responsible.
 
Schools are lying to young people and the counselors are telling them that they can easily make 50k a year when they graduate, which isn't always true. That is the reason you see a lot of young people willing to go into debt to get a degree. Also, no one is perfect and makes every right decision in life. Everyone on this board has made mistakes in life that they have been forgiven for. There is a reason that our founding fathers put bankruptcy protections in the Constitution. Any person that calls themselves a constitutional conservative is a liar if they don't agree with bankruptcy protections for all as it is written in the Constitution.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Blueraider_Mike
Any person that calls themselves a constitutional conservative is a liar if they don't agree with bankruptcy protections for all as it is written in the Constitution.

So, you are incorrect.

The answer is no, there is no individual Constitutional right to file a Bankruptcy case or receive a discharge of debt.

All the constitution says about bankruptcy is that congress can establish uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States.

Congress can modify bankruptcy laws and protections as they see fit. As long as it is applied uniformly across state lines, they have that authority to changes statutes as they want.

If what you said is true, then congress removing bankruptcy protections for those in student loan debt would be unconstitutional and the change to the law could be challenged in court.

You may not like what Congress did, but it was completely constitutional.
 
No it wasn't uniform because they aren't applying the laws across all debt the same. That's not uniform. That's making one type of debt "special." It's specifically enumerated in the Constitution. Even if this weren't true, wanting to keep a person in debt, that has proven that they are insolvent, is morally defunct and disgusting. Anyone that advocates for indentured servitude is a disturbed individual and should be ashamed of themselves.
 
No it wasn't uniform because they aren't applying the laws across all debt the same. That's not uniform. That's making one type of debt "special." It's specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

Your interpretation of the uniformity clause purpose is different than originally intended. The uniformity clause has been interpreted to mean uniformity across state lines. Remember, pre-USA, each state has its own bankruptcy laws. companies/people had protection in one state & collectors could follow them to another state and collect under the news states laws. Or the other way around, people got out of paying debt by crossing state lines. The uniformity clause has been interpreted to correct those issues, bankruptcies in one state is bankruptcy in another. No where does the constitution say all debt must be treated the same under bankruptcy laws (We know this is true, the clause covers both business and private bankruptcy - a personal bankruptcy vs a Fortune 500 is not under the same law. That’s why we have different “chapters” of bankruptcy, etc ).

You are trying to use a legal objection that doesn’t exist to make a moral argument.

I have no problem with your moral argument. The Congress should pass laws preventing insolvency bankruptcy protections for student loan debt. At the same time, the federal govt should stop providing federal student loans.

Those moves stop this in the future. And no one “wants to keep people in debt” for the rest of their lives. I feel sorry for people who made stupid financial mistakes, just like I feel for people who make stupid decisions to end up in jail. And we need law reform in both cases. But until laws are changed, you have to be aware that the consequences to certain decisions can be terrible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JohnDavidBlue
By not stepping up and denouncing oppressive laws, a person is supporting such laws. You finally did come out against these laws in the end, which is good. More people need to do so or we are going to have a real issue in this country soon.
 
Your opinions are all over your posts. Anyhow. People who can’t pay their debt are the lowest of lows in my book. That is my personal opinion.

Unless you are medically unable to repay there is absolutely no reason at all. Call me heartless. I call it personally responsibility. Fools who don’t pay back loans are who make it harder for the rest of us obtaining loans to start businesses or use it to generate something of value.


First of all, you don't know how much this particular orthodontist makes. Secondly, your opinion shouldn't enter into it. Bankruptcy is a constitutionally protected right. Conservatives sure are concerned about the Constitution, until it no longer meets their agenda.
 
So if you get into a horrible accident and rack up $1,000,000 or more in debt because of hospital bills, then its your fault. And if you can't pay that back then you are scum of the earth?
 
“Unless you are medically unable to repay....”

Reread my post or read thouroughly.

So if you get into a horrible accident and rack up $1,000,000 or more in debt because of hospital bills, then its your fault. And if you can't pay that back then you are scum of the earth?
 
Sorry John, but I trust the wisdom of our founding fathers over yours. Again, it's in the Constitution for a reason.
 
This is what I have found about this clause...you have to go through a lot of mental gymnastics to apply this to student loans and the ability to discharge them in bankruptcy.


Raiderdawg's point seems the most clear.

Among the unsatisfactory aspects of the Confederation government were its inability to regulate interstate and foreign commerce and its weak powers of taxation. The Constitution cured these defects, but thereby created a new danger: the greatly strengthened national government might abuse its powers by oppressing politically weaker groups and strangling the economic activity that the Framers hoped to promote.

At the Constitutional Convention, the Uniformity Clause was initially joined with what is now the Port Preference Clause (Article I, Section 9, Clause 6), which forbids Congress to give preferences "by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue" to the ports of one state over those of another. Along with other provisions restricting congressional power over taxes and commercial regulations, these two were designed to forestall economically oppressive discrimination. The Port Preference Clause limits both the commerce and taxing powers, whereas the Uniformity Clause applies to the taxing power alone. Their common origin, however, is a sign of their common purpose: each was meant to prevent geographic discrimination that would give one state or region a competitive advantage or disadvantage in its commercial relations with the others.

Because the goods and activities that can be taxed are distributed unequally through the country, virtually all duties, imposts, and excises have nonuniform effects. A tax on oil production, for example, will affect certain regions more severely than others. Because the Constitution expressly empowers Congress to levy these taxes, it must also permit some of the nonuniform effects that inevitably accompany them. The principal challenge in interpreting the Uniformity Clause is to distinguish between the kind of nonuniformity that is forbidden by the Constitution and the inevitable nonuniform effects that accompany legitimate duties, imposts, and excises.

In its earliest exposition, the Supreme Court declared that a tax is uniform if it "operates with the same force and effect in every place where the subject of it is found." Edye v. Robertson (1884). This rule correctly recognized that the Uniformity Clause was meant to forbid geographically nonuniform taxes without outlawing all geographically nonuniform effects. But the formula is inadequate, because it does not describe the limits on Congress's discretion to define the "subjects" of taxation. Suppose, for example, that Congress chose to define the subject of an excise tax as "oil produced in Alaska." The rule would be formally satisfied, but the most flagrant geographic discrimination would be possible.

In United States v. Ptasynski (1983), a unanimous Court concluded (1) that any tax in which the subject is defined in nongeographic terms satisfies the Uniformity Clause, and (2) that where the subject is defined in geographic terms, the tax will be scrutinized for "actual geographic discrimination."

The first part of this test creates a very large safe harbor for discriminatory taxes, which can almost always be framed without using overtly geographic terminology (for example, "oil whose production might affect caribou populations"). Nor is it clear that the second part of the test puts any real limit on Congress's power to impose discriminatory and oppressive taxes, for the Court nowhere defined "actual geographic discrimination." In fact, the Court went out of its way to emphasize that review of statutes using geographic terminology would be highly deferential. With no promise of effective judicial enforcement, the Uniformity Clause has, at least for the present, apparently been rendered nugatory, save for Congress's own sense of its obligations under the Constitution.
 
I just quoted text from a state’s tax law site. I spend way too much time these days dealing with federal lawyers discussing statute vs regulation vs policy vs guidance.

The constitution does not guarantee the right to bankruptcy. It says Congress must pass laws about bankruptcy that that must be uniform (the applied the same in each state). No where does it say all debt must be given the same bankruptcy protection - that’s just not what the constitution says or how the uniformity clause has ever been interpreted.

Someone can argue they believe Congress should pass a law giving bankruptcy protection for student loan debt. But it is incorrect to argue bankruptcy was a right given by the constitution. It was and is not - the constitution gave congress the power to set bankruptcy laws across the states as they see fit.
 
One could also argue that anyone that wants to keep another human being, that has proven they are insolvent, in debt for life, is a big fat jerk.
 
36510056_1046443105541156_7160275481084821504_n.jpg
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT