Firstie! low student loans in Canada Rocks!!

The passage of this bill would bring some much needed relief to the dozens of laid off Latham first years struggling to get by.

fourthie

There is no such thing as undue hardship due to loans; if you amass more debt than you can pay off, you are incompetent and dilatory.

Toil away, plebs.

JaKe strikes again with ironic elitism. good show, sir.

there's still an its/it's error in the IRS post. How are we supposed to correct u if there's no room to comment?

This is mainly focused on college debt. Re college debt -- most people drowning in college debt would not be drowning in college debt if they attended their in-state public school. Most students do this (something like 80-90% of college students are attending a state school in the state they graduated high school in.)

Idiots who drown in debt to go to some private school that is not Harvard or Yale or something equivalent are just throwing money down the drain and screwed themselves. Look at the stats -- most people graduating from public schools do just fine in life.

Life isn't fair. Expensive private schools in big cities are not for middle class or working class families. And honestly you are 18-22 -- you can handle Athens, GA or Chapel Hill, NC and save yourself or your parents tons on rent/dorms. You don't have to live in Manhattan then or Los Angeles. You have the rest of your 22+ year old life to live in those cities if you want it.

3- Are any of those ex-Latham brats still looking for jobs? ....still holding out for that great offer from Sullivan & Cromwell or Simpson or whomever?

Getting laid off is one thing, but being out of work 8-9 months as a young attorney is pretty much a death sentence to your "career."

As champion of downtrodden lawyers, ATL should start a letter and phone campaign to members of that subcommittee. Unionize now.

I hate my monthly loan payments as much as the next guy but student loans should not be dischargeable in bankruptcy. People already spend far too less time considering whether they're borrowing too much money (myself included). Providing an out for anything other than undue hardship is ridiculous.

For large estate owning patricians, the thought of even incurring such massive amounts of debt is humorous and a reminder of their stature in society.

If you go to law school and medical school and are able to practice in those professions, you can't discharge. But if you are unemployable for whatever reason, there is a certain point where the lender is at fault for betting on a loser.

Making college more affordable does not equal making student debt dischargeable in bankruptcy. It would drive up the cost of borrowing. Lenders would add a fee to recover the risk of losing loans in bankruptcy. While this may put pressure on tuition increases because increasing the cost of borrowing will force that money to come out of the tuition column. In the end this would probably be a wash at best for consumers. Will someone enroll Elie into an Econ 101 class somewhere.

5 wins for good use of the word "dilatory"

The recession won't end until the amount of private debt in the system falls to a manageable level. Eliminating the first 100k of student loan debt + the first 100k of mortgage debt + the first 10k of CC debt might just get us there. Otherwise, USA 2030 = Japan 2009.

Jubilee 2010!

13: Except that lenders have basically no ability to deny you a student loan because you probably won't do well in school.

13 - Lenders are not making bets and hoping to hit some trifecta. You're a dimwit.

"[T]he Eighth Circuit didn’t allow a student to discharge his debts in bankruptcy, even though he racked up $350,000 in educational debts and penalties."

What do you mean "even though"? As if a high amount of student loans by itself should justify overriding the rule against dischargeability?

13---- Wrong. Lenders can't turn you down for being unemployable, even if they can predict it.

If that could happen, Elie wouldn't have loans and we wouldn't have to listen to him talk about how awesome it would be to socialize them.

20 wins

13, the lender doesn't care about the borrower's risks because student loans are guaranteed by the government. It's the taxpayers, i.e., you, who are betting on a loser.

The solution is obviously to double down on subsidizing student loans for even more marginal students and bet on more losers. That is the change we can believe in.

13 here. The schools can kick those students out. Like Southwestern law school. Show them the door. Save the students some cash.

@13, do you really want a system where, knowing that a person might discharge, banks build metrics around who is a future risk to discharge and don't offer student loans to such people? Doesn't matter if you're just looking to dump your loans currently, but makes a big difference for future access to student loans.

10- ATL used to be a site where privileged jackasses compared perks that they didn't deserve while they rationalized billing 2500+ hours per year at a firm which would never make them a partner. Every 3rd or 4th post was something like "Latham NY to $185k!"
The successful young attorneys at those firms were busy working and not posting on this site.

Now those clowns can't compare perks because they are getting laid off and "no-offered," and the tone of the site has changed substantially.

And now we weep for the poor, lost class of 2009 because not all T14 grads are walking into jobs paying them $165,000+ a year to review non-responsive documents from a secretary's inbox in the hopes of finding something about market share for a corporate merger the government is investigating. And now there is all this talk of compassion and unfairness.

quick-someone get me a violin

13 (or 23) is wrong again, and clearly, still in school. The kids who do well in school have zero guarantee of being employed or employable. I went to a top 50 school in a smallish market, and the kids who were 2008-2009 top of class are unemployed or deferred and the kids who were at the bottom are making decent money doing whatever they can get their hands on. So schools kicking kids out is idiotic. The whole point is grades (the only available metric IN school) have nothing to do with postgraduate success.

There is still a solution if you want to rid your student loans in bankruptcy, and they are called credit cards. Just get a whole bunch of unsecured credit (which there is never a shortage of), pay off the loans with the credit, then declare bankruptcy.

Considering the US government is about to take over the entire student loan industry what are the chances they are going to let student loans be discharged via bankruptcy given the losses the USG would face. Please... I have a big fat zero chance of this going anywhere.

FORGIVE ALL LOANS RIGHT NOW AN DTHEN YOU;LLL TYR OTO OTNF TTT

Private student loans better be able to be discharged in BK, too, if government loans are.

Can we get input from BK counsel on the legality and efficacy of 27's suggestion?

31 - If you had taken bankruptcy in law school you would both know the answer and not need the answer.

27 = EPIC FAIL
Student loan servicers do not accept cc payments. And good luck on a credit limit with a 6 figure cash advance (I'm sure you understand you'll only be able to do this one time).

You plebes will need to try a different scam. That is all.

This comment is addressed to post no. 27.

You are wrong and your discharge would be denied pursuant to section 727 of the Bankruptcy Code. In October of 1996, I personally testified before a sub-committee on the deleterious effects of allowing plebes to discharge their student loans in bankruptcy. I would like to think that my potent testimony galvanized Congress to enact the 1998 amendment to the Bankruptcy Code, which ended the stale student loan debt dischargeability provision. In early 2000, I again testifed, that time arguing that private loan proceeds used toward obtaining an education should also be protected as non-dischargeable. In 2005, another amendment to the Code was enacted that excepted private (non-Sallie Mae) lenders from a bankruptcy discharge so long as the loans were obtained in furtherance of an educational degree/certification. I will not stand for Commissar Obama's Congress to undo what I fought so hard to accomplish. I will not tolerate this slothlike generation of cretins from shirking their personal responsibilities to the taxpayers. People need to be held accountable. If you gambled your life on an expensive yet worthless law degree, you deserve to be sentenced to a life of abject poverty.

Yale is the only law school worth going to. Everyone else is a retard. Go number 1.

I'm all for having student loan debt dischargeable. That means that banks won't have as much money...they'll charge higher interest rates to students, or stop giving loans altogether.

This just means that there will be less competition for me, 3L, in the long-run, because fewer people will be able to go to law school.

Plus, if things go poorly, then I'll just declare bankruptcy. I could use some stability in my life right now, even if it means screwing over all the future lawyers (or future garbage-people if they can't get student loans).

I don't think student loans should be dischargeable at bankrupcty; I do think that the interest rate charged on student loans should reflect the current reality. With student loans not being dischargeable, the amount of risk facing lenders should be negligible. As such, the interest rate on student loans should be lower than the interest charged on mortgages and other long-term loans. Only recently has the interest on government backed student loans been reduced, but even so, you can still get a home loan with a better interest rate than an ed loan.

In short, reduce the interest rate to reflect the actual risk lenders face, and student loan payments will at least be affordable.

Education expenses are the greatest racket in town. There needs to be a way to keep tuition prices under control. Burdening people with student loan debt is not the answer. It also runs counter to the idea of upward social mobility. http://www.stupidrightwingers.com

This comment is addressed to 34:

EPIC FAIL.

Nice bragging, but you failed to address 27's point. Must be nap time.

How about lowering the interest rate of the Grad PLUS loan??? My rate is over 8%, that's ABSURD!

33 and Partner E -- EPIC FAILS to the BOTH OF YOU. Balance transfers to credit are acceptable payments for most student loan accounts . . . you don't get points on your CC, but I know of someone *cough, cough* that financed one year of education (~15K) doing CC arbitrage.

41 - what a dummy that whoever that was -cough,cough. I'm sure you didn't save any $ on interest. is that arbitrage for idiots (i.e., you're supposed to make money when you do that).

41 - what a dummy whoever that was -cough,cough. I'm sure you didn't save any $ on interest. is that arbitrage for idiots (i.e., you're supposed to make money when you do that).

41 - what a dummy whoever that was -cough,cough. I'm sure you didn't save any $ on interest. is that arbitrage for idiots (i.e., you're supposed to make money when you do that).

Why should student loans be treated any differently than a home?

The number of uses of the term "plebe" on this site helps illustrate how what douchebags most attorneys are. Miserable people.

its only necessary to change the rules for private loans. public loans have the IBR and ten/25 year discharge and liberal deferment and forbearance

its the private loans where you have to pay even if unemployed or a cosinger must pay even while student is dead that's the real problem.

also private loans should remain nondischargeable for the first 5-10 years or if there has been bad faith refusal to pay despite ability to pay-so that there is no abuse.

I guess I don't know anything about bankruptcy, and I don't hope to know, but what does it take to prove an "undue hardship" if you're already bankrupt?

48 - you must be really, really, really bankrupt. Bankrupt spiritually, ethically, morally, etc.

Please! Please please! Make my entire student loan payment tax deductable. I'll live on 60k a year to knock out my loans in a year and a half.

@ 27, 34, 41, 44
The idea of using cash advances or balance transfers from credit cards to convert nondischargeable student loan debt to dischargeable credit card debt is workable in theory, but will probably not work in practice, at least not in an amount large enough to risk the penalties.

While you could theoretically do this, both the Chapter 7 trustee and the United States Trustee are going to review your aggregate debt and income levels. If you have over $100k in credit card debt, and a non Biglaw income, you can expect some questions as to how that debt was accrued above and beyond the standard formalities. For people with medical problems, their own business that failed, or other circumstances, this answer presents itself. To someone who was laid off from Latham 2 years previously and has been waiting tables at TGI Friday's since then, it will arouse suspicion. As 34 pointed out, section 727 allows a denial of the debtor's discharge for substantial abuse (such as converting debt and then perjuring yourself at the 341 meeting when asked about it). Therefore, while you could get away with this, you would need to do it in a small enough amount to not arouse suspicion. Ultimately, you knock off $20k in student loan debt, but you have a bankruptcy filing on your record, $80k in debt to go (I'm being generous), and the possibility of a bankruptcy crime and the loss of your license.

If you were to choose the above route, you would have to be careful about how you incurred the debt. If your debt to income ratio looks suspicious, the UST will request a copy of an Experian credit report, which maintains a balance history of your credit cards for several years. If your balance suddenly jumps by $20k one month, you will need to explain that. Lack of records can be the grounds for denial of a discharge. You would need to incur the debt over a lengthy time period, so that the slow increase in credit card debt mimics the accrual of debt from living expenses. In addition to making your student loan payments during this time, you would also need to be making minimum payments (typically 2% of the balance) on the credit card balances, which if they were cash advances would be accruing interest at a rate of typically 25 to 30%. You'll end up paying a fairly substantial amount of the debt you incur, and mostly discharge transaction fees and interest expenses in the bankruptcy filing.

Some have also mentioned that it may be wise to use a balance transfer to convert the student loan debt to credit card debt. The nondischargeable debt converted to dischargeable debt is nondischargeable, and most credit card companies have data mining programs that will review your transactions to search out these types of payments (taxes, child support, student loans, etc.). You could expect a complaint under section 523 if you went this route.

In short, if you were to convert student loan debt to credit card debt and then attempt to discharge the credit card debt, you risk criminal charges, the denial of a discharge and the loss of your law license in exchange for the shot at discharging maybe $20 to $25k in student loan debt, after having paid the 2% minimum payments on this debt for a period of about 24 months to mask your intentions. Everyone has their own risk tolerance, and in bankruptcy practice I have seen stranger things (sometimes outright criminals walk easy while hardworking people with bad recordkeeping get accused of wrongdoing), but this sounds like a terrible idea, and above and beyond my ethical and statutory obligations, I would strongly suggest anyone choose not to undertake this course of action.

49, like, selling my used underwear to the creepy old man down the street type of bankrupt? I got this.

I say make ed loans dischargeable. Loan rates will go up, and banks will be more cautious about lending to people who have bad credit or are unlikely to be employable when they graduate. Fewer people will be able to pursue higher education, and TTTs will either have to lower their tuition or will have to close their doors.

Seems like win-win-win to me.

27, et al: Unless you are able to maintain those credit card balances for a long time, the payoffs would be avoided in bankruptcy as preferential. Also, the entire scheme would be a violation of the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act under state law. Fail.

53 has the right idea. It's absurd that terrible law schools charge $30k+ a year, and even state universities are over that amount. Schools get to write their own checks because the loan money just keeps flowing in. That money just goes to finance things like the "scholarly research" of the tenured professors, who spend about 1/5th of their time teaching students, including course preparation. Not everyone needs a four year degree. That World Arts and Cultures BA really won't make you a better office worker, I promise. And if you have to incur $100k+ debt to go to a third or fourth tier law school, you clearly should never be a lawyer because you fail at risk management.

@54,

Preferences are only recoverable if paid within 90 days of the bankruptcy filing. So if you paid your student loans on January 1 and filed on April 2, those payments would be outside the look-back period. However, this is not a preference payment, because a preference is when assets are given to one creditor in particular rather than to all creditors on an equal basis. Conversion of nondischargeable or secured debt to unsecured dischargeable debt is a different matter. Furthermore, when a trustee recovers a preference, it is for the benefit of the estate, not an individual creditor.

For example, if $20k taken were from Citibank and given to Sallie Mae and recovered by a trustee, it would be split among all creditors on a pro rata basis based upon their priority, not returned to Citibank. What would happen is Citibank would file a complaint under section 523 to have the debt declared nondischargeable, while the Chapter 7 trustee or the UST would consider filing a complaint under section 727 to deny the debtors discharge for abusing the code and for not being the "honest but unfortunate" debtor the Code envisages. In the above example, Citibank could potentially consider litigation against Sallie Mae, but it would probably not be worth it financially.

The Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act does not apply, because the bankruptcy code has its own statutes to resolve such situations. As I point out to clients, bankruptcy has been around for millennia, and has existed in its current form since 1898, with revisions in 1933, 1937, 1978 and 2005. There are no new scams to think up. Bankruptcy crimes are like shoplifting: you'll probably get caught, and if you don't, it's only because you committed the crime over for a low enough dollar value to have not made it worthwhile in the first place.

Also endorse #53. Extending credit to anyone with a pulse attending any school for any reason simply makes no sense

Why should the government care at all what kind of quality of life people live after graduation

The country is getting what it paid for with college loans: a more educated work force. That the people are also forced to work and can't use their education to live the desired upper middle class lifestyle (or even something much lower) isn't a congressional issue

for all the anti discharge people-

how do you respond to situations where a creditor required a cosinger and the cosigner is stuck w/ the nondischargeable loans after the student committed suicide for being unemployed and unable to repay his loans which went into default because he maxed out forbearance?

This comment is addressed to post no. 59.

No one put a gun to the co-signor's head. If he wants to avoid the responsibility, perhaps he should give the student/main borrower a gun with a high caliber and stand behind the borrower before he points the gun to his body and discharges the gun.

PE-

noone forced the debter in ANY bankruptcy case to take on ANY DEBT otherwise it would be duress and unenforceable.

@60

Harsh, but true. Never co-sign a loan for anyone. Any financial planner will tell you that.

Something goofy is going on between the government, the colleges and the student loans institutions. Restatement 90. I can feel it.

Don't marry anyone with this kind of debt or you will end up in the same place as a co-signer.

"This is mainly focused on college debt. Re college debt -- most people drowning in college debt would not be drowning in college debt if they attended their in-state public school"

This is mainly not true. State schools are more expensive than you think. They didn't used to be. Now they are. Things change. Please keep up.

I know it's very comforting to believe that everyone who was caught in this perverse mess was simply stupid. Of COURSE, you say, ""That won't happen to me because the people who were screwed deserved it. They messed up. But that doesn't mean there is anythign wrong. They could have been smarter."

It's comforting to think this, but it's really always wrong. Shit happens. And it has happened iby the dump truck load to the ambitious young people of the last 15 years. There is no cheap and responsible option for getting a college education. Now their parents will spend what's left of their retirement supporting them. The government will pay the defaults, and the banks who charged 8.5% interest on a government backed loan, will sell the defaulted loan as a monetized stream of income. So your tax dollars paid for the bank to make risk-free money out of bankrupting old people who now can't retire, and young people who now won't be consumers.

Trust me, if all students everywhere went to state school, we would still be screwed. The problem is that we paid a private company to make a profit. It's not that some students paid tuition at a fancier school than they "deserved."

"How about lowering the interest rate of the Grad PLUS loan??? My rate is over 8%, that's ABSURD!"

I agree. Interestingly enough, the argument for making student loan debt non-dischargeable in 2005 was that it would allow the banks to offer lower interest if the debt was more secure, even though the government already pays in the event of a default. It didn['t work. Interest rates on private loans remain at absurd levels. If anything, they've gone up.

I would ove to say I am enjoying the rash of Biglaw layoffs and no offers.

However, the downside is that all those decent mid law and government jobs that Biglaw types would neer have even spat at, are now being inundatd with ex-Biglaw drones with their glittering resumes. Trying to lateral out of my job is proving difficult. T50, cum laude with 2 state bars.

I have sent out many resumes to regional firms looking specifically for Mass and Ri with 2-3 years experiencee and I have not heard anything at all. Pre-crash I would have expected a couple of calls.

Student loans should be no different from small business loans. If a person borrows 100k and invests in PP&E to start a small business and expects an X rate of return on investment and fails, then they can discharge that debt in bankruptcy. If a person borrows 100k and invests in an education and expects an X rate of return on investment and fails, then they cannot discharge that debt in bankruptcy? The rates on private student loan debt should be similar to the rates on small business loans. To the extent the rate is different, I say raise the rate on the student loan to be more in line with that of a small business loan. It is simply wrong that a person investing in a business can walk away when the business fails while the person who invests in education cannot. Also don't give me the "you still have your degree" junk. Everyone knows that the practical reality is that many if not most lawyers who "fail" in this economy will never be lawyers again. A business owner who buys PP&E and fails, can discharge the debt that financed the PP&E even though he can still get a job as something else later. If student loan debt isn’t dischargeable in bankruptcy then no business loan, small or otherwise, should be.

67- maybe you haven't received any calls b/c people can tell you are the type of d-bag who like to see people get laid off.

I went to a state school and took a year off before school and worked full time, saving about $10,000. Then I worked 30 hours a week throughout school to pay my living expenses during college. When that got expensive, I got a full time Paralegal gig, and finished my BA by going to school part time.

If you rack up educational debt, it's your own bad planning, and you should have to pay it back in full....no discharge in bankruptcy.

Your poor planning and resultant financial problems shouldn't equal higher interest rates for those who are borrowing lesser amounts because they saved and paid for some of their education in cash.

Entitlement strikes again!

Degree-granting institutions function analogously to bond rating agencies. A Yale law degree is similar to an AAA rating and so on. The veneer of 'education' is simply that; the system would run much more efficiently without any classrooms and simply the admissions committee doing their thing once per year. In a truly efficient system, law schools would simply act as filtering devices for law firm hiring-pools. The actual learning of the substantive law could take place in a 12-week probationary period involving much reading of E&Es. It is really, then, the law firms that are benefiting from this service, and they should be the ones to pay. But it shouldn't cost $150k per degree either. The high tuition cost is entirely a result of moral hazard; the fed guaranteeing student loans. The entire fiasco is really just an example of one generation f'ing the younger generation as entirely as possible, because they can.

70-

you are assuming you can get a full time job at all that you can both live off of and save money before even graduating college. thats quite an assumption.

guess what-most people who declare bankrupcy are guilty of bad planning-dont think it would be logical to deny a business guy a discharge becuase he was a bad businessman

Just send my student loan bills directly to Bob Dell. Thanks.

- Savagely Lathamed First Year

The approach to this should not be about forgiveness. I neither expect, nor deserve, nor pray for a student loan bailout for my worthless JD anymore than a murderer foolishly expects a pardon from the governor. "Ignorance of the demand for non-T-14 is no defense."

The best argument for reforming student loans is economic stimulus. Personal consumption or savings (both net positives) increase when indebtedness decreases. Society would be better off in deterring students from attending law schools with limited employment outcomes, so on the macro level these would-be students make more rational choices producing optimal outcomes for society. If individuals would not incur law school debt for worthless paper, they would be more likely to buy houses (reviving the housing market), spend money on consumer goods (helping the retail market), or even give money to worthy pro-bono groups (which might even give lunch to the unemployed attorneys doing pro-bono).

The solution should start and end at limiting credit for subprime JDs. Eliminate the federal guarantee of law school loans. This will give banks a disincentive from providing loans. GOOD! If banks conclude that students graduating from private New York City Law Schools not named Columbia or NYU will not be able to pay the loans back at the tuition rates those schools charge, then the banks will not make those loans. This would force the law schools to lower their prices to attract students. A banker could approve a loan for a student to take out 20 thou a year at an NYLS or Cardozo, but not 40 thou. Kid- we don't approve mortgages for Flushing that ask for Murray Hill prices- what makes you think we do the same for law schools?

If a result would be a higher barrier to enter law, so be it. If someone really wants a law degree, that person can take mine and practice (if someone actually hired him or her). Perhaps those would-be law students will produce something of greater value to society than additional unemployable, indentured people who can write an appellate brief. There is a financially strained brain-drain occurring. Society loses every time a law school enrolls or produces an unemployable person.

Going to bed- it's lights out in Shawshank. Maybe one day I will pay off the student loan, or Access Group will stop caring like when the prison let Red out.

74 you are right-except the people arguing for forgiveness are also right

its one of those rare times when forgiveness for those who made bad decisions and the free market demands of having loans sensitive to credit worthiness and schools sensitive to actual price instead of the inflated price are BOTH LEGIT reasons for why this is good.

in other words-both liberals and free market proponents should agree with this.

only moralist who don't understand economics and the place of bankruptcy in it would disagree w/ having a system where it was bankruptcy some years after graduating.

We need to bomb loan forgiveness back to the stoneage!

-DOJ Secure

27 = dumbest post ever.

Debt incurred in contemplation of filing for bankruptcy is fraud and non dischargeable and would make you subject to criminal penalties.

If you weren't contemplating bankruptcy and just did it you would be an idiot as many other people have said. Not only would the interest rates kill you, and there's no way you can obtain a credit limit that high (especially while incurring the student loan debt, since it takes awhile to come off your credit report), but you wouldn't be able to keep up with the monthly payments that would immediately become due while in lawschool (since you couldn't file for bankruptcy while getting the loans for every year).

Furthermore, if you did this pre-bar exam, most bars require you to answer if you ever filed for bankruptcy, which would go against your character and fitness.

8 - You're completely wrong, but nice of you to insert your elitist NIMBY attitudes into the discussion. Hopefully the recession will keep the poors out of your beloved Amherst, or whatever shitty bastion of entitlement you went to.

In fact, the by a significant margin the highest default rates on college loans are among students who attended public 2- and 4-year programs at their local college but didn't finish their degree. They often don't realize that they need to repay the loans (their own fault for not understanding the paperwork they signed.) B/c school are penalized for having high default rates, schools with resources expend significant energy making sure that their recent grads and drop-outs are repaying loans. Low ranked, low budget public schools don't have the money to do this, and consequently have higher default rates.

I suspect that even if they allow discharging student loans in bankruptcy they will design it in a way where I would not be able to take advantage of it. They'll put some arbitrary threshhold on income or limit it to certain types of student loans or the loans had to have been made in certain years, etc. It seems every time that the gov't does some sort of bailout or reform I can't take advantage. The recent low income payments student loan discharge scheme - can't do it because it only covers federal loans, and most of my loans are private. Cash for clunkers - my car didn't qualify. New home tax break - not going to buy something when the market is overpriced and I can't be certain I'd have gainful employment to pay the thing off. Student loan tax breaks - can't get them because I make too much, but after loan payments I make less than their threshhold income.

NACBA Member,

This is to let you that NACBA member Brett Weiss will be testifying on behalf of NACBA (and the National Consumer Law Center) today at 1 p.m. ET before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law. The subject of the hearing is an issue of tremendous interest to many NACBA members: the dischargeability in bankruptcy of private student loans.

To watch the hearing and to see all the testimony submitted to the Subcommittee, go to http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/caltoday.html.

Maureen Thompson

NACBA Legislative Director

27 =not the dumbest post ever

What you describe is possible, but you have to pay on the credit cards for a while.