GRRRRRRRR.

[camwyn]

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Wednesday that the government can seize a person's Social Security benefits to pay old student loans.

Retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote the decision that went against a disabled man, James Lockhart, who had sued claiming he needed all of his $874 monthly check to pay for food and medication.

Want more details on how this pertains at the individual level? Have a look here.

Want more details on how to get somebody to do something to change the law so this kind of crap doesn't happen again to people who've already gotten the shaft by both life and the government? Pop over here and contact your elected officials.

I suggest phone calls; email is iffy, and Congress apparently treats all their paper mail as if it's going to lunge at them and rip out their throats and pour anthrax spores into their lungs directly.

Comments

[quintus.livejournal.com]

I know the UK is not exactly a socialist workers paradise but f--king hell! Sure there's no way we can reverse that little misunderstanding in 1776 and get you lot back in the Empire?

[camwyn]

See if something can be arranged with the Canadians to come and stare at us sternly until somebody remembers what they did in the war of 1812, first.

Um...he defaulted.

[unsigned.livejournal.com]

Why is this a problem? Aside from the disabled issue?

Did you read the case? The man defaulted on his loans. The bank doesn't let you keep your car or house if you don't make your payments. They can't take his education away from him (though if he were a doctor or lawyer they could refuse to allow him to practice). However, the promissary notes of a guaranteed student loan state that failing to repay the debt could result in a failure to receive services from the government at some future date.

He took the loans and signed a promisary note to repay them. Then he blatantly failed (refused) to pay them back and went on with his life, never intending to pay off this debt, that he fully and knowingly incurred. It isn't as if the guy was paying them on a regular basis, and then suddenly got ill and was forced into retirement and disability because of that illness.

Why should the tax payer have to provide this man an education, and then provide him living expenses after he defaults? Now, if he hadn't defaulted, then that would be a different issue entirely, and I wouldn't be saying this.

However, that wasn't what this case was about.

Re: Um...he defaulted.

[camwyn]

It's not so much him specifically. It's more a matter of the people who this is going to set a precedent for. Do you honestly think the companies that buy up loan obligations are going to care whether someone was paying off their loan when disability struck or not? I have a nasty feeling they're going to use this decision as grounds to strike anyone and everyone they can, whether they're particularly close to defaulting or not.

Re: Um...he defaulted.

[unsigned.livejournal.com]

Well yes.

Since the law states it can be forgiven if such a thing strikes.

What this ruling says is simply that you can't default and then expect services in the future. Besides, it wasn't a company he cheated. It was you and I, not that this makes any bit of difference.

And I am uncertain if this would apply to a private loan. It applies specifically to loans derived from the goverments, "Guaranteed Student Loan" program.

It does not apply to loans personally acquired for the purposes of education.