The court opinions do not reflect any evidence to indicate Mr. Lockharts attempts to obtain a forebearance, deferrment, cancellation, or debt relief. No evidence was cited that indicated Mr. Lockhart ever attempted to repay his debt. So, this concludes that either 1) the Justices saw this as bearing no merit on the case (in which case there is an issue that needs to be addressed in the law) 2) No evidence of this sort was actually prepared and given, in which case Mr. Lockhart had a poor attorney, or 3) Mr. Lockhart made no payments, or attempts to secure debt relief.
Since Supreme Court attorney's don't exactly come cheaply, and those attorney's aren't likely to miss such an evidence, the second seems implausible, which indicates either the first or third choice as being the case.
I understand the desire to protect life, limb, and dignity. I also understand that the reason we have an 8+ trillion dollar deficit is because we refuse to increase our revenue (i.e. taxes) and decrease are services (free student loand repayment plans after 10 years). I realize that I seem heartless, and probably a little cruel. It is not intended. But the question must be asked. When do we start making ourselves accountable? Is it right to make my child, or my grandchild or my child's grandchild pay for Mr. Lockhart's debt?
Yes, there are better cases to be made. Unfortunately it was Mr. Lockhart who's case came up. Personally, the better persons to persue are those who obtain their PHD's or their JD's and then decide not to repay their loans. It is also a poor time of choosing, for them to enforce the terms of repayment back.
Do I feel for Mr. Lockhart's position? Yes. Do I feel horrible about it? No. I did not put Mr. Lockhart in this position. I did not ask Mr. Lockhart not to pay back his loans while he had the opportunity and health to do so. Mr. Lockhart chose this course of action. Would I wish to see this done to anyone doing their best to survive, and then become unable due to illness to pay back their debt? Not at all. This is exactly why I stated that it needs to be addressed in order to prevent it from occuring to anyone that in good faith, has attempted to repay their debt, but due to health or unforseeable circumstance became incable of doing so.
I do not hate Mr. Lockhart. I feel bad, only that this has occurred to him at this point in his life. I do not wish to see someone lose their life, limb, vision, sight, or ability because of such as this. But I also don't wish to have my children not be able to get an education because the Mr. Lockharts failed to even attempt to repay their loans.
So, the otherside ofthe coin? If Mr. Lockhart did attempt to repay his loans, or gain debt relieft at some point, and they can prove this, then yes, this needs to be amended, it needs to be fixed so it cannot be applied to people in these situations.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
Re: A-hem. part 2
Date: 2005-12-09 10:21 pm (UTC)Since Supreme Court attorney's don't exactly come cheaply, and those attorney's aren't likely to miss such an evidence, the second seems implausible, which indicates either the first or third choice as being the case.
I understand the desire to protect life, limb, and dignity. I also understand that the reason we have an 8+ trillion dollar deficit is because we refuse to increase our revenue (i.e. taxes) and decrease are services (free student loand repayment plans after 10 years). I realize that I seem heartless, and probably a little cruel. It is not intended. But the question must be asked. When do we start making ourselves accountable? Is it right to make my child, or my grandchild or my child's grandchild pay for Mr. Lockhart's debt?
Yes, there are better cases to be made. Unfortunately it was Mr. Lockhart who's case came up. Personally, the better persons to persue are those who obtain their PHD's or their JD's and then decide not to repay their loans. It is also a poor time of choosing, for them to enforce the terms of repayment back.
Do I feel for Mr. Lockhart's position? Yes. Do I feel horrible about it? No. I did not put Mr. Lockhart in this position. I did not ask Mr. Lockhart not to pay back his loans while he had the opportunity and health to do so. Mr. Lockhart chose this course of action. Would I wish to see this done to anyone doing their best to survive, and then become unable due to illness to pay back their debt? Not at all. This is exactly why I stated that it needs to be addressed in order to prevent it from occuring to anyone that in good faith, has attempted to repay their debt, but due to health or unforseeable circumstance became incable of doing so.
I do not hate Mr. Lockhart. I feel bad, only that this has occurred to him at this point in his life. I do not wish to see someone lose their life, limb, vision, sight, or ability because of such as this. But I also don't wish to have my children not be able to get an education because the Mr. Lockharts failed to even attempt to repay their loans.
So, the otherside ofthe coin? If Mr. Lockhart did attempt to repay his loans, or gain debt relieft at some point, and they can prove this, then yes, this needs to be amended, it needs to be fixed so it cannot be applied to people in these situations.
I'm sorry if my opinions offend you.