D.F. wrote on Dec 8, 2005 8:40 AM:Although I have emphathy for Lockhart, the S.C. finally got one right. The taxpayers of the U.S. deserve to have students repay the loans they take out. Taxpayers dollars dont' grow on trees. Mr. Lockhart had the ability to ask the Department of Education to forgive the loan based on hardship. Apparently, he didn't want to do that, but instead, hired expensive lawyers to fight this all the way to the S.C. If the court had ruled the other way, students could simply keep delaying repayment until they retired (it can be done as shown here). Once they started collecting social security, their debt would automatically be foregiven. Debts are to be repaid and if the recent bankruptcy overhall hasn't convinced some, this case will.

linda wrote on Dec 8, 2005 1:32 PM:I agree with D.F. comments, Why should the taxpayers have to pay for the loans. We did not get any benifits from them. It is too easy these days to get money and not pay it back. No wonder the Goverment is in the hole. I am glad to see that the bankruptcy is not as easy as it was before. People these days are just lazy and suite happy, anyway to get a buck. Try working for it and pay your bills.

elsie wrote on Dec 14, 2005 4:27 PM:I borrowed less than $10,00 in student loans during the 1980's. Due to illness and disability, my loans went into default. The government says I now owe a total of $80.000. I receive $579.00 per month in disability, which is less than half of the poverty level. What purpose is there in taking away 15%, as I assure you that I do not live high on the hog. I did not choose to become ill or disabled.

lydia wrote on Dec 15, 2005 11:21 PM:I realize that I created a debt with a promise to pay when I took out a student loan. I would love nothing more than to be healthy enough to go back to work fulltime and pay of my loan. At the risk of death, I do not have that option. It is demeaning and depressing to be in this state, but I will continue to do my best. I do not see how taking 15% of my disability check will diminish my amount of debt, as the interest and penalties accrue at more than the 15% the government could attach. The broader picture is that I become more dependant upon the services of the government by moving into government subsidized housing, getting food stamps, and qualifying for sundry other government programs. Although I have tried very hard to avoid such a scenario I am not able to prevent it.

concerned wrote on Apr 13, 2006 2:42 PM:The decision in Lockhart is sadistic to its core, as are some of the comments above. Why not bring back debtors' prisons? Some people would say, Yes, why not? And those are (medieval) evil people. As a society, we should have progressed beyond that mean-spiritedness. Do you really think taking 15% of someone's disability and social security payments will help the federal government more than it hurts the individual trying to survive? The poorest people are often the most powerless; hence, they can't buy legislation the way credit-card companies and banks recently have and continue to do, to deform the American way of life and prevent deserving people from getting a fresh start. Lockhart did not hire an expensive lawyer, as false comments above would have people believe: he represented himself because he could not afford a lawyer--the very same reason he needed the money from his social security. And the vast majority of people seeking bankruptcy relief are deserving, having lost their jobs, gone through terrible divorces, and suffered illnesses and hospitalization. All the work at a below-subsistence wage will never get one out of the hole. The often-lazy rich are still afforded protection under bankruptcy laws for their trusts and large homes. The current administration is going after the weakest, which is very sad. Try equitable tax laws instead; don't give the wealthiest people tax breaks they don't need. We're regressing to the social Darwinism of Reagan's trickle-down theory, which economists have thoroughly discredited. As for seeking an exemption from nondischargeability under the bankruptcy laws, the standard is undue hardship, not merely hardship. It is an almost impossible hurdle to clear. Perhaps if one is in a coma, one might be able to prevail on undue hardship. Sick... It is a very sad day for American jurisprudence and society. Hard cases make bad law.

Mike wrote on Apr 14, 2006 7:15 AM:This is stupid. Everyone screams and hollars about debt repayment as if that's all there is... Meanwhile the government bails out S&L's, gives huge tax relief to large corprate agencies, provides money for bankrupt airlines, etc... And yet a kid who was 18 years old and sold on an idea that you could borrow money and pay it off in a short period of time because Uncle Sam was willing to help is screwed because he didn't get that dream job that made $X dollars. Then in 1996 congress passess laws that deny people due process. No longer can a person simply discharge a student loan ... since that wasn't explained to those people before 1996 they should be grandfathered out of such a blatant oversight of justice. Moreover, since when did our country start become a debt policing force!? Billions they want from people... Meanwhile we constantly dump billions into other countries! NOW explain to me why in the 70s, 80s and 90s forgeing students in medical programs were allowed to attend our universities for free? We punish our own people trying to grab every penny from those who only have a few, instead of doing something proactive. Our country's governemnt is a joke and a hypocrisy. Rich men in congress saying that they're upholding laws while ignoring justice and the simpler forms of right and wrong.

crispycritter wrote on May 29, 2006 1:02 PM:If you sign a binding contract stating that you agree to repay money then isn't the obligation to repay the loan? The question is personal responsibility, not clouding the issue with how much the government spends on other things. To get to the point where they are taking your Social Security people must be continually making bad choices: 1) they didn't get a degree in a field that actually makes money 2) they didn't plan for disability or old age 3) they didn't ask for help with consolidation, forbearance, deferment, etc. when they first ran into problems Plus, it's probably a fair question to ask what some people paid into the SS system before they started receiving benefits. My guess in many cases would be that they didn't pay much into it, but will be getting much back over the course of their lives at the expense of those who have contributed.

john wrote on Jul 28, 2006 6:11 PM:I received 2500.00 dollars in student loans during the '70's. I was eligible for an interest rate of 1 1/2% due to my economic status, yet was not offered that rate. Due to poor life decisions and very low income i've been unable to repay that loan. I now owe over 15,000.00 dollars, compounding annually at a rate near 10%. I am now 55 years old with an annual income of approximately 6000.00 dollars. I would like to see legislation allowing long-term deliquents the opportunity to repay the original loan, while forgiving the exorbitantly compounded interest.

ardout wrote on Aug 17, 2006 12:35 AM:i bet the bloodsuckers never get to collect 100% from Mr. Lockhart. and, that, that, just breaks my heart. . . not

Vicki wrote on Sep 11, 2006 2:32 PM:It is very unfortunate that once again the burden of the US debit is placed on the backs of the disabled and poor. Cut the budget by cutting the paychecks of politicians in Office. All Americans should have a right to an education without having to pay an arm and a leg for it. And the same goes for insurance. No doubt the student loan debiter's made the decission to borrow the financial aid to continue their education. But, consider undue hardship, we have individuals who are living below subsistance minimum, struggeling to survive,keep a roof over their heads, pay for utilities and buy food. If they can not pay their student loans and decide to defer,suffer further hardship,or the student loan(s) become deliquent for say 60,000 dollars in Higher Education.Loans can become a debit of 182,000 in 10 years. The financial aid companies and Dept. of Education sells deliquent and deferred loans to Credit Collection Companies. The Credit Collection Companies can turn around and sell the loan(s)to other debit collectors. Each debit collector can charge 20,000 plus each each time they sell a deliquent loanin addition to the original student loan debit. Before hitting Student debitors with 15% of their disability checks, or income. How about cutting the fat of debit collectors collecting and uping the costs of the original student loans. Set a maximun limit to how much money can be addded to a deferred or deliquent loan over a lifetime sold to Collection Companies or any other Business or organization.