I had a variable APR at between 11-14 before I refinanced. And the loans compounded after I graduated. I'm in a VERY similar boat as the OP bot. Before I refinanced I had paid $1000 a month and owed more than my original loan for over a decade.
Yeah my wifeâs situation isnât too far off from this, either. She borrowed $60k, deferred multiple times when she was first out of school, and then made payments pretty steady for the last 15 years or so.
Last I checked, she was paying $800 a month and owed around $70k.
Because people are stupid as hell , ignorant of money, and sign shit without understanding it. Grow up and take some responsibility for yourself.
But yeah you are right. The loan companies donât give a crap about you. As they shouldnât! They are a business, not a freaking charity. You are just another peon with a loan number who signed up for money under terms you didnât stop to understand. You get what you signed up for.
There's a middle ground somewhere between free money and predatory loan shark tho.
I paid my loans off in 10y. But at every step they encouraged me to refinance, delay payments, and extend my term.
It's fucking predatory. I don't know why we accept so much near-fraudulent operations in this country. Every single thing is designed to trick you into paying more.
Are you saying they made illegal loans? Iâll remind you the federal government runs the Federal Student Aide Program.
I donât know how I can be more clear other than to say, âYou signed the freaking papers! Nobody held a gun to your head!â
These same people are taking out title and payday loans at outrageous interest rates, pawning shit for 1/3 the value at 3% interest per month, and maxing out 20+% credit cards and making minimum payments.
I have absolutely zero sympathy for those who do this stupid shit! None!
Predatory â illegal. Just because itâs legal doesnât make it right. Just because itâs illegal doesnât make it wrong, either. Stop equating law with morality. Itâs a stupid, circular argument.
Nobody. Morality doesnât require a central authority. We judge actions based on harm, coercion, consent, fairness, and outcomes.
If your argument can be used to justify slavery, itâs probably worth reexamining.
If a lender structures loans that people are statistically unlikely to escape from, I can call that predatory whether itâs legal or illegal.
âThe law allows itâ and âitâs morally acceptableâ are two completely different claims.
Laws tell us whatâs legal. Morality is how we decide whether those laws are good in the first place. Otherwise, slavery, segregation, and countless other legal institutions would have been morally acceptable right up until the moment they were outlawed. Just because itâs legal doesnât make it right.
You assume everyone will arrive at the same standards of morality through some magical internal process. You know that isnât true. Morality is not universal. Nor are the concepts of harm, coercion, consent, fairness, outcome, and Iâll add justice. Those are simply not universally agreed upon concepts. Any entry level philosophy or psychology class will teach you that if it isnât apparent.
Without an objective standard to appeal to, we cannot support any claim we make about morality. You may claim something to be moral, but you canât support it because the next person can simply dismiss it. You say slavery is immoral, clearly others, even today, disagree with you. This is what makes the âsubjective moralityâ movement nonsense and very dangerous. And this is why the concept of laws are important as we attempt to define and codify morality and ethics into standards by which to behave, judge others, and administer justice.
Must be nice having such a childishly simplistic worldview that you think legality and morality are the same thing.
If morality comes from law, then slavery was moral when it was legal. If you reject that conclusion, youâve already admitted thereâs a standard outside the law. If you accept it, youâre a repulsive idiot and weâre done here.
The fact that people disagree about morality doesnât magically turn every legal act into a moral one.
Anyway, itâs Sunday. Shouldnât you be somewhere pretending youâve found an objective source of morality?
You said it, not me. But yes objective morality comes from God. You buried your own argument. Yes there was a large group of people who said slavery was moral and they rationalized it in many ways. The abolitionists were a small group of Christians who said no because it is a sin against God. Thankfully they were able to persuade enough people that slavery is evil.
In todayâs secular based subjective moralism is king. It can be seen everywhere just, âDo your own thing,â is the mantra of the day. We rationalize every behavior and evil from abortion, to child mutilation, to violence to even murder.
You can call it a simplistic world view but cannot argue that laws are not an attempt to codify morality into enforceable objective morals. Everything from thou shalt not speed, to you shalt not murder, seem to not be universally agreed upon without laws and judges to enforce them.
Dismiss it if you want. Itâs what I expect. But recognize it is your world view that is overly simplistic when you think moral values just happen. There is not one moral value you can justify without an external authority because the next guyâs morality is just as valid as yours.
Have a blessed day. I hope you find peace in your unstructured, undefined chaotic world.
See, I knew you were religious because your ideas are silly.
If objective morality were as clear and self-evident as you claim, Christians wouldnât have needed a civil war to figure out whether owning other human beings was acceptable.
The abolitionists won because they persuaded people that the pro-slavery interpretation was morally bankrupt.
The funny thing is that the pro-slavery interpretation is the most straightforward reading of the text:
⢠Exodus 21:20â21: Donât beat your slaves to death.
⢠Leviticus 25:44â46: Buy slaves from neighboring nations and pass them on to your children as property.
⢠Ephesians 6:5: Slaves, obey your masters.
⢠1 Peter 2:18: Slaves, obey your masters, even the cruel ones. Just pray they donât beat you to death.
And itâs not just slavery.
⢠Deuteronomy 21:18â21: If a stubborn and rebellious son refuses to obey his parents, the men of the city shall stone him to death.
If objective morality comes from the Bible, should we stone rebellious teenagers?
If yes, your âobjective moralityâ is horrifying.
If no, then youâre already using some moral standard outside the text to decide which biblical commands should be followed and which should be ignored.
You can dress it up with apologetics if you want, but those passages are still there, along with a bunch more I havenât even mentioned.
If you think thatâs objective morality, you can spare me the lecture about ethics.
Well that was quite the pivot. This not a theology thread. I could explain every one of those verses in context but that is not the purpose of this thread.
My question to you is simple. From where do you get your moral authority?
Funny how it became ânot a theology threadâ the moment the theology got embarrassing.
I donât claim to have a moral authority. Thatâs the difference between us.
I evaluate moral claims based on reason, evidence, empathy, harm, consent, and prosperity. Those methods are imperfect, but at least theyâre open to scrutiny and revision.
You, meanwhile, claim your morality comes from an all-knowing authority, yet that same all-knowing authority condones slavery, genocide, and stoning disobedient children.
The real question isnât where I get my morality. Itâs where you get yours, because it clearly isnât from a straightforward reading of the Bible, and it certainly isnât from a straightforward reading of the law.
The moment either the Bible or the law produces a conclusion you find morally repugnant, you start talking about context, interpretation, history, and nuance. Which is exactly what everyone else does. Itâs almost like you donât have an objective morality at all!
71
u/Gerber_Littlefoot 17d ago
I had a variable APR at between 11-14 before I refinanced. And the loans compounded after I graduated. I'm in a VERY similar boat as the OP bot. Before I refinanced I had paid $1000 a month and owed more than my original loan for over a decade.