• "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding high finance, politics, constructionist Constitution, and mental masturbation of all types"

student-loan payments out of your paycheck

Scorpio

Скорпион
Founding Member
Board Elder
Site Mgr
Midas Supporter
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
26,521
Likes
32,244
#1
Prominent Republican wants to take student-loan payments out of your paycheck



By Jillian Berman

Published: Feb 9, 2019 12:15 p.m. ET



Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee floated the proposal as part of a speech outlining reforms to the student-loan system


Getty Images
Senator Lamar Alexander, a Republican from Tennessee, recently floated deducting student-loan payments from borrowers’ paychecks.
Borrowers could soon be required to pay back their federal student loans directly from their paychecks, if one powerful Republican gets his way.

Senator Lamar Alexander, a Republican from Tennessee and the chair of the Senate’s Committee on Health, Education Labor and Pensions, which oversees higher education, proposed automatically withholding a borrower’s monthly student-loan payment from their paycheck, similar to the system already used for federal payroll taxes.

Alexander floated the idea in a speech outlining his priorities for reauthorizing the Higher Education Act, the statute that governs colleges and financial aid. As a former governor of Tennessee, Secretary of Education and president of the University of Tennessee, Alexander is a prominent voice on higher education issues. He plans to retire in 2020 and has signaled that he’d like Congress to reauthorize the HEA by the end of the year.

Senator Lamar Alexander said his proposal would ‘streamline’ the nine repayment plans available to federal student-loan borrowers into ‘a new option that guarantees that borrowers would never have to pay more than 10% of their income that is not needed for necessities.’ —Senator Lamar Alexander, chair of the Senate’s Committee on Health, Education Labor and Pensions
In the speech, Alexander said his proposal would “streamline” the nine repayment plans currently available to federal student-loan borrowers into “a new option that guarantees that borrowers would never have to pay more than 10% of their income that is not needed for necessities.”


“If a borrower loses their job or does not make enough, they would not pay anything and it would not hurt their credit score,” he continued. “The monthly payment would be automatically withheld from borrowers’ paychecks, just like federal taxes.


It’s hard to say how likely it is that Alexander’s proposals will become reality. While there is bipartisan consensus on some of the challenges facing colleges and the student-loan program, experts are skeptical that the two sides could reach agreement in such a partisan environment.



Regardless, Alexander’s remarks may kickoff a serious policy discussion about a system for repaying student debt. Some hail a government-run debt repayment system as a fix to many of our country’s student-loan woes, while others deride the idea as paternalistic and punitive to people who are already struggling.

A strategy to help borrowers avoid default

Proponents of payroll withholding for student-loan payments say the idea would help borrowers stay current on their loans and avoid default, while also ensuring taxpayers received a return on their investment, given that taxes pay for the federal student-loan program. Under his proposal, a borrower could choose to repay their loan over 10 years through payroll withholding or could have 10% of their discretionary income withheld to repay their debt.


‘This new option should end the nightmare that many students have of never being able to afford their student-loan payments.’
Some amount of money for necessities would be protected from the withholding, according to Alexander’s remarks. The logic goes that even when borrowers fall on hard times, they would be able to stay current on their debt and avoid default, which can come with punishing consequences.


Federal student-loan borrowers already have the option to repay their loans as a percentage of their income, but the slew of repayment plans and, in some cases, confusing counseling from student-loan companies, can make it difficult for borrowers to actually access those options. Payroll withholding would eliminate that friction, proponents say.


“This new option should end the nightmare that many students have of never being able to afford their student-loan payments,” Alexander told the crowd Monday at the American Enterprise Institute, a right-leaning think tank, according to his prepared remarks.

Paycheck deductions could backfire

But consumer advocates view the proposal differently. Perhaps their biggest concern: It eliminates choice for borrowers in how they handle their own finances.


“It’s a bad idea,” said Persis Yu, the director of the Student Loan Borrower Assistance Project at the National Consumer Law Center. “The bottom line is it would force borrowers to prioritize their student loan payments above any other kind of expense they have.”


‘It would force borrowers to prioritize their student loan payments above any other kind of expense they have.’ —Persis Yu, the director of the Student Loan Borrower Assistance Project at the National Consumer Law Center
Even with vows to protect some income from student loan payments for necessities, borrowers could still wind up struggling, Yu said. For one, they could experience a financial emergency, like a medical expense, or their income may be “lumpy” — meaning they need to save any extra money in prosperous times for leaner parts of the year.


In addition, the current formula for determining discretionary income for the purposes of income-driven repayment programs doesn’t take region into account. If policymakers were to repeat that approach with payroll withholding, borrowers living in expensive areas could suffer.


“A lot of the borrowers that we work with, their budgets don’t line up, they have $2,000 of expenses and $1,500 of income and at the end of the day you have to make a choice,” Yu said. “The priority has to be keeping a roof on people’s heads, putting food on the table.”

Borrowers face tough financial choices

There’s already some evidence that taking away income to repay a student loan pushes borrowers to make tough choices, Yu notes. Borrowers who are disabled complained to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that when their Social Security disability benefits were garnished to pay for their defaulted student loans they struggled to afford housing and medication, according to a 2017 CFPB report.


Placing the burden of calculating and withholding student-loan payments on employers could also pose challenges. Already, employers complain that their role in garnishing wages to pay back debts, including student loans, “can be detrimental to the affected employee, workplace, and employer,” according to a 2014 report from ADP, the payroll and tax services company.

Australia collects student loan payments like a tax

Despite these concerns, there are examples of a student-loan payment as tax working. A few other countries, most famously Australia, already use a version of this system. There, borrowers begin paying back their loans once they start earning at least $44,000. They pay off their loans as a percentage of their income that rises with their salary. The government collects the money through the tax system.


In Australia, borrowers begin paying back their student loans once they start earning at least $44,000.
Proponents of adopting this type of system in the U.S. note that it’s very rare for borrowers in Australia to default on their loans. But it’s hard to say how seamlessly this setup would transfer to the U.S. The Australian higher education system is different from America’s in more than just the way the country collects borrowers’ debt. There, most students attend public colleges whose price maximums are set by the government.

What looks good on paper may not solve the problem

As part of his speech, Alexander did propose a bigger role for the federal government in curbing college costs. He floated the idea that colleges be held accountable for whether students in individual programs are actually re-paying their debts. Alexander argued that would incentivize colleges to keep tuition low and jettison programs that aren’t paying off for borrowers.


But advocates also warn that a student loan collection system that perhaps works in other countries may be particularly punitive to borrowers in the U.S., where the social safety net is much thinner. For example, in some countries that withhold student loan payments, healthcare is more affordable.


‘While forcing people to make their student loan payment above all of the other financial challenges they have in their life might make the student debt crisis look a little better on paper, it does nothing to solve the larger problem.’ —Seth Frotman, former student loan ombudsman at the CFPB.
“There are substantial differences that give me real pause about whether we should just adopt a system without recognizing all of the ways in which student loan borrowers struggle in their financial lives and we do very little to help them,” said Seth Frotman, the former student loan ombdusman at the CFPB and the executive director of the Student Borrower Protection Center, an advocacy group.


For Frotman, withholding student loan payments from a borrower’s paycheck adds to a dangerous precedent of treating student debt differently from other forms of credit — preventing borrowers from discharging it in bankruptcy, garnishing wages or Social Security benefits over a defaulted loan etc. — that often leaves borrowers worse off.


“While forcing people to make their student-loan payment above all of the other financial challenges they have in their life might make the student-debt crisis look a little better on paper, it does nothing to solve the larger problem,” he said.


Get a daily roundup of the top reads in personal finance delivered to your inbox. Subscribe to MarketWatch's free Personal Finance Daily newsletter. Sign up here.


https://www.marketwatch.com/story/p...loan-payments-out-of-your-paycheck-2019-02-06
 

Rusty Shackelford

Midas Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
6,321
Likes
4,733
Location
Northern most Southern State
#2
My wife had $15k in loans from here nursing degree...the payment was not payroll deducted but it was set up on auto drafted out of our checking account each month. I think that option stayed us 1% in interest.

Not really against payroll deduct...you took a loan out and aren't repaying...that not cool.
 
Last edited:

Rusty Shackelford

Midas Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
6,321
Likes
4,733
Location
Northern most Southern State
#4
Where in the Constitution does it give .Gov the ability to offer loans....chicken and egg scenario....yea .Gov probably doesn't have authority to payroll deduct your payment...but as a citizen you still have the duty to pay your flipping debts.
 

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
7,813
Likes
8,189
Location
Instant Gratification Land
#5
Proponents of payroll withholding for student-loan payments say the idea would help borrowers stay current on their loans and avoid default, while also ensuring taxpayers received a return on their investment, given that taxes pay for the federal student-loan program.
That's just a nice way of saying we gotta have some way to get the moola before the deadbeat spends it. lol
 

Alton

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
4,093
Likes
7,452
Location
Michiana
#6
Government can already garnish paychecks for student loan repayment. Has been that way for at least 30 years that I'm aware of. This also means that there had to be procedural hurdles/delay before the gov could just start grabbing cash. As with any garnishment there is no consideration of what you may need to live on. quite similar to IRS seizing funds from your bank account and any other assets it finds valuable. Oh! Repayment of student loans is EXCLUDED from any bankruptcy. ALL student loans WILL be paid in full to the uttermost farthing. No relief possible outside of death.
 

Mr Paradise

Midas Member
Midas Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
8,016
Likes
8,755
Location
Lake Superior
#7
Why would a “republican” go one record saying something as foolish as this? Either he’s an embicile of the highest order or it’s just staged political theatre to make everyone under 35 run screaming into the arms of the socialist candidates.
 

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
7,813
Likes
8,189
Location
Instant Gratification Land
#8
Oh! Repayment of student loans is EXCLUDED from any bankruptcy. ALL student loans WILL be paid in full to the uttermost farthing. No relief possible outside of death.
If it wasn't like that, most of those loans would have never been made. Ie: not being able to get out of it becomes the defacto "collateral" for the loan. Otherwise, who in their right mind would loan tens of thousands of dollars to kids fresh out of HS who have no job or payment history? Only an idiot would lend them money knowing that it could all be wiped out next week with a BK filing.
 

Mr Paradise

Midas Member
Midas Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
8,016
Likes
8,755
Location
Lake Superior
#9
Put all of college expenses on credit cards. Bust your butt for 4 years making minimum payments to Visa and the day you graduate file bankruptcy.
In 7 years you’ll be the only Starbucks barista who’s free & clear of that 80k loan for that degree in sociology.
 

Usury

Platinum Bling
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
4,335
Likes
3,610
#10
Put all of college expenses on credit cards. Bust your butt for 4 years making minimum payments to Visa and the day you graduate file bankruptcy.
In 7 years you’ll be the only Starbucks barista who’s free & clear of that 80k loan for that degree in sociology.
A) that would be fraud
B) doubt a student would be able to get $80k in credit card limits—-without frauding the income statement
C) debt obtained under fraud/false pretenses is not dischargable under the BK code
D) yeah you’re right....all an over-priced BS degree is good for is filling coffee cups. DON’T DO IT!!!!!
 
Last edited:

Usury

Platinum Bling
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
4,335
Likes
3,610
#11
If it wasn't like that, most of those loans would have never been made. Ie: not being able to get out of it becomes the defacto "collateral" for the loan. Otherwise, who in their right mind would loan tens of thousands of dollars to kids fresh out of HS who have no job or payment history? Only an idiot would lend them money knowing that it could all be wiped out next week with a BK filing.
You’re right. Then we wouldn’t have this student loan debt crisis and college students wouldn’t be living in mansion dorms nor would the tuition be so expensive.
 

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
7,813
Likes
8,189
Location
Instant Gratification Land
#12
Put all of college expenses on credit cards. Bust your butt for 4 years making minimum payments to Visa and the day you graduate file bankruptcy.
In 7 years you’ll be the only Starbucks barista who’s free & clear of that 80k loan for that degree in sociology.
How many 18yo's can get a CC with the kind of credit limit that would be necessary to charge a four year degree on?
...or do you mean for mom and dad to charge it with the intention of filing BK? As stated above, it'd be called fraud at that point.
 

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
7,813
Likes
8,189
Location
Instant Gratification Land
#13
You’re right. Then we wouldn’t have this student loan debt crisis and college students wouldn’t be living in mansion dorms nor would the tuition be so expensive.
Yep. It's all just one big gov subsidy for the colleges and universities.
 

Mr Paradise

Midas Member
Midas Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
8,016
Likes
8,755
Location
Lake Superior
#14
How many 18yo's can get a CC with the kind of credit limit that would be necessary to charge a four year degree on?
...or do you mean for mom and dad to charge it with the intention of filing BK? As stated above, it'd be called fraud at that point.
It’s been done Mr Expert ......it’s not like I just brainstormed that game plan an hour ago.
 

Bottom Feeder

Hypophthalmichthys molitrix
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
6,451
Likes
11,249
Location
Seattle
#15
Right outta the check before you get it — damned good idea. If you don't hold it, you don't spend it.
It’s been done Mr Expert ......it’s not like I just brainstormed that game plan an hour ago.
Somehow I don't think many 18 year olds could qualify for 80 different credit cards.
You must be exceptional, Mr P

BF
 

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
7,813
Likes
8,189
Location
Instant Gratification Land
#16
It’s been done Mr Expert ......it’s not like I just brainstormed that game plan an hour ago.
I'm not saying it's impossible for anyone to do it, just that it's not an option for the vast majority of HS graduates looking to go to college on someone else's dime.

Do you know of many HS graduates who have CC's with $50,000 limits? I don't.
....or even 10 CC's with a messily $5,000 limit each? Doubtful.
 

TAEZZAR

LADY JUSTICE ISNT BLIND, SHES JUST AFRAID TO WATCH
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
14,463
Likes
24,927
Location
ORYGUN
#17
Senator Lamar Alexander, a Republican from Tennessee, recently floated deducting student-loan payments from borrowers’ paychecks.
Borrowers could soon be required to pay back their federal student loans directly from their paychecks, if one powerful Republican gets his way.
I am all for, IF it stops all those BS phone calls that I get about paying off my NONEXISTANT student loan ! :totally steamed:
 

Alton

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
4,093
Likes
7,452
Location
Michiana
#18
If it wasn't like that, most of those loans would have never been made. Ie: not being able to get out of it becomes the defacto "collateral" for the loan. Otherwise, who in their right mind would loan tens of thousands of dollars to kids fresh out of HS who have no job or payment history? Only an idiot would lend them money knowing that it could all be wiped out next week with a BK filing.
Student loans are government backed if loaned from a "private" institution. Perhaps the best idea would be to STOP government baking AND government loans. If a kid wants to go to college let the kid and mom and dad foot the bill. Otherwise, get thee to a trade school and learn to actually do something useful. Colleges and universities today are little more than indoctrination centers and degree mills anyway. Stopping gov involvement in student loans is probably one the biggest positive things that could be done today to strengthen future generations and strengthen the American economy.
 

arminius

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
4,336
Likes
5,896
Location
right here right now
#19
First of all, they never gave anyone a LOAN. No bank ever loaned any money. It's an exchange, and it's always been an exchange. Your signature on a document that they turn around and sell for usually much more than the original amount. That is money to them in this fucked up system. Then they fraudulently make you sign another document that states you must pay them back the original amount plus a percentage usury amount.

It's nothing but pure fraud, on young folks who are just getting started and want to improve themselves.

I know those of you who argue that it must be repaid are tryin to be honest, but you're totally wrong.

It's nothing but a fucking scam. They can never prove they gave you a LOAN if put to the task.
 

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
7,813
Likes
8,189
Location
Instant Gratification Land
#20
First of all, they never gave anyone a LOAN. No bank ever loaned any money. It's an exchange, and it's always been an exchange. Your signature on a document that they turn around and sell for usually much more than the original amount. That is money to them in this fucked up system. Then they fraudulently make you sign another document that states you must pay them back the original amount plus a percentage usury amount.
That makes it sound as though you want stuff for free.
.....and before this goes off on a tangent, I realize that you do not actually want free stuff. However, you seem to be saying that you want to be able to sign docs agreeing to a lenders terms, but are then unwilling to have your feet held to the fire. In my book, that's wanting free stuff.

In a lending arrangement, the way it works is that the lender fronts the funds needed to buy something on your behalf that you cannot currently afford to purchase
....and there's a price for that called interest. What you are paying for is the use of your own funds that you have yet to earn, but that the lending institution has reason to believe you will earn.

What it boils down to is, if one doesn't want the payments, don't sign the note. Or am I missing something here?

Other alternative is to work, save your money and then when you have enough, pay cash. Voilla! No payments, no interest.



They can never prove they gave you a LOAN if put to the task.
They have a Note with a signature on it of a person agreeing to make x number of payments for y amount in exchange for a property at such and such an address. Or a VIN number of a car that's tied to the loan.
....and the person who sold it to you can show where funds for the amount of purchase was deposited into their account on such and such day etc etc etc. What are wanting to have proven? That a pile of cash was pushed across a table to you when you signed the Note?
 

GOLDBRIX

God,Donald Trump,most in GIM2 I Trust. OTHERS-meh
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
8,586
Likes
9,689
#21
but as a citizen you still have the duty to pay your flipping debts.
WRONG !!! Hell, even big corporations have gone bankrupt (which one can not do with college loans) after taking .gov money. Mom & Pop LLCs Pop is the "CEO" and the business goes bankrupt. 30 days after bankruptcy Mom is now "CEO" of a "NEW" LLC that just happened to get started from stashed profits of previous company.
THEN
You got Restructurings ask old GM shareholders about that. Many others fit that bill too.

If there is a way to beat the system when things don't go your way businesses find away or friends to get them out of the bad situation. Like all those companies that had employees on pensions but failed to maintain the company pension plans properly. Company goes bankrupt and walks away.
Who picked up that check ? The U.S. Taxpayer via Congress.
NO GOLDEN PARACHUTES WERE HARMED IN MAKING THAT HAPPEN.

Who was the hedge fund that had Jon Cornine [sp?] Took the physical gold of clients to pay-off company debts. That bastard NEVER spent a day in jail and hard working people lost a shitload of REAL money.

That's just the ones I can think of off the top of my head. "Pay your debts" Moral Ethical people do. Lowlifes do not have too.
 

southfork

Mother Lode Found
Mother Lode
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
15,952
Likes
14,981
#23
Student loans are already coming out of your paychecks, working taxpayers who are paying the loans of the selected students who were able to have their loans forgiven and there will be many more to come when the commies finish their takeover
 
Last edited:

arminius

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
4,336
Likes
5,896
Location
right here right now
#24
Hey Joe, nice to know you're a bankster troll as well, as only a bankster troll would take my post #19 and equate that free shit is wanted.


YOU FUNDED YOUR OWN LOAN WITH YOUR SIGNATURE.....ON A PROMISSORY NOTE

http://letsrollforums.com/you-funded-your-own-t20000.html?s=99b888fff125545193e0a6a4878d9d0c&
sourced from
http://freedomclubusa.com/you_funded_your_own_loan

WHAT THE FEDERAL RESERVE AND THE GOVERNMENT ARE DOING AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL, LOCAL BANKS ARE DOING WITH US AT THE LOCAL LEVEL. The only difference is that instead of printing new notes, the banks are creating new checkbook money each time they make a loan.

Here's what happens when you go to the bank to get a loan for your vehicle:
The bank has you sign a Promissory Note.
The back of the note is then stamped, "pay to order of" or similar words.
The note is then deposited into a transaction account in your name. Now this was not disclosed to you before you signed the note and you did not give them the authority to open a transaction account on your name.
The bank then writes a check from your transaction account deposit that you had no knowledge of, either to you or transfers the amount to those who should be receiving it.
The bank then sells the note to Federal Reserve or into the securities market. The proceeds of which, are used to fund the alleged loan.
Through the bank selling your note, YOU PAID FOR YOUR PURCHASE WITH THE PROMISSORY NOTE. Your note was treated by the bank as an asset that could be exchanged for cash. Anything that you can exchange for cash is an asset. What 95 % of America does not realize is that within our monetary system a Promissory Note is an asset. The moment you signed that note it became money to the bank. There was no money in existence until you signed the note. Once the bank stamped it "pay to the order of" it became a negotiable instrument. To the bank, it had Present Value, because they were able to sell it for cash. To you it only had Future Value.
What's wrong with this loan scenario? You always suspected that there was something not right when you went for a loan from the bank. Now you know what it is. Let me give you a simple illustration that will help you to understand this.

Imagine if you came to me needing a loan.

You: "Can you give me a loan for $10,000."
Me: "sure I'll loan you $10,000, but you have to give me an asset worth $10,000."
You: "All I've got is this diamond ring worth $10,000."
Me: "That will do." I then take the ring and sell it for $10,000, and come back to You with a check for $10,000.
Me: "Here's your $10,000 loan at 10% interest, and the payments are $200 a month for x number of years."
You: "xxxxxxx!" We won't even print what you would tell me to do with that loan.

In fact if you called the police I would go to jail for fraud, loan sharking, racketeering etc. BUT THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE BANKS ARE DOING EVERY SINGLE DAY.

Now what is wrong with this loan? EVERYTHING!
It's not a loan. It's an exchange. We simply exchanged your diamond for a $10,000 check.
It never cost me anything to make the loan. I brought nothing to the table. My assets did not decrease by $10,000, as would be the case in a true, honest loan. Therefore I had no risk.
You provided the asset (the diamond ring). I merely sold it and gave you back your money, and then had the unmitigated gall to charge you interest on nothing.
In the same way, YOUR PROMISSORY NOTE BECAME THE FUNDING INSTRUMENT OF YOUR BANK LOAN. The bank received it as an asset, as legal tender, i.e. in the form of money and deposited in an account. According to the Uniform Commercial Code, a promissory note is a negotiable instrument, and is therefore legal tender. As such it is the funding instrument. Therefore there was no loan. It was an exchange. Your note which, could be monetized by the bank, was exchanged for the bank's check. And the bank lied and called it a loan. Banks and lending institutions only appear to lend money.

The "lending" techniques that are used are beyond brilliant. It took some very, very smart people to figure out how to appear to be lending money, but in actuality have the value supplied by the person wanting a loan. And that is what is happening.

"THIS IS TOO INCREDIBLE TO BELIEVE, SHOW ME PROOF."
If you are finding this rather difficult to believe, let's look at some Federal Reserve Bank publications, which actually admit that this is how bank loans work.

"Transaction deposits are the modern counterpart of bank notes. It was a small step from printing notes to making book entries crediting deposits of borrowers, which the borrowers in turn could "spend" by writing checks, thereby "printing" their own money."

Modern Money Mechanics, page 3, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.

"Of course they do not really pay out loans from the money they receive as deposits. If they did this, no additional money would be created. What they do when they make loans is to accept promissory notes in exchange for credits to the borrowers' transaction accounts. Loans (assets) and deposits (liabilities) both rise by $9,000. Reserves are unchanged by the loan transactions. But the deposit credits constitute new additions to the total deposits of the banking system."

Modern Money Mechanics, page 6, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.

According to the Fed, it is not their policy to make loans from other depositor's money. Neither do they make loans from their own assets. They make loans by accepting promissory notes in exchange for credits to the borrower's transaction account. They even admit that it's an exchange. IF IT'S AN EXCHANGE HOW CAN IT BE A LOAN?

"In exchange for the note or security, the lending institution credits the depositor's account or gives a check that can be deposited at yet another depository institution."

Two Faces of Debt, page 19 Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.
You want more proof: THE BANK'S OWN BOOKKEEPING ENTRIES ARE PROOF. Let's say the bank receives a $1,000.00 check deposit. It is recorded as an asset to the bank. But in order to balance their books, on the other side of the ledger they have to record a $1,000.00 liability. The bank has an asset for $1,000.00, but it also has a liability of $1,000.00 to you, the depositor.

The bank owes you $1,000.00. You have a right to draw on that $1,000.00 whenever you choose. Now when you purchased your vehicle instead of a check you gave the bank a signed promissory note. The bank deposited it, just like a check or cash, in a transaction account in your name. Now remember that all deposits are received as assets to the bank. However, they also have a corresponding liability to the face value of your promissory note. Therefore, in reality you don't owe the bank anything. You simply exchanged your promissory note for their check, which paid for the vehicle. The account is a wash.

SO WHY ARE WE PAYING MONTHLY PAYMENTS AND INTEREST FOR SOMETHING THAT, WITHIN OUR MONETARY SYSTEM, HAS ALREADY BEEN PAID FOR?

Actually the bank owes you! They still do not own your promissory note. They made an exchange - your promissory note (asset to the bank) was exchanged for the face value of the note. They deposited your note and then sold it remember. Therefore, on their books they still have a liability to you.
 
Last edited:

arminius

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
4,336
Likes
5,896
Location
right here right now
#25
The Loans and Mortgages
Who's Who by kate of gaia

In order for a crime, any crime, to exist, there must be proof of INTENT where ignorance of the law is never an excuse either physically and/or spiritually. We have long ago proven that any/all use of a CROWN COPYRIGHT LEGAL NAME is, in fact, fraud regardless of whether or not we were aware of it. Inasmuch as ignorance of this truth was never one's intent it is equally not a defense either. Those that make the laws must obey the laws. That which we agree to, we are in contract to by willful consent.

This is about regaining our full re-spawns-ability, nothing more and certainly, nothing less. So what is really happening when someone goes into a bank for a loan, mortgage, account etc.? As a result of our willful acceptance of "all things system", there was much hidden from view because our ignorance had kept us blind. That is the case no longer. A living being cannot enter into a contract with a dead corporate entity but one who is acting as a dead legal fiction can. This applies to both sides of the equation with every contract or deal ever agreed to. I didn't say signed, I said agreed to. If one has agreed to do something, they are already in a spiritual intent filled contract and bound to it accordingly.

The instant you even thought about getting a loan, you were already in contract via that self-same intent. In my own efforts to uncover what was really going on, I followed countless trails of the vulgarity called legal and the one thing that always came to the surface was that every bit of the legal system is pure distraction in the physical keeping us never looking as to the spiritual nature of these things. Signing on a line made you the underwriter, an "X" on the line meant "no consideration", "accommodating party", UCC this and legal bullshit that because I wasn't getting deep enough into the true spiritual aspects being mainly distracted to the "as below" and not really seeing the "as above".

Given the myriads of twists and turns with all things legal, it became abundantly clear that the entire legal system and its machinations was nothing more than distraction designed to keep an egocentric, left mind content to play with the details with the devils. The truth is, every contract you ever went into with the legal NAME was, is and will always be pure fraud until you uncover the original intent of the creators of the legal NAME system. The Birth Certificate is all the prima facie evidence one requires to prosecute everyone and anyone who attempts to create a legal joinder assumption/presumption by using that NAME at all. With that being said, the original sin is in plain sight now.

Was it mine or yours intent to commit fraud knowingly? Of course it wasn't but that can't be said about those that created the NAME fraud to begin with. The mere fact that a cop puts on a uniform is proof of intent via the execution of their duties to aid and abet a living being into committing fraud unknowingly because without a NAME joinder, the cop has NO jurisdiction being as they are themselves, dead by consent. It is not a fluke that cops are now having "not for identification" on their business cards, if you can get one. I did recently through a friend and this is proof positive that they are now having to yield under the pressure of us restoring our own honour and, by default, forcing their hand as well.

For everyone that has ever got a loan from the bank or those stupidly considering this, here's something to think about. The account you think is yours isn't. The NAME is owned by the CROWN; the legal one, not the lawful one. Unfortunately, if someone even utters their name, it can be assumed and presumed immediately to be the legal one. The bank is a registered corporation just like your name so it too is owned by the CROWN as a result. As a point in case, so is the United Nations and ALL countries REGISTERED. There has been a lot of talk about some new world order coming when the truth is, the new world order has been in full force and effect for thousands of years. The easiest way to keep people from seeing this is to keep telling them that it isn't here yet. You can't find something if you think it isn't there yet.

The NWO has been around for millennia, as long as any exchange/barter/money system has been in place. Today's version is the same as the old where the mark of the beast is the legal name and the whore of Babylon is commerce. If you don't believe me, see how far you'll get in this world without their legal IDENTIFICATION to conduct day to day commerce/travel/survival. With the backdrop nicely set, let's see what is really happening when we go into a bank to get a loan or mortgage then.

On the surface it looks like one goes into a bank, meets with a bank official to ask for and set terms of the loan/mortgage (stated as contract hereafter), goes through the illusional hoops of "do you qualify?", the paperwork gets drawn up, you sign it and voila, the bank seemingly gives you the needed funds. In the world once deemed as normal, this explanation would suffice. Let's use a mortgage as the example here. Always keep in mind that only the living can contract with the living, never with a corporation or dead thing. So let's look only at the living people involved because a bank by any name is still just a dead corporation so we have to trail and track the living beings involved.

For sake of simplicity, I'm going to use the original bank as the dead entity, namely the Bank of England since it was the first bank and the one that usurped the living crown in the form of William III with the dead CROWN replacement hereafter referred to simply as the CROWN CORPORATION. Since it is only you and the loans officer or bank manager, the living, involved, so who then is really borrowing the money? Remember, only living parties can contract, never the dead. This is where the consent of all living parties involved comes into play and the various contracts they are intimately, by consent, are bound to spiritually by INTENT.

The bank manager had to willfully consent to fill out an application form to work for the bank and is thus in contract to and with the bank or, more accurately, its owners who establish all the bi-laws for that corporation. Behind every dead corporation, a living being is involved. A corporation only exists because of the intent someone had to create it; fact. We now know WHO the parties are and it is just you and the living being acting in the role of bank manager bound to all the obligations they consent to by being an employee of a bank that someone ultimately owns. In the case of the Bank of England, it is deemed the being who holds the office of "corporation sole"/soul.

What is really happening is that YOU are creating a loan for the bank manager, not yourself. It is the BM that is getting the money to buy YOUR house that you think is yours but then you'll look at the agreement and see that you are only deemed "TENANT". It is the BM that is the land/property/home-owner, not you or the bank itself. You were presented with the documents prepared by the BM for you to sign. What you don't realize is that the contract is completed not when you sign it but when you agreed to get one in the first place and then it was SEALED when you touched it. Did you use gloves to sign it? Not likely and it was your DNA and the DNA of the BM that sealed the contract, not the ink.

When you begin to realize the DNA connection, you begin to see why your DNA was grabbed as a baby with both footprints and blood taken. This was done to create lawful joinder with your DNA and the NAME with the consent given UNDER SEAL when your parent/s REGISTERED your NAME and is evidenced with only a COPY of the original sealed deal in the REGISTRY BOOK. Yes, your DNA can be connected easily to Mum and Dad where the mitochondrial DNA from Mum is the permanent record of all lineages back. What has happened when you seal the deal with your new debtor called the bank manager is that you are merely the guarantor of THEIR loan and are secondary status in this arrangement because the real holder in due course is the bank representative and why you will NEVER see the original again because it is not yours to ask for. All the liability of the loans, every one of them, is on the shoulders of each and every living being that works for and in any/all financial institutions and is party to any/all loans etc.

Since all things CROWN are all things Bank of England and all things registered are all things CROWN owned, who now owns everything? It is not a pretty picture but a vastly clever ruse that is finally in the light of day. In a nutshell, you lend the BM money so they can buy your house for you to be a tenant in and then, if the mortgage doesn't get paid, who does the bank come after? It was the bank manager’s loan and they skipped out on day one leaving you to pay their debt as the guarantor for them. You can't even deal this legally because you are a third party interloper in the whole charade of three card Monty by the bank. You haven't got a legal leg to stand on but you DO have a lawful one; privately prosecute the dead beat borrower known as the bank manager.

The fundamental flaw of this scam is that once a fraud is revealed where it was intended by design, the fraud and all contracts are rendered null and void, nunc pro tunc. The legal name was a fraud with intent as were the loans and mortgages of all kinds. The contract is between you and the other living party always. What happens next is that the bank forecloses on the property that their employee skipped out on paying for. Remember, the employee a.k.a. bank manager has a living contract with their employer that hired them and so it goes all the way up the line to the board of directors to the most responsible of all, the Chief Executive Officer on that board.

Needless to say, the bank grabs legally the property that their employee owns and they kick you, the tenant out and then proceed to dupe another victim into the same scam. It does not end there; this is the new beginning of taking down this whore of Babylon, the dead Crow-n mother, the Kronos who eats their own children so never to be overthrown. Well, the whore missed eating me but it was a very narrow escape. Feel free to take the time to absorb this because it takes time to see behind this veil. The only use the left mind has for me is codifying the creative etheric thoughts of my right brain, the one I live in. You're out in left field if you're not in your right mind and will forever be at effect to it until you break free of "normal" thinking that is based soul-ly in programming.

All levels of trickery in the legal world have been utilized to keep us off the true trail of living versus impossibly dead contracts. We first had to expose the NAME fraud and how our complacency and acceptance was used against us and we revealed the source fraud. By doing this we can separate the dead from the living in this world. Those using legal names and identification are deemed dead by their own consent and we, the living, who have been "born again" and wield the real power now. Inasmuch as the bank manager or whoever contracted with you is the "accused" they are automatically deemed dead fictions by consent where we, the living are WITNESSES to these crimes INCLUDING and foremost, the NAME fraud.

It's time we made these deadbeats and their masters accountable where ignorance of these facts is not an excuse in the same way neither was our own ignorance. Once again, the real guilty parties want us to keep fighting amongst ourselves where the true criminals are the ones that own these corporations. Still, we're going to have to prosecute a few of these people and get it on the record. The joy of one single victory on the record is that it changes the whole panorama of the system completely. This is the power of one, literally. If but one shall awaken? Yes, it's a little late for them now where it is my wish to simply end this nonsense and just get back to living. The best part about the golden rule is that for every harm done in action, is one that must be experienced in the mirror so be careful what you wish for, especially against others. What ye sow, so shall ye reap is pure truth and fact.

For those seeing this and wishing to privately prosecute, as I will, just check for a justice of the peace or similar type in your area for starting that process. Remember, once these goons catch on, they will try and make it difficult for you where, no help will be given. This one is on your shoulders as it is on mine but I never take no for an answer and any/all things plopped into any/all courts belongs to them. Once a clerk touches your paperwork they have contracted the courts, their employers, on their behalf. In the world of phonics the one who touches, touche's.
 

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
7,813
Likes
8,189
Location
Instant Gratification Land
#26
Hey Joe, nice to know you're a bankster troll as well, as only a bankster troll would take my post #19 and equate that free shit is wanted.
If you want to sign their Note, get the asset and then not hold up your end of the bargain, that is in fact wanting free shit.

If not, you would either hold up your end of the agreement, or refrain from signing the Note in the first place.


YOU FUNDED YOUR OWN LOAN WITH YOUR SIGNATURE.....ON A PROMISSORY NOTE
Yes. What they are lending you is your own money that you have not yet earned. You need that money in order to purchase something you'd like to purchase, but lack the funds to do so.
Ie: you want someone else to transfer to you something of value, but you lack something with equal value that the seller will accept in return. That's when you go to a bank and say, "please help me buy this thing I want".
Then they look at your work/payment history and calculate whether or not you are a good risk. If you are, they create and front the money that you have not yet earned and spend it into circulation on your behalf.

At that point, you keep working and earning back some of that money they spent into circulation on your behalf, so that you may then begin to pay it back.

The only other option to buy something you do not have the funds to buy, is to work and save those funds until such time that you can afford to make the purchase.

If you don't like banks and don't like paying interest to them, then do not use their services. It's as simple as that.
....but if you choose to use their services and then start concocting all manner of reason as to why the loan shouldn't have to be paid back while keeping the thing that you couldn't afford to purchase, is called wanting free shit.


Imagine if you came to me needing a loan.

You: "Can you give me a loan for $10,000."
Me: "sure I'll loan you $10,000, but you have to give me an asset worth $10,000."
You: "All I've got is this diamond ring worth $10,000."
Me: "That will do." I then take the ring and sell it for $10,000, and come back to You with a check for $10,000.
Me: "Here's your $10,000 loan at 10% interest, and the payments are $200 a month for x number of years."
You: "xxxxxxx!" We won't even print what you would tell me to do with that loan.

In fact if you called the police I would go to jail for fraud, loan sharking, racketeering etc. BUT THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE BANKS ARE DOING EVERY SINGLE DAY.

Now what is wrong with this loan? EVERYTHING!
It's not a loan. It's an exchange. We simply exchanged your diamond for a $10,000 check.
That's not how home/car loans work.
With a home loan, the buyer doesn't bring collateral worth the full price of the house. Nor with a car loan. In fact, the only type of loan that works the way you describe is typically a personal loan where there is no attachable asset being bought.
....and even then the ring wouldn't be sold, it would be held as collateral. If you default, then it would be sold for sure.
 
Last edited:

Fatrat

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 15, 2018
Messages
1,676
Likes
1,228
#27
Working cash jobs helps with taxes and debt, I know people who used the credit card hustle, they said all the H-1bs took the jobs so no use trying. The H-1B is a visa in the United States under the Immigration and Nationality Act, section 101 that allows U.S. employers to temporarily employ foreign workers in specialty occupations. Wikipedia
 

Garyw

DemoRats are Party of KKK
Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 16, 2011
Messages
1,499
Likes
1,307
Location
State of Jefferson
#28
Cost of college keeps going up. Teachers create aps and give homework.Teacher(professor) sits on her butt and collects paycheck and give grades at home. colleges add new buildings and replace grass with artificial turf. Students cannot mention Trump or Q if they do not want to flunk. They are overcharged by thousands of dollars which if they want a degree they have no options. Then they cannot file bankruptcy. Then there is a housing glut because first time home buyers cannot get home loans because of student debt.economy goes to hell and stupid congressmen rhinos and demorats are too dumb to figure it out. Young adults with college degrees are working retail because training was not good enough and businesses woul d not hire them. How can students expect to pay off $80,000 dollar or more loan before it is time to draw social security and they are still living with their parents. Who in the fuck do you blame?