Arguing discharging debt not originated in good faith is not trolling. My argument is this debt could be discharged without ill effect, to not to is a choice (and a poor choice at that, with economic consequences).
Debt is not written in stone. It is always negotiable, and only sometimes enforceable. There is no morality around debt, so I’m unsure why the strong feels around why this debt can’t be forgiven or renegotiated.
I've defaulted on hundreds of thousands of dollars of federally insured debt strategically (as the credit hit was cheaper than paying back the debt), so I guess make better choices than pay debts you don't have to? It's just a contract. If someone sees it as a moral issue, that is a personal deficiency; I recommend speaking to a therapist. The loss rate is baked into the credit pricing and potentially credit insurance the borrower is required to pay. Don't allow your feelings to bind you beyond contractual requirements, that's a self made prison. Like religion, it’s just another belief system used to exert control.
This is just hacking another system imho. Your opinion may differ.
In general, I agree that people don't have a moral duty to act beyond their contractual obligations.
With respect to student debt, it isn't just an individual choice to default. That isn't a contractual option available.
Instead, some people are seeking positive action from others to void the contract, and this is action is politically contested by those with the power to do so.
