[sethammons]

Technically true is the best kind of true.

Fact: they were dischargeable. Fact: there was no crisis else rates would have already factored in. Else the argument is they were losing money overall. They wouldn't do that for literal decades. Fact: after the loans were no longer dischargeable, banks were guaranteed their rates and stopped being competitive with them and rates increased.

[quickthrowman]

It is impossible that you paid 4% interest on (easily) dischargeable student loans. Any lender would be insane to do that with zero risk premium, and the risk would be substantial given it’s an unsecured loan. Possibly there was a clause stating something like “if you are permanently disabled and unable to work forever, you can have this loan discharged.” That’s not what I would consider dischargeable, it’s just the lender acknowledging they can’t squeeze blood from a stone and writing of the debt lets them recover a portion of the money they lent via writing of off.

You are simply misremembering. If it’s true, scan and upload the loan agreement. I just don’t believe it based on how lenders operate.

[Aurornis]

You're still getting your facts wrong.

Loans are still dischargeable under certain conditions.

You claimed that "a quarter century ago" student loans could be discharged in bankruptcy, but that's not really true either. The restrictions started in 1978 with waiting periods and those waiting periods were eliminated in 1998 for government loans and shortly after that for private loans.

The period in which you got this 4% loan was within the period where bankruptcy protections were in place, not before it.