Has it really been a year now? 

Yes, we should and I do salute her for her courage and perserverance.

Barry,

 Why don't you just substantiate your hardship to the lending sector, and make a proposal for compromise at such time when you are able to? This way you are doing the right thing - regardless of how screwy and wrong the system is?

 It is the system, and the creep shows that actually make the bad decisions that are corrupt. Face it, the government has a couple of personal piggy banks. One being CRA and the other is the CSLP. I am sure that the Liberal government has  pinched a few of those pennies for reasons only known to themselves. 

Bankruptcy will reduce the flow into their personal piggy banks. I cannot see the government allowing that to happen - regardless of who the heck is in power. Key word in this whole equation - POWER. Power breeds corruption and greed. The sponsorship scandal is proof of that.

Bankruptcy is also a federally regulated and owned program. If the government were to loosen up the chains on the rules regarding student debt, then it will open the door to the system's abuse once again, unfortunately. This is why they put the Ki-bosh on the program by instituting section 178 - and making it virtually impossible for a discharge to occur unless the Crown - and the court is first satisfied that the bankrupt has acted in good faith.

Fighting the system is one thing. Bucking it is another. When ya fall of the horse, get up, get back on, and ride yourself out of whatever it is that knocked you off balance. If you think bankruptcy is your horse to freedom, happy trails to you.

 Johnny

Johnny,

you wrote:

"if the government were to loosen up the chains on the rules regarding student debt, then it will open the door to the system's abuse once again"

Could you please substantiate (i.e. quote and reference PUBLISHED research from a reputable source) your comments regarding students' propensity to abuse the bankrupty system. Do you know the stats on "abuse of the system" regarding bankruptcy and student loans?  i.e. at the time when the 10 year rule was implemented, was the rate of bankruptcy on student loans significantly higher than the rate of bankruptcy on consumer debt in general?  as well, were those students who did file bankruptcy actually experiencing financial hardship i.e. what did the average total debt portfolio  look like for those who filed? Statistically speaking, these are 2 key questions that must be answered in order to single out students as the consistent abusers of the system. Unfortunately for you, there is no possible way that you can answer these questions and i'll tell you why.  There was no proper study done on this issue to obtain this information.  Thus, there is NO evidence that students were abusing the system any more (or less) than consumers in general.  (FYI:  opinions and hearsay don't count as evidence)

the 10 year rule came about in 1998 because at the time, the government was doing what they could to keep the banks in the student loan business.  This was the incentive that they offered.

i'm not saying that there is no abuse.  however, to single out students as the group that were consistent abusers is wrong especially when the fact of the matter is that you just don't know.  Your previous post implies that we as student loan holders are just waiting anxiously for the rules to change so we can start "abusing the system" once again.  Why?  I know that you don't like bankruptcy because it doesn't suit YOUR needs, but honestly, sometimes your comments are downright insulting.

karen

http://temagami.carleton.ca/jmc/cnews/28112003/n3.shtml - http://temagami.carleton.ca/jmc/cnews/28112003/n3.shtml

 Is there any evidence of abuse in this revelation?

Peewee, no where in any post of mine have I EVER indicated that student borrowers are or were CONSISTENT abusers. My previous post implies nothing of the sort. There is good and bad in every group, Peewee. 

 Please get your facts straight and stop pointing the dirty end of the stick at me. Also, I don't like - nor dislike bankruptcy, Peewee. What difference does it make to you anyway?

 The government has the power to control how their investments are repaid by borrowers. They also have the power to change acts, systems, and policy to make it all work for them. That is the point here.

 What are you waiting for, Peewee? Are you waiting for bankruptcy to fix your problems? Please, do share your situation and intent with some transparency.

Or, let me show you that there other ways to solve a student debt problem PRODUCTIVELY without bankruptcy. I will give you this service free of charge, Peewee.

 I will await your response to this one.

 Johnny

http://www.cfwgroup.ca - www.cfwgroup.ca

http://www.cfwgroup.ca/forum - www.cfwgroup.ca/forum

man i hate computers.  i spent like over two hours on a reply to this one and it got zapped in internet hell. here goes the short version...

between 70 and 80 thousand people in canada file for bankruptcy each year on average, and around 15 000 file a consumer proposal.  fine ya the stats are up - whatever,  numbers can be manipulated to suit anyones purpose.  but of that only about 10% claim student loans in their bankruptcy.  and the bankruptcy trustees make what, 20 % plus a chunk of that 1500 it costs you to file ??  healthy business to prey on those who are fighting to stay afloat.

25% of student loans will default each year - and about 320 000 people get a student loan every year.  so thats about 80 000 people who default every year.  this is consistent from about 1990 ( between 20 and 25 %).  so each year revenue canada siezes an additional 80 000 income tax and gst refunds due to right of off set.  and these 80 000 households still are bombarded with incessant calls from CA's and the like.  this does not count the 140 000 grads on interest relief who cant get jobs either, competing with the other 7 million people who are unable to find work.

the problem is there arent enough jobs.  fix that and loan defaults will go away.  bankruptcy wont change being unemployed, and the unemployed cannot afford to file for bankruptcy.  next.

 Mark,

 You have raised  good points.

 1. Many people here have already been bankrupt and have found themselves in a much worse predicament. Why is this? Bankruptcy is supposed to be a solution to debt crisis.

2. Why have the administrators and trustees of this program allowed their representatives to bankrupt these people even though they were aware it would really do them no good?????? This is not good business.

 A bankruptcy trustee knows what they can and cannot do for each bankrupt. Bankruptcy is not ALLOWED to attract and enroll people into their programs and then say, "sign here on the dotted line and let's all hope for the best". They do this all of the time, but they tell you that you will be debt-free and that is not true.

The same goes for these debt poolers (big non-profit credit counseling schemes) who are nothing more than fluffy collection agencies who take a 25-30% cut of whatever your monthly payment is. How? Take a gander at their board of directors. Every bank, credit bureau executive, even some important politicians are on their panel. THey say that it is their "fair share".

 Also, imagine going to one of them and pay them 400 dollars per month for 5 years to be applied to your debts - only to realize in the end that the creditors really only applied $8000.00 of your $20,000.00 paid in. Sometimes these debt-pooling schemes will get a settlement for a low amount and collect 100% from you. It cannot be denied because it can be proven.

 One non-profit debt pooling scheme in Ontario had earned over 3 million dollars in 2004. THis same scheme spent more than 740 thousand dollars in advertising for their services. Now, really folks, there is no such thing as a not-for-profit business. If they are going to spend near a million bucks on advertising - and only 30 thousand bucks towards education (which is what they preach to sponsor the most), what does that tell you?   

 It seems that there are 4 options for people who owe money and cannot meet the demand(s):

 1. Bankruptcy (Insolvency, Consumer Proposals, OPD)

 2. Non-profit debt pooling schemes

 3. Hiding under the bed and avoid answering the phone whenever it rings before 9PM.

 4. The Canadian Financial Wellness Group

  People point the dirty end of the stick at me because I offer, give - and in many cases FREELY give assistance to help them achieve their goals??? Since when has any of the above so-called alternatives done this for someone at no cost?  Bankruptcy CANNOT deliver the solutions and assistance that I give to people. I have calls coming from them every single day of the week trying to pick my brain.

When I intervene to help a person, or to act on their behalf to protect them from one thing or another, it is for a good reason, a good cause, and for that person's best interests in relation to stress management, financial wellness, and emotional well-being. Mark, Eshelton, Cargo, Kwelmm, MadCar, Tuscadero, Hunter, Poly, plus MANY others; you can all substantiate this.

Johnny  

Yep.

Tried door #1 and door #3...found the goat chomping grass in each one. Only door #4 had the jackpot.

Your best bet if you wanna make a deal, is to contact Monty -- ehrm -- JOHNNY!!

Sorry about the Let's Make a Deal analogy!! I forgot that probably most people here are too young to remember that game show...

But you can look at it this way...If I hadn't contacted Johnny, I wouldn't be making stoopid jokes, would I? I'd be too freaked out...

(I'm fine Johnny! I pick up my work permit Monday...wish me luck on the job search!)

Poly...

 Good to hear, Poly. You will do fine.

It's now official .... Justice Gordon Sedgwick made his ruling and it was in favor of the government.

It comes as no surprise that the Honourable Judge Gordon Sedgwick ruled against the Canadian Federation of Students' Charter Challenge that the 10 year law on Student Loans is unconstitutional.

It comes as no surprise because for starters, it is highly unlikely that Gordon Sedgwick had to ever endure what many of us, especially in Generation X, had to go through to try to get his law degree at the time he was pursuing his education.

I would not be surprised if he came from a wealthy background that funded his education and thus perhaps he never had to borrow to get an education.

The point being here is that someone of his capacity has not experienced what we are experiencing as student loan debtors and thus has no understanding at all about it.

Also, if this was a Charter Challenge against a private entity rather than against a Federal Government law or statute, the chances are better that a ruling in favor of us debtors would have occurred. The reason being that the Federal Government's Department of Justice are the employers (or should I say appointers) of these Supreme Court Justices. So there is no way it seems that a Supreme Court Justice will rule against his or her own government that appointed him or her to the Bench. Right there and then lies the very problem with our judicial system.

There is too much corruption in the system and the only people who seem to win in many civil, and even criminal, cases are the ones with the big bucks and the big clout such as this country's greatest moron - Paul Martin.

I know how the world works, and not to sound judgmental (no pun intended there) or anything, but no one can tell me that in this case that the Department of Justice and the Department responsible for HRSDC and perhaps other private interests may have bribed Gordon Sedgwick to make this ruling.

All I have to say to Honourable Justice Gordon Sedgwick is this - "THANKS A LOT!"

On one more final note, I want to extend my thanks to Annick Chenier who along with the CFS made a valiant effort to try to show in a court of law that these BIA laws are unconstitutional and uncalled for.

No doubt about it this has been a huge blow to Ms. Chenier and Ms. Chenier people like me are experiencing the same feeling of pure and utter disappointment as a result of this ruling.

I can assure you Ms. Chenier that this is only the beginning. For starters, I expect Honourable Justice Gordon Sedgwick to take a lot of heat for his ruling and not having the guts to stand up for what's right against the very government who appointed him to the Bench many years ago.

O well. Better finish off the last two years of my debt sentence

Though thanks again to the Canadian Federation of Students as a whole for at least trying .  It was a long struggle, but the glacier is finally off the Quaaludes!

Is there a way of getting the text of the ruling itself?

You only have 2 years left?  Lucky SOB!!! ;)

I guess it's not until 2007 where we will start to see people going bankrupt on student loans again. 

Which is more productive? Bankruptcy? Or - finding a more productive way to take control,manage, and potentially solve the debt problem without causing more problems along the way?

Looking for a way is more productive than looking for a way out. Bankruptcy does not solve the problem because the shadows of your problem(s) are still lingering around you wherever you go after the fact. Unfortunately, most people do not know or realize this.

 Johnny

Care to place any bets on that?

If a person is gainfully employed, has benefitted from their education, and feels that they will be paying for a lifetime, then so be it.

If a person is in dire straits because of a culmination of household, consumer, and student debt; and a lifetime of hell awaits, then I can show poeple a better way than bankruptcy.

 I am against bankruptcy when the program is used to cheat - and when the bankruptcy system does the cheating. That is not good business.

I am for bankruptcy when it is the absolute last resort, and will solve the indivisdual's problems. so far, I have yet to see one of these.

 Johnny

Johnny and BarryW2 .....

Let's not go off the handle here or anything. With all due respect, I see where Johnny is coming from and there are people out there who can pay their debts and still have an adequate standard of living.

However Johnny, I see where BarryW2 is coming from here. Bankruptcy is an absolute last resort .... that's very true and that's the way it should be without misuse or abuse of the system. The point Johnny that BarryW2 is getting at here is that there are many student loan borrowers out there who have exhausted every single avenue to avoid bankruptcy at all costs including Debt Reduction and Interest Relief.

You say you have yet to  "... see one of these." But let's be realistic here, I am technically a bankrupt. I was a bankrupt 4 years ago when my CIBC Newfoundland Student Loans went into collections. During that four years I have done everything to keep them off my back until my financial situation improved. It has not improved at all as I had two jobs that were not high paying. So I have been a bankrupt technically speaking now for the longest time. I exercised every one of the options ... except bankruptcy. The only thing that stopped me from going bankrupt is keeping these guys off of me as long as possible (while they shoot their BS on the phone and in the mail with me) while I hang on to the hope I would get a professional, high paying, and stable job that would allow me to have independence and clear up my debts at the same time.

So if what you say is true, then that must make me very alone and very unique in this situation by saying such a remark. But I know I am not alone and there are far more people out there in my shoes than you are aware of. When one uses the logic that hefty student loans borrowed out by people from poor families make those persons poor right from the start, you have to believe that cases like mine are not ridiculously rare.

Many people are like me in that bankruptcy is pointless because it is a waste of time and money paid to a trustee and that's one big reason why you have not heard of bankruptcies as a solution to the problem.

Sorry Johnny .... but should the laws change and/or my 10 years from 1999 (the last education with student loans I have achieved) expire and I am still in dire straits like I am now, I will be off to a trustee to get my well deserved fresh start.

That's fair and square and I am not the only one out there.

 Hey, no worries. I am not going off the handle. I am speaking the truth.

 You wrote:

"However Johnny, I see where BarryW2 is coming from here. Bankruptcy is an absolute last resort .... that's very true and that's the way it should be without misuse or abuse of the system. The point Johnny that BarryW2 is getting at here is that there are many student loan borrowers out there who have exhausted every single avenue to avoid bankruptcy at all costs including Debt Reduction and Interest Relief."

 Much of the misuse and abuse comes from the bankruptcy administration because they do not educate people or help them explore potential solutions that are really right under their noses. I will invite you to take a gander at the hundreds of people in the forum who I have helped - and ask them what bankruptcy did for them - and what it did to improve the quality of their lives. They promise with a "so-called fresh start". It is all just fluff.

Fresh Start - Definition

 A fresh start is all about starting back at the beginning of something that once was bad - with all  obstructions or obstacles in your pathway removed so you do not stumble.

Ok.

 With all due respect - truly. You go bankrupt and hope that your loan gets discharged. In the meantime, I am going to continue giving people the help they need to live without fearing debt - and showing them what a real fresh start is.

Blue, you have not come and asked me to help you. Yet, you would spend more money and go bankrupt first. That makes absolutely no sense.

 Johnny

Blah,

 You wrote:

"You can snap back at me all you want, but I think anyone who has your fees available should be paying towards their debt instead of handing $1100 dollars in one year over to you."

  First of all, Bankruptcy is WAY more expensive than What cost, Blah. I do not cost $1100 in one year unless you are in a REAL bad spot - and it will take me a millenium to get you out of. Other than that, look at my rates on my site. Get your facts straight, man, or gal. I am not trying to sound nasty here but before you make statements like that, at least know the facts. Very few people out of the thousands I help have ever had to pay me more than $`1000.00. Believe me, they were more than satisfied for the price and results they received, Blah.

 Now, if you could afford to spend $1500.00 (plus more depending on the program) on bankruptcy, wouldn't that be something you should pay toward your debt, Blah? 

 Keep it real.  

Johnny

 Barry,

 I work from 9 am until sometimes 2 am helping people from Canada - all the way acorss to New Zealand. I dedicate my life to helping people - becuase a) I love people and value spirit, and b) I can help them deal with - and solve financial problems that tend to debilitate  - and kill their spirit.

 Barry, I am not in the same situation as people are here on this site. In fact, I could simply walk away from doing what I do for people and do something else that would profit greatly. I have dedicated my life to helping people get through what many of you are going through. The truth is I do what I love - and helping people is what I love. 

 I came here to this website to help people - and many are at absolutely no cost. Because I bring something that is far more useful, effective, and real than bankruptcy, some wish to scourge me with words and say things that are untrue. Blah, you have certainly offended me by saying what you said in an earlier post. Just because you offended me, does not mean I dislike you. I only question your intentions because of what you said.

 Lastly, Barry... I live with the mysery of what the system does to people. Knowing that the system, and the people running it can be so vicious in order tocapture profit, it seems that life is nothing more than disposable. I love people - and feel for people. That means that I live with it - and carry it as well - until the moment I fix it for someone - and they recieve their fresh start.

There is life after debt.

 On this note, it is break time. I will tlak to some of you over the next few days. Others likely never again.

 Johnny

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2005/07/04/1117025-cp.html - http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2005/07/04/1117025-cp.htm l

“The student group, representing about 400,000 members across Canada, has spent about $10,000 on the legal challenge so far.

Saul Schwartz, who teaches public policy at Carleton University in Ottawa, testified for the federation as an expert witness.

Ottawa has never offered evidence of widespread systemic abuse by student debtors before bankruptcy rules were tightened seven years ago, he said in an interview.”

Blah as all of us here are anonymous one has to focus on other factors when evaluating the veracity of posters.  One of those factors is consistency.  The Blah that many of us know, and have come to regard fondly, lives in Korea with a Filipino wife.  He is also an avid video game player and a strong advocate of the expatriate life. 

 I am an expatriate as well and as such don’t really pay attention to polices that do not impact on my life. As there is a residency requirement for bankruptcy whatever they do to the law has no bearing on my life.  I suspect the vast majority of Canadians abroad feel the same way.  You are an anomaly in this sense. 

The discussion should end here as it has ceased to be productive.  This does happen when Patrick returns to the board. 

I think we do a disservice to our shared community if we consider these sort of discussions as a personal attack or use them as an attack on a person.

All it comes down to is a difference of opinion about the merits of going bankrupt.  Each has their opinion based on their experiences.  Like everything in life, it isn't black and white.   

A healthy discussion is differing viewpoints because the end result is education of the people who have a chance to read and understand each viewpoint.  From there it depends on their own specific circumstance to decide the direction they take.

I personally think Johnny's voice in saying don't just go bankrupt (that there are alternatives) is a smart one because too many people do it without awareness of its consequences and true effects.  That said, to say it has no benefit to anyone to me sounds one-sided.

Mark,

In all fairness, you are allowing a post from a believed once banned member to remainon this thread but you delete mine..? what gives. you have left up a post from a questionable member to cause further harm to a member who has done nothing but help you grow your website.

Very disapointed in your decision, it looks almost bad on you.

troy

Wow!

 What is going on here? Who was banned? Why? What can someone possibly have said that would get them banned?

Can't members disagree without the administrator censoring their views or banning them? Why is everyone so paranoid? This whole situation is creeping me out!

 Blah,

 You were never banned from from this site in my recollection. Only a selected few were turfed by the administrator. Heck, the only problem I had with your post was you said I charge a fee that was WAY more than the norm.  

 Peace. No worries. Have a beer.

 Johnny

John,

My personal opinion stands, if my post was disrespectful, then so is blah's it should be removed.

I still find it funny that you as senior poster are left to defend your self from attacks when the administration has done nothing but reap rewards by your efforts.. If it was not for your involvment in this site it would be filled with useless 2nd hand information

In my opinion administration has failed you and your efforts.

Mark you have my e-mail address , If you feel the need to discuss this further feel free to contact me.

Troy 

Blah, for the record I rats a*s if you have been banned before, your sugar coated post was uncalled for, and should be removed.

Troy

Blah congratulations on your wife’s getting her Permanent Residence.  I know first hand what an ordeal this can be.

What I was alluding to was that you had good insights into Canadian governmental dysfunctionalality, incompetence and probable criminality and that you seemed to be backing away from the critique in favour of compliance.  

Lost in the banter was my point that we have not been well served by the Canadian Federation of Students and their Stalinist agenda to squash any programs that fall outside of their goal to liberate Canadian students from tuition payments. 

Most probably in the fall the period for bankruptcy will be reduced to seven years with no special conditions for student loans.  If the law is there and you have a mountain of debt then you may have another decision to make.  Right now the law is not very debtor friendly and this is contributing to people being seduced by a bankruptcy option that does not in reality exist. 

Blah,

 Can I write this WITHOUT PREJUDICE?

 YOu wrote:

 "The cost for this long-term intervention package consists of a one-time start-up fee of $495.00*, and monthly payments of $44.95 AFTER THREE MONTHS from the starting date for as long as you would like the services to continue! The initial start-up fee is not recurring. Once the membership is purchased, the client can benefit from it for as long as he or she wants for this small monthly fee.

*Please be advised that taxes are not included.

OK, so I was off a little and I apologize. But do the math and after taxes you still pay out around $1000 over the first one-year period for the long term plan – and this is advertised as a limited time offer, so I assume it will cost more in the near future. None of this money goes towards the debt. You still owe the money.

 The service fee you had copied here actually contains a typo. The $44.95 mothly fee - after 3 months is not correct. It is six months after ONLY if a client wants us to continue doing the housekeeping and management of the debt(s). Many clients who opt for the longer-term assistance do so because it is convenient, cost-effective, and reassuring to people to know that they do bnot have to take time out of their lives to deal with these cumbersome issues. This is only one of many services we provide, Blah.

 I know things are rough for you with all of the financial uncertainties and such. My apologies if I have offended you with my opinions, views, or advice giving. Look, if you ever need help, I am still (as always) very willing to assist you. If there is anything I can do to make things better for you, let me know.

 Here is the actual service description for your reference:

http://www.cfwgroup.ca/forum/viewtopic.php?t=198 - http://www.cfwgroup.ca/forum/viewtopic.php?t=198

 Yours respectfully,

 Johnny

Hello Everyone ....

I agree here that we need to minimize the arguing and fighting. This is not going to solve anything. I know as well as everyone here does that the recent Supreme Court decision has made a lot of people visibly upset. Myself included.

That being said, let's stop fighting amonst us and get back to fighting the powers that be that got the whole system messed up. What we need to maintain here is good clean debating and no mud slinging.

Now there was something mentioned here in the above replies that caught my eye. That is the concept of an Income Contingency Repayment scheme. While this sounds good, a system like this if put in place could be filled with traps and Catch 22's that could render it useless to over 95% of us in much the same way programmes like Debt Reduction and Interest Relief. In order for such a programme to benefit EVERYONE owing Student Loans, it would have the following conditions established:

1) Canada and Provincial/Territorial Student Loans would be consolidated together to keep paper work down to a minimum and monthly payments that are made are divided up to the respective loans based on the percentage each loan is of the total debt balance.

2) A cut-off point of $20,000.00 gross annual income such that any annual income of 19,999.99 is exempt from ANY payments. Any income less than that as a cut-off point is pretty much poverty this day in age especially depending on where you live.

3) Whether the total Student Loans is a low amount like $5000.00 or as high as $100,000.00, this element does not factor into what is the agreed upon payment. In other words, a person owing $25,000.00 in Student Loans whose Gross Income is $35,000.00 a year will make the same payments as someone who owes only $10,000.00 in Student Loans and makes the same amount of Gross Income a year. Of course, this example assumes that both persons here have the same identical circumstances (ie. number of children, rent/mortgage).

4) Overall, the agreed upon payments under such a programme must not be such that the debtor is denied an adequate standard of living. In other words, there should be a sufficient enough take home pay for someone to have the necessities of life such as rent/mortgage payments, car payments (as long as it is not a BMW or Hummer type of car), food, clothing, utilities, and RRSP contributions. Everyone's individual circumstances will be as unique as a fingerprint is, therefore any Income Contingency programme cannot have standardized "brackets" such that it gives one debtor an advantage over someone else in the same bracket.

5) Overall, if the minimum monthly payments of the consolidated student loans are so great that a person who has exhausted Interest Relief and Debt Reduction options cannot afford to make those payments based on individual legitimate circumstances then they immediately become eligible for the Income Contingency Repayment Plan.

6) The Student Loans must never be sent to a collection agency but remain with the bank(s) and/or HRDC for the duration of the life of the loan. The life of the loan should be infinite and not set at 15 years maximum.

7) Anyone paying their Student Loans through such a programme will have Interest Relief such that a reasonable amount of their payments are used to bring down the Principle Owing. In other words, payments paid on Interest accruing should not exceed 10%. Ideally, no interest should accrue as the government should not be making a profit off our Student Loans as that constitutes the same as another Tax.

8) Also, if a debtor takes out a private loan to pay off these debts in one shot and/or wants to voluntarily make larger payments (AND THEIR LEVEL OF INCOME HAS NOT INCREASED) that they can do so without penalty and without terms being revised. However, if circumstances change such as another child being born or a layoff at work, then these circumstances be used to lower previous agreed upon payments.

9) While on such a plan, the loans are deemed to be in Good Standing with the highest Credit Rating possible.

In conclusion, unless a programme is set up in this manner or very similar to this one, any such programme will not work in the best interests of the student loan debtor with no traps or Catch 22's.

For some of you out there, you may laugh at this idea I have here. But perhaps only because that the government will never allow such a system be put in place. But anyways, that's my two cents on what I wanted to say today.

The CFS totally misrepresents IC on their website maintaining that it is a program where the poor will bear most of the burden as it will take longer for them to pay off their loans.  But in reality the poor or those under an income threshold for a number of years have their loans forgiven and this aspect of the program is subsidized by those with higher incomes. 

The SL program would be moved to Revenue Canada and it is managed by another line on the tax form.  Payments would be deducted from paychecks just as taxes are now.  There would be no need for the HRSCD to lose money or Justice to break the law chasing defaulted loans.  And bye bye third party collections.

And for the poor who want to pay there could be social programs that earn credits against the loans as well as provide them with expericence to get higher paying jobs. 

I have to say that I agree here that the CFS's opposition to an Income Contingency Plan was not a good idea on their part. It sounds like to me that they were headstrong about it ASSUMING perhaps that such a plan by the Federal Government would be filled with Catch 22's and traps thus rendering it ineffective for most loan borrowers.

The way the CFS should have went about it should have been like this: They should have opposed any certain terms of such a programme that would not be mutually beneficial especially for the borrower rather than oppose the entire programme period. The CFS should have negotiated with the government on any particular "bad" terms of such a place to come up with something comprehensive as hard as possible in the shortest amount of time.

By the CFS going about it the right way, we could have had a good working Income Contingency Plan in place and the BIA potentially saved from the 10 - Year non-dischargeability rule.

Perhaps I am overly suspicious but I don’t believe in coincidences.  Whenever Patrick or Java/Islander reappears it is in the midst of a swarm and they are all zeroed in on the same target.  The board can be almost dead and then there are all of a sudden all these like minded posters attacking John LeBlanc. 

My theory to explain Patrick’s persistence is that it is driven by some economic incentive.  I imagine it is a fairly complex plan and he uses aliases and proxy accounts to establish his identity on the board.  He may be working other forums and venues as well. 

I agree Mersan!

I may come off hard on some posters, but I get some mad when out of the blue a series posts pop up that under mind Johns / CFW's efforts. I get even more disgruntled when I see that the ownership of the board will not take on any accountability for its member users unless it directly effects thier image or well being.

 I am certain that if you re read every thread in this forum, a new poster would find every ounce of information they would ever need to help themselfs. All most all of it comes from the CFW group for FREE. You will also see that before John offers his service he will offer direction to the poster to repair the damage themselves.

I guess I am the only one who remembers this forum in its early days before John arrived and it, the forum was filled with lost and desperate souls. Then "HELP IS HERE " arrived and the forum really began to take direction.( slighty after the original members beat the crap out of him...lol)

It is alway the people that have Joined this forum 2 years after John did that are the ones posting the B.S. They become instant experts in everything from spending 5 minutes reading over Johns post or the information that someone else posted that they learned from reading Johns posts. These poster are the easiest to spot.... they come in here post about there woes then spent the next week reading the forum and the next thing you know they are posting useing Johns language and termonology. 

I say good on these people .. they have done what John wanted them to do! ..LEARN!

But could you please quit shooting the messanger.

Thank you 

Blah,

I posted out of anger, I'm sorry for that. I get very passionate about this site and its members.

To make a real long story short I have a very heated and long history with Islander and his alias's. I assumed that you were one and the same.

As for the administration of the site, Mark does an excellent job at being fair and un-biased. I just believe that the site is to un supervised. Mark is busy and can not be expected to be on 24 hours a day. Because of this he lets things slip and then the policing is left to posters. That is what I think is unfair to everyone, including John.

I am sorry if I have offended anyone with my posts, including you Blah.

Troy

 Let's all be very aware that people who are against us are always among us. One day they are active, then dormant the next. Then, to be elusive by creating an entourage of identitites on a public website to continue their onslaught to slander, defame, deception, and destroy others simply because of some sickened desire to prove a subtle point.

It is very easy to detect those who are against us. However, some people appear to have wrong intentions simply because they do not know what the right thing is, which would be the immediate result of not being aware or empowered with what is necessary to understand their problem(s).

 In reference to Islander, javaman, Beachcomber, (plus his countlessother identities);all I can say is that I really have nothing against him, regardless of how much he (they) have slandered and despised me. I know they have no reason other than for some irrational commercial reason. I certainly don't consider him "friendly", but I would not like to see anything bad happen to him. In fact, I would help him if he ever needed it from me.

 I think this person is a dare-devil and a showman who is out to prove that everyone else is wrong, and wants to be recognized for his talents and intelligence (real or perceived). To be the best of the best, so to speak. I just feel really sorry for someone who feels that he must make everyone else pay for his own mistakes - and those that have been commissioned against him.

 It seems that he is desperately trying to be a part of this site and will go to great lengths to continue whatever quest he is on. I am sure that he will come back as one of his other identities already planted here.