"Ramsey's assessment speaks to anyone trapped between broken promises and family guilt. After 17 years, this isn't Shane's problem to solve emotionally. His parents made a commitment when he was barely an adult, and their failure to honor it while criticizing his financial choices creates an impossible dynamic. The clarity feels liberating because it identifies the actual dysfunction: not the debt itself but the passive-aggressive communication pattern that has poisoned family interactions for nearly two decades."
"Ramsey is right that Shane needs boundaries with his mother. When parents make a financial commitment and then use it as leverage for criticism, they're violating the implicit contract. If Shane's parents are financially comfortable enough to make payments but choose to stretch this out while commenting on his truck purchase, they're using the debt as a control mechanism rather than treating it as their obligation."
Shane's parents promised to pay his student loans when he was 18, yet seventeen years later $80,000 remains of the original $120,000 debt while the parents make minimum payments. The mother criticizes Shane's purchases, such as buying a truck, blaming him for not accelerating payoff. The persistent payments paired with criticism create a dynamic of control and guilt rather than fulfillment of the parents' obligation. The situation reflects an unresolved marital disagreement projected onto Shane, with one parent disagreeing about how to handle the debt. The recommended response is firm boundaries to stop emotional responsibility for the parents' broken commitment.
Read at 24/7 Wall St.
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]