Biden's student loan forgiveness plan

https://www.verifythis.com/article/news/verify/education-verify/biden-student-loan-debt-forgiveness-plan-who-qualifies-how-to-apply/536-759ec5e6-9968-45f7-8518-909b76cd4d35

Share your thoughts and opinions.

What do you think about this?

great idea, should have been more but whatev

It's nice for people who currently have student loans, but other than that stupid and ultimately pointless. Universities will likely just jack up their prices.

43 million Americans have student loan debt, so it's arguably the most effective Government relief program in decades.

Good start, now force universities and colleges at gunpoint to make themselves affordable.

While it's not perfect, I am pleasantly surprised Biden actually managed to pull it off.

In addition to the 10-20k, they are even covering unpaid interest. Going forward, as long as borrowers stay current with monthly payments, they won't have to pay more than their original loan. This includes income-based repayment plans, which can allow borrowers to have 0$ monthly payments.

Here's a radical thought. How about just paying graduates enough so they can afford to pay their own debts within a reasonable time frame.

Yeah, fantastic job.

Imp I hit yes by mistake please change my vote, apologies.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Here's a radical thought. How about just paying graduates enough so they can afford to pay their own debts within a reasonable time frame. how would you propose that the executive branch accomplishes that? $80 minimum wage?

Originally posted by Tzeentch
how would you propose that the executive branch accomplishes that? $80 minimum wage?

I'm not proposing the executive branch do it.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Here's a radical thought. How about just paying graduates enough so they can afford to pay their own debts within a reasonable time frame.
It's not an either/or scenario.

Workers should be paid a fairer share than they are, and we should have affordable/free higher education.
Originally posted by ares834
It's nice for people who currently have student loans, but other than that stupid and ultimately pointless. Universities will likely just jack up their prices.
They've supposedly included provisions to prevent that. I guess time will tell how it works out.

Certainly a Step in the right direction, and impressed Biden has gone ahead with it.

Still kinda feels like its not enough to really help. But enough for the right to b*** about inflation.

Style time is spot on re: a fair days pay for a hard day's work. When I was young almost everyone in the UK believed that.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
I'm not proposing the executive branch do it. then what's your point really. I mean if we're talking about perfect scenarios then higher education should just be free, along with food, housing and power. Perfect is the enemy of good however, and there's nothing wrong with incremental steps to improve peoples' quality of life.

As for the rest of you I really don't understand the midwit cynicism on display in here. As I pointed out above there are 43 million Americans with student debt. Half of them have less than 10k in debt, meaning that for those people their debt is completely wiped out. Considering that most of the people who have student loans are young adults and therefore people who are just getting started with their lives and our financially vulnerable, how can anyone with a brain say that this is not a titanic burden lifted off our society.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
then what's your point really. I mean if we're talking about perfect scenarios then higher education should just be free, along with food, housing and power. it was free for me, I got grants in the UK to go to University. It meant diversity of ethnic and economic groups was more common then in HE. All gone now, only for the rich tbh. Sending my kids has cost me a fortune.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
it was free for me, I got grants in the UK to go to University. It meant diversity of ethnic and economic groups was more common then in HE. All gone now, only for the rich tbh. Sending my kids has cost me a fortune.


Tbf theres massively more Uni admissions now, so its a lot more expensive for the government to pay for.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
As for the rest of you I really don't understand the midwit cynicism on display in here. As I pointed out above there are 43 million Americans with student debt. Half of them have less than 10k in debt, meaning that for those people their debt is completely wiped out.


Average is $40k according to this:

https://abc17news.com/stacker-news/2022/08/25/how-student-loan-debt-has-increased-over-time/ #:~:text=As%20of%20June%202022%2C%20the,totaled%20
%2439%2C381%2C%20according%20to%20Experian.


But yeah its a promising first step for sure.

Originally posted by StyleTime
It's not an either/or scenario.

Workers should be paid a fairer share than they are, and we should have affordable/free higher education.

two things can be true at the same time.

I have a mortgage I would like paid off. Or even 20k on the principle would be nice. I paid off my own 24k in student loans... I think this is an unfair plan. I also think it's ridiculous, because the government is currently still making loans, knowing they will never be repaid under this plan.

http://scripting.com/images/2022/08/28/trolly.png

Originally posted by NemeBro
While true, how would you suggest fixing the problem of the cost of living outstripping earnings?

Take your pick

1. Above inflation pay rises

2. Non executive remuneration in line with executive renumeration including bonuses and share options. If bosses want to award themselves 20% yearly salary increases with 100% bonus and/or share options then their workers get a matching %

3. A ring fenced % of shareholder dividends set aside for workers.

4. Build more houses to increase supply to keep house price rises in line with earnings rises so an average mortgage is no longer ever increasing multiples of average salaries. To give an example of what I mean. The average house price in the UK in 1995 was 2.8x the average salary. It is now 7x the average salary and 11x in London. Meanwhile the number of houses being built every year has dropped steadily since the 1970s but the population increase has accelerated.

Originally posted by Tzeentch


It is not logical to assert that you shouldn't operate on someone with a bullet wound because they never should have been shot in the first place. The shooting happened, the victim is bleeding out. The number one priority should be to stop the bleeding.

It's not fair that my tax dollars should pay for the emergency open heart surgery of some chainsmoking fat **** who had a heart attack when I work so hard to be healthy and fit, and to have health insurance. Should hospitals therefore be allowed to let people who choose to live unhealthy lifestyles and who have no health insurance just ****ing die?

They aren't stopping the bleeding, they are giving the gunmen permissions to shoot more people, since they will all be patched up. Why not stop the bleeding of everyone in debt? Why focus on student loans? Anyone and everyone in debt is in the same boat. Credit card debt is more crushing than student loans, mortgages last longer, speaking of medical bills, they are even more inescapable than student loans... Why pick student loans? I ascertain they did it to let colleges charge even more.

Also, I don't know where you live, but I live in America: your tax dollars aren't covering anyone's health care who didn't have insurance. Other than keeping them from dying on the table, they aren't doing anything for someone without insurance. They will have crippling medical debt for the rest of their lives, for sure going to lose everything. Not having health insurance in America is a death sentence.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
This argument is equivalent to conservatives arguing that raising minimum wage is bad because it increases inflation. Institutions are jacking up their prices regardless of whether the government bails out debt holders or not because they know that college education is borderline mandatory to get a non trade-cuck career, and thus they have the leverage to charge whatever the market will bear. Do you know what else drives up the cost of tuition? The existence of loans to begin with. If you couldn't borrow money to pay for tuition, then the demand for admission would drop and institutions would be forced to lower their prices to make admission more accessible. Most people would not assert that student loans should be done away with altogether, though (most would assert that higher education should be free, but that's an entire separate ballgame).

It is not logical to assert that you shouldn't operate on someone with a bullet wound because they never should have been shot in the first place. The shooting happened, the victim is bleeding out. The number one priority should be to stop the bleeding.



I don't disagree with any of that. None of it addresses people with current debts and none of it permanently fixes the issue of people being unable to pay (other than making education free). If you don't agree that having the government bail out loans doesn't fix the underlying problem then I'll point you in the direction of the bank bailouts of 2008. Have the banks eliminated dangerous practices that led to their instability and near collapse? No they have not. And they will be conveniently having another enormous crisis very soon and once again they'll be bailed out to the tune of trillions. And they'll continue to do it over and over.

It's a start, but the big issue is the tution prices you have to pay to attend higher education in the U.S.

In Sweden tuition is tax-funded (and therefore heavily regulated by the government to prevent unnecessary expenses) in fact you even recieve a small grant that covers public transport, food, and books. But if you want to live in a student apartment you can complement it with a loan, but it's fairly modest compared to those in the U.S.

As far as I know it works perfectly fine. Even drop-outs can pay off their loans fairily easily.

Originally posted by NewGuy01
http://scripting.com/images/2022/08/28/trolly.png


Yeah ridiculous and frankly butthurt argument.

They could at least appreciate there will be less to save up for their children's education. And no you don't need children yourself to appreciate that.

Sky News Australia believe this will screw the Democrats in the midterms.

Originally posted by NewGuy01
http://scripting.com/images/2022/08/28/trolly.png

lol i was considering posting the boomer trolly problem, but you beat me to it

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Yeah ridiculous and frankly butthurt argument.

They could at least appreciate there will be less to save up for their children's education. And no you don't need children yourself to appreciate that.

How is cancelling the debt without fixing the source of the debt anything other than stupid?

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Take your pick

1. Above inflation pay rises

2. Non executive remuneration in line with executive renumeration including bonuses and share options. If bosses want to award themselves 20% yearly salary increases with 100% bonus and/or share options then their workers get a matching %

3. A ring fenced % of shareholder dividends set aside for workers.

4. Build more houses to increase supply to keep house price rises in line with earnings rises so an average mortgage is no longer ever increasing multiples of average salaries. To give an example of what I mean. The average house price in the UK in 1995 was 2.8x the average salary. It is now 7x the average salary and 11x in London. Meanwhile the number of houses being built every year has dropped steadily since the 1970s but the population increase has accelerated.
You can do that and also cancel the student debt though.

What exactly are you arguing here?

Originally posted by truejedi
How is cancelling the debt without fixing the source of the debt anything other than stupid?
Because it's all they can do at the moment. The system doesn't get overturned in one night homie.

Originally posted by truejedi
They aren't stopping the bleeding, they are giving the gunmen permissions to shoot more people, since they will all be patched up. Why not stop the bleeding of everyone in debt? Why focus on student loans? Anyone and everyone in debt is in the same boat. Credit card debt is more crushing than student loans, mortgages last longer, speaking of medical bills, they are even more inescapable than student loans... Why pick student loans? I ascertain they did it to let colleges charge even more.

I mean, students loans are the only thing you mentioned that can't be discharged by filing bankruptcy.

It's definitely more inescapable than the other things.

And they've included provisions to prevent colleges from jacking up prices in response. We could discuss how best to craft those policies, but implying they should not cancel the debt is silly. This is a good thing that Biden did.

The data is showing that around 50% of Latinos and 25% of Black people with student loans will have their loans completely wiped away by this move: https://www.businessinsider.com/who-benefits-most-student-debt-forgiveness-millennials-pslf-black-borrowers-2022-8


Now you see why the Rightist are buttmad.

Cuck poo, Nob hard!

Originally posted by Astner
It's a start, but the big issue is the tution prices you have to pay to attend higher education in the U.S.

In Sweden tuition is tax-funded (and therefore heavily regulated by the government to prevent unnecessary expenses) in fact you even recieve a small grant that covers public transport, food, and books. But if you want to live in a student apartment you can complement it with a loan, but it's fairly modest compared to those in the U.S.

As far as I know it works perfectly fine. Even drop-outs can pay off their loans fairily easily.


I don't care about private universities, they can charge what they want. But public universities here should be like that, government regulated to the point they're affordable and you don't graduate with a debt you can't pay off.

Originally posted by NewGuy01
http://scripting.com/images/2022/08/28/trolly.png
Exactly.

The idea that "They didn't pay for me, so they shouldn't pay for anyone" is ridiculous.

Originally posted by Astner
It's a start, but the big issue is the tution prices you have to pay to attend higher education in the U.S.

In Sweden tuition is tax-funded (and therefore heavily regulated by the government to prevent unnecessary expenses) in fact you even recieve a small grant that covers public transport, food, and books. But if you want to live in a student apartment you can complement it with a loan, but it's fairly modest compared to those in the U.S.

As far as I know it works perfectly fine. Even drop-outs can pay off their loans fairily easily.


This should be the end goal. It's only because of American brain-rot that this is even a controversial issue here. We already have public education at other levels, yet we go full derp when it comes to universities.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
Style time is spot on re: a fair days pay for a hard day's work. When I was young almost everyone in the UK believed that.
Yep. It seems the anti-worker brainwashing has infected both our countries. People were tricked into defending and glorifying the same people exploiting them. Fortunately, we've seen pushback recently. This is why we got a renewed wave of unionization efforts in both places. Even Canada is experiencing it.

People are sick of the record profits generated by their excess labor-value getting almost completely consumed by executives.

Originally posted by StyleTime
You can do that and also cancel the student debt though.

What exactly are you arguing here?

.

But they're not doing both, are they. That's the point.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
But they're not doing both, are they. That's the point.
Right. But, the correct response is to continue fighting/voting for further positive change.

Not arguing against the good thing they did do.

But it's not a good thing in isolation. All it does is encourage higher costs and bigger debts for other people later on because the government will just keep stepping in every so often to bail people out. Not only does it not fix the underlying problem, it actively makes it worse down the line. Like I said, exactly the same situation with the bank bailouts.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
But it's not a good thing in isolation. All it does is encourage higher costs and bigger debts for other people later on because the government will just keep stepping in every so often to bail people out. Not only does it not fix the underlying problem, it actively makes it worse down the line. Like I said, exactly the same situation with the bank bailouts.

Originally posted by StyleTime

And they've included provisions to prevent colleges from jacking up prices in response. We could discuss how best to craft those policies, but implying they should not cancel the debt is silly.

Again, it doesn't fix the problem. Give a man a fish etc...

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
But it's not a good thing in isolation. All it does is encourage higher costs and bigger debts for other people later on because the government will just keep stepping in every so often to bail people out. Not only does it not fix the underlying problem, it actively makes it worse down the line. Like I said, exactly the same situation with the bank bailouts.

Qft. In isolation, it's just bailing water out of a boat without plugging the hole, at great cost. Just like car manufacturers raising electric car prices to absorb the tax credit, colleges will just do the same thing. Solves nothing, costs MUCH.

Originally posted by truejedi
Qft. In isolation, it's just bailing water out of a boat without plugging the hole, at great cost. Just like car manufacturers raising electric car prices to absorb the tax credit, colleges will just do the same thing. Solves nothing, costs MUCH.

Student loans do not go into repayment until six months after the student is no longer enrolled. So metaphorically, these boats do not have holes in them, just water. This bill granting them immediate relief gets the water out now. Other boats that are not filling with water yet is an entirely separate issue, and can be handled in a separate bill.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Student loans do not go into repayment until six months after the student is no longer enrolled. So metaphorically, these boats do not have holes in them, just water. This bill granting them immediate relief gets the water out now. Other boats that are not filling with water yet is an entirely separate issue, and can be handled in a separate bill.

I guess that means, metaphorically, you are looking at the number of boats and not the number of gallons of water.

white americans who are mad because younger people are getting a break that they did not receive: how far does this logic apply? like... should we get rid of robotic micro cardio surgery, because it's not fair to everyone who had to have their ribs sawed open? just wondering how far "whaa I didn't get one" can stretch

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
white americans who are mad because younger people are getting a break that they did not receive: how far does this logic apply? like... should we get rid of robotic micro cardio surgery, because it's not fair to everyone who had to have their ribs sawed open? just wondering how far "whaa I didn't get one" can stretch

No, it isn't "I'm out of debt, but I want them to be in debt.

It's "I'm also in debt, why aren't I included?".

Why would their type of debt get special treatment?

It's very much a feeling of being excluded from a group im also very much a part of.

2 other things:

1. What provisions were added to ensure colleges can't raise prices?

2. Who even voted on this plan? Seems like an end around of the power of the order being controlled by Congress.

Originally posted by Robtard
I don't care about private universities, they can charge what they want. But public universities here should be like that, government regulated to the point they're affordable and you don't graduate with a debt you can't pay off.
There shouldn't be any private universities. Just like there shouldn't be any private schools. The quality of education should not be a matter of wealth.

That said, the tutition rates in the U.S. have reached $50,000 annually, the reason for this is because most of it is covered by the Federal Student Aid. So not only do students end up in debt they'll have a hard time paying it off, but the taxpayers end up taking the bulk of the hit leaving them unsatisfied as well.

Meanwhile tuition for non-EU citizens in Sweden is roughly $10,000. And it's not like it's suppar education either, the university I attended had exhange programs with Caltech, Princeton, and ETH Zurich, and according to LinkedIn one of my previous classmates got his Ph.D. at Caltech.

Given the direction the U.S. is heading with soaring tuition rates, rents, and health care it's going to be very difficult to regulate any of it within a reasonable period of time without causing problems.

Originally posted by Astner
There shouldn't be any private universities. Just like there shouldn't be any private schools. The quality of education should not be a matter of wealth.

That said, the tutition rates in the U.S. have reached $50,000 annually, the reason for this is because most of it is covered by the Federal Student Aid. So not only do students end up in debt they'll have a hard time paying it off, but the taxpayers end up taking the bulk of the hit leaving them unsatisfied as well.

Meanwhile tuition for non-EU citizens in Sweden is roughly $10,000. And it's not like it's suppar education either, the university I attended had exhange programs with Caltech, Princeton, and ETH Zurich, and according to LinkedIn one of my previous classmates got his Ph.D. at Caltech.

Given the direction the U.S. is heading with soaring tuition rates, rents, and health care it's going to be very difficult to regulate any of it within a reasonable period of time without causing problems. Agreed 100% wealth should not determine Educational outcome. Sadly it does.

Originally posted by Blakemore
Sky News Australia believe this will screw the Democrats in the midterms.


I think it's gonna do the opposite. Dem's popularity seems to be recovering lately between this and the Roe v Wade thing.

It could go either way ☺️ if Dems control senate then it's more Pro biden imo

Originally posted by Blakemore
It could go either way ☺️


That's the point. Earlier in the year it was looking like Republicans were going to stream roll through the midterms.

Biden's approval rating jumped up six points in August. We'll see the outcome of this loan forgiveness next month.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/329384/presidential-approval-ratings-joe-biden.aspx

Originally posted by truejedi
No, it isn't "I'm out of debt, but I want them to be in debt.

It's "I'm also in debt, why aren't I included?".

Why would their type of debt get special treatment?

It's very much a feeling of being excluded from a group im also very much a part of.

How are you being excluded?

Originally posted by Robtard
We'll see the outcome of this loan forgiveness next month.
How do you even compare the success of the midterms? Isn't the turn-out rates for Democrats higher during the presedential election than it is in the midterms? Even a "success" may result in loss in the number of congress represenatives depending on what you consider to be a success.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
How are you being excluded?

In debt but not included in the plan?

Originally posted by truejedi
2 other things:

1. What provisions were added to ensure colleges can't raise prices?

2. Who even voted on this plan? Seems like an end around of the power of the order being controlled by Congress.
The department of education is apparently requiring them to keep prices reasonable (I suppose some degree of inflation will happen naturally). They're also re-establishing the enforcement branch of the FSA. It's actually already withdrawn authorization for some programs.

That said, I do wish it was a bit more transparent. We don't have hard numbers yet, so it's like I said on the first page -- only time will tell how effective it'll be.

2. Despite how it's been presented in the media, this wasn't really Biden's doing per se. The power being exercised here is mostly the Department of Education, via the HEROES Act. This gives them the power to provide student loan relief in times of national emergency or war.

This is actually the same mechanism that allowed them to pause student debt payments during Trump's time in office too.

As for a court battle, it seems the issue would be around what qualifies as "relief", and how much was warranted. I doubt it's going to court though.

Originally posted by StyleTime
The department of education is apparently requiring them to keep prices reasonable (I suppose some degree of inflation will happen naturally). They're also re-establishing the enforcement branch of the FSA. It's actually already withdrawn authorization for some programs.

That said, I do wish it was a bit more transparent. We don't have hard numbers yet, so it's like I said on the first page -- only time will tell how effective it'll be.

2. Despite how it's been presented in the media, this wasn't really Biden's doing per se. The power being exercised here is mostly the Department of Education, via the HEROES Act. This gives them the power to provide student loan relief in times of national emergency or war.

This is actually the same mechanism that allowed them to pause student debt payments during Trump's time in office too.

As for a court battle, it seems the issue would be around what qualifies as "relief", and how much was warranted. I doubt it's going to court though.

Thanks for the answer. I'm very skeptical about prices not rising, but I guess we'll see.

It also seems to me that both parties are in a race to the bottom on taking power without Congressional approval. Appointed positions like the DOE spending this kind of money is frightening, right? I'm not the only one who feels like both parties are out of control with stuff like that?


Finally, apologies for my many "wrong word" typos these days... Auto correct and KMC has real problems on mobile.. I swear I reread the posts before I hit the post button, and it changes after that...

Originally posted by Astner
How do you even compare the success of the midterms? Isn't the turn-out rates for Democrats higher during the presedential election than it is in the midterms? Even a "success" may result in loss in the number of congress represenatives depending on what you consider to be a success.

My comment there wasn't about the midterms, just Biden's month-to-month approval, he's gone up recently due to Republicans taking away women's rights and getting his Inflation Reduction Act passed without Republican support. We'll see next month what this debt forgiveness move does to his popularity. I think it will increase, but not by much.

We can measure success in the November midterms, as historically the party who controls the White House (Executive branch) tends to lose in the House and Senate (Legislative branch) in the midterms elections. Just a couple months ago Republicans were set to take control of both the House and Senate and by a lot, now it's looking like they could lose a seat or two in the Senate, thereby not gaining control, while gaining control of the House is still likely, but not by as great a margin. Imagine if they fail taking the House too, that will be a party of complete failure.

Imagine being in a party that wants to block legislation to reduce inflation on the basis that high inflation will damage their political opposition and help get themselves into power. Imagine supporting that. Voting for a party that wants you to suffer in poverty and indignity so they can get into power to enact legislation that enriches themselves. Bonkers.

Biden was lucky in getting his Inflation Reduction Act passed, not a single Republican crossed party lines. Not one.

That's because they'd rather have high inflation because it makes their election prospects better because they don't even have to pretend to give a shit about people and they'd still get votes.

Originally posted by truejedi
In debt but not included in the plan?

The only way you would not be included is if you make more than $125,000 a year, in which case, you do not need it.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The only way you would not be included is if you make more than $125,000 a year, in which case, you do not need it.

No, it's a different type of debt. They cherry picked one type of debt.

Originally posted by truejedi
No, it's a different type of debt. They cherry picked one type of debt.

****ing grow up.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
****ing grow up.

What did you say?

Truejedi, your argument seems dangerously close to "If they can't fix EVERY problem, particularly mine, they shouldn't fix ANY problems." Crab mentality at its finest it seems. They have to start somewhere and they can't fix EVERY problem, but this will do real true good for average Americans, something that is increasingly rare in politics. I'm sorry that this won't help you, but just because we can't help everyone does not mean that we should help no one.

Originally posted by emporerpants
Truejedi, your argument seems dangerously close to "If they can't fix EVERY problem, particularly mine, they shouldn't fix ANY problems." Crab mentality at its finest it seems. They have to start somewhere and they can't fix EVERY problem, but this will do real true good for average Americans, something that is increasingly rare in politics. I'm sorry that this won't help you, but just because we can't help everyone does not mean that we should help no one.

I simply don't understand why THIS problem is anymore of a priority than anything else. If the government is literally handing out money, which it is, and they are excluding a large portion of the population with no explanation as to why they have chosen too, we absolutely have to look into why not. Why not use that same 500 billion on healthcare for instance? If Americans in debt is the issue: Where did they get the idea that relatively small loans (when compared to mortgages and medical bills) are more important? It's just poor decision making, for the most part. Even put 500 billion towards subsidizing colleges and making them more affordable, if education is the issue...

But to simply pay off loans like this without oversight on what the loans are used for. (When I went to school, I had the option of borrowing twice as much money, and using it to pay for ANYTHING school related:. Season tickets went on the bursar, private parking went to the bursar, housing and meal plans all went through the bursar... My point is not that nothing should be done to make education more affordable, but this, absolutely, does NOT do that. It's just a "lucky you" for a handful of Americans at a ridiculous cost. It's a vote buy.

Originally posted by truejedi
I simply don't understand why THIS problem is anymore of a priority than anything else. If the government is literally handing out money, which it is, and they are excluding a large portion of the population with no explanation as to why they have chosen too, we absolutely have to look into why not. Why not use that same 500 billion on healthcare for instance? If Americans in debt is the issue: Where did they get the idea that relatively small loans (when compared to mortgages and medical bills) are more important? It's just poor decision making, for the most part. Even put 500 billion towards subsidizing colleges and making them more affordable, if education is the issue...

But to simply pay off loans like this without oversight on what the loans are used for. (When I went to school, I had the option of borrowing twice as much money, and using it to pay for ANYTHING school related:. Season tickets went on the bursar, private parking went to the bursar, housing and meal plans all went through the bursar... My point is not that nothing should be done to make education more affordable, but this, absolutely, does NOT do that. It's just a "lucky you" for a handful of Americans at a ridiculous cost. It's a vote buy.

Because student loan debt is the only consumer debt that is not dischargable through bankruptcy. Now cry more like a gian ****ing baby about it.

Originally posted by truejedi
I simply don't understand why THIS problem is anymore of a priority than anything else. If the government is literally handing out money, which it is, and they are excluding a large portion of the population with no explanation as to why they have chosen too, we absolutely have to look into why not. Why not use that same 500 billion on healthcare for instance? If Americans in debt is the issue: Where did they get the idea that relatively small loans (when compared to mortgages and medical bills) are more important? It's just poor decision making, for the most part. Even put 500 billion towards subsidizing colleges and making them more affordable, if education is the issue...

But to simply pay off loans like this without oversight on what the loans are used for. (When I went to school, I had the option of borrowing twice as much money, and using it to pay for ANYTHING school related:. Season tickets went on the bursar, private parking went to the bursar, housing and meal plans all went through the bursar... My point is not that nothing should be done to make education more affordable, but this, absolutely, does NOT do that. It's just a "lucky you" for a handful of Americans at a ridiculous cost. It's a vote buy.
Those things require Congress to do them though. This was the Department of Education.

Buying votes isn't inherently bad. In many ways, it's something politicians should be doing --your enacting the policies constituents want so they continue voting on you. If that means forgiving loans, then awesome.

Democrats and Biden actually managed to fulfill a campaign promise, and improve millions of American lives. This is a good thing.

Originally posted by Robtard
Just a couple months ago Republicans were set to take control of both the House and Senate and by a lot, now it's looking like they could lose a seat or two in the Senate, thereby not gaining control, while gaining control of the House is still likely, but not by as great a margin. Imagine if they fail taking the House too, that will be a party of complete failure.
Interestingly enough,

Republicans just lost their Alaska House Representative in a special election. The former died, and Sarah Palin lost the subsequent election to a Democrat. It's only for the remainder of this term, but it's definitely telling -- it's Alaska's first Democrat Representative since 1972.

People remember that Republicans didn't want to give Americans a measly 600$ for COVID relief. People remember Republicans have re-affirmed their position as the bigoted party, having renewed their deranged anti-gay marriage war. They're the party associated with the insurgents who stormed the capitol. Now they want to reject student loan relief that helped so many Americans.

I'm not even saying they'll definitely lose, but Republicans are shooting themselves in the foot. Career Repubs will vote Repub either way, but I feel like Independents/swing voters might be wary of them right now.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Here's a radical thought. How about just paying graduates enough so they can afford to pay their own debts within a reasonable time frame. Die in fire you f*cking socialist. That's commie talk. Work for slave wages like the rest of us.