[BitwiseFool]

>"However, that would require an act of Congress, whereas federal student loan forgiveness can be accomplished immediately via executive action. This is why people are calling for it now, because it can be done right now. Also, the President promised to do so multiple times during his campaign."

I can't be the only one who feels like this is simply 'buying votes' in an attempt to try and salvage some seats for the upcoming midterms. And, of course the people with debt want the debt forgiven unilaterally and post-haste, so it makes sense they're clamoring for it. In a democracy, who turns down free money?

[mcv]

By that argument, everything is "buying votes". There are far more blatant examples of vote buying, like creating jobs in the production of weapon systems for the military, tax cuts for specific groups (mostly the rich, though that's more "buying campaign donations"), and plenty of other examples.

The fact of the matter is that these loans are unsustainable. They saddle people with life-long debt that they can never get rid of, dooming them to a life of poverty because of a choice they made when they were young, which everybody at the time told them was the right choice.

That particular debt forgiveness is simply the right thing to do. It will free a lot of people from poverty.

But clearly there are also measures necessary to prevent this from happening again, like a reasonable maximum to how much can be lend.

[wand3r]

The examples you gave are not as direct. This is a direct stimulus that can easily be attributed from the government to an individual. In some cases, as you mentioned, there are political reasons that are also suspect and stupid in my opinion. However, this example is extremely simple and easily attributable as there isn’t some 3rd party hiring people or some number of dollars you get to keep in your bank account in the future.

I would prefer that the change be that loans can be discharged in bankruptcy instead of this one off forgiveness.

[mcv]

I think the other examples are far more blatant. Politicians fund the military by far more than the military needs, to the point that the military doesn't even know what to do with it, but there's always conditions that specific military or NASA projects take place in specific states or districts for specific politicians. The tax cuts for donations are even worse. And neither of those are solving a specific problem, which is definitely the case with the crippling student loans.

That said, I agree with you on bankruptcy being a better idea. From what I understand, these loans are harder if not impossible to get rid of through bankruptcy than other loans, despite being far more crippling.

In general, I'd like a rule that all interest-carrying loans must be able to be eliminated through bankruptcy. Only interest-free loans should be exempt. Also: a cap on student loans to discourage excessive tuition. Tuition is just insane (and where is that money going? I hear plenty of younger professors are struggling too).

[wand3r]

Yeah, I think we agree. The military spending is absurd and also extremely wasteful. However, I don’t think it is “buying votes”. Its more akin to this terrible system where senators pork bills and make trades. Paying people (or forgiving a big debt) directly before an election is buying votes. The other examples you said are just political ineptitude, horse trading and a broken governmental system.

My first pass on fixing education is that we should remove the non-discharge of student loan debt. Gen-Z could boycott this system by declaring bankruptcy immediately after graduation which would have relatively minimal affects on their lives relative to the debt and schools would be forced to lower costs

[nonameiguess]

It doesn't seem that simple, given he won a primary in which all of the other candidates promised more money than he did.

[BitwiseFool]

I still have no idea how he actually managed to win the primary. None of the Democrats or Progressives I know in real life or online actually liked him. He was doing terribly and then all of the sudden he cinched the nomination in the span of two weeks. I sense there was a lot of back room power-broker deals going on and that was the real reason why so many of his competitors dropped out when they still had a good chance.

[techdmn]

The Democratic party seems to be a lot more competent, and try a lot harder, when they are combating progressives, as opposed to when they are combating the other party.

[pnutjam]

Alot of marginalized people were terrified of another term for the last doofus. They didn't want to rock the boat with anyone who was not center of the road and well established.

[BitwiseFool]

I feel like that would have been better reflected in Joe Biden's poll numbers in the races before South Carolina. He ultimately won, yes, and I don't doubt that plenty of people voted strategically but it genuinely seems like a switch was flipped when that South Carolina representative endorsed Joe Biden - his results became dramatically better after that.

[opwieurposiu]

He won the nomination because people thought he could beat Trump. This turned out to be correct. Not many dems loved him (see poor rally attendance), but nobody really hated him either and so they went with the least-worst option (where the worst option is Trump winning again).

[chitowneats]

Anyone know where I can get a $10k education loan immediately?

[colinmhayes]

I'm sure the university of Phoenix can hook you up

[lapcat]

> I can't be the only one who feels like this is "buying votes".

Votes are already bought by wealthy campaign contributors.

Anyway, aren't politicians supposed to help the public financially? If a politician campaigns on tax cuts, tax credits, and tax incentives, isn't that also "buying votes"? Which politician is not buying votes with their stated economic policies?

[BitwiseFool]

I sense there is a difference between passing policy which broadly affects future actions (tax rates, credits, etc.) and making a campaign promise to directly pay (or in this case forgive) a lump sum of money to a certain contingent of the electorate.

[suture]

The child tax credit would be an example of ‘buying votes’ too, right? What about promises to increase milk subsidies? Or promises to keep protecting the limber industry from competition from Canada? Aren’t all such things ‘buying votes’ as you put it?

I’m not an economist but I suspect that in a society with a strong welfare system, universal healthcare, and free higher education then wages wouldn’t have to be as high as they are in the U.S. for certain industries. I don’t claim that student debt forgiveness is the efficacious or even that it should be done. I do claim that it’s best to ‘buy’ votes by creating a society with strong social programs.

[BitwiseFool]

Yes, I do consider the child tax credit buying votes and I likewise consider farm subsidies vote buying as well. This situation, in particular, seems egregious because of the amount being proposed - $10,000 - and because the executive branch is planning to do it unilaterally. I would still disagree with the measure, but I wouldn't feel as strongly if this happened a result of a vote from Congress.

[suture]

Politically speaking the best course of action for Biden is to say that the repayment pause will continue until Congress passes comprehensive legislation addressing higher education funding and reforms.

[lapcat]

This would actually be better than $10K forgiveness, which is kind of a drop in the bucket for people who are really struggling with student loan debt, despite the previous commenter thinking the amount is "egregious".