[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".