[nerdponx]

Sorry but that would be socialism. Instead here in God's America we allow lopsided unfree markets to produce adverse outcomes, and then spend multiple nation-states' GDPs worth every year to try to make those problems less bad, while erratically regulating subsets of the market in a vain attempt to get it to work better. We never take a holistic, long-term view of a problem, that's not the American way. We prefer chaotic labyrinthine expensive ineffective institutions with lots and lots of room for well-placed rich people to siphon yacht money out of the system.

[_heimdall]

At a minimum its an interesting gray area. While you can argue that government involvement in education is a socialist policy, it was well understood from the founding of our country that an educated populace is vital to a healthy democracy.

[nerdponx]

I was being sarcastic. The mere act of a government giving people money or otherwise interfering with contracts does not make that government "socialist" any more than walking to the grocery store makes you a triathlete. A hardcore socialist would probably scoff at the very concept of a "government relieving student debt" as something that shouldn't be possible or even make sense in a socialist society.

[_heimdall]

Got it, totally missed the sarcasm there.

I would expect a socialist to be onboard with cancelling student debt though. They'd just want it to be part of the government taking over education more completely. Schooling wouldn't be something one pays for at all because the government would be responsible for providing it (and deciding who has access to it).