|
|
|
|
|
|
by lfourunderscore
580 days ago
|
|
|
> With attempting to bestow a half-trillion-dollar benefit on people who attended – and often graduated from – college when a majority of Americans – and an overwhelming majority of voters who needed to be convinced that Democrats aren’t a bunch of elitist twits – did not? The fact that this is the most common argument against student loan forgiveness that I see doesn't do a good job of convincing me. The argument that we are somehow obliged to keep conditions bad to be fair to those who came before just seems petty. Rather what are some actual arguments against this policy? I'm no expert, but it seems logical that we should want to help out those who are disproportionally less financially mobile. It is after all very key for innovation. |
|
|
Is it not obvious? This policy essentially rewarded a creditor to have doled out bad loans worth hundreds of billions, and colleges to have charged maliciously insane fees. It did nothing to actually cure the system - instead they just strapped a bandage on a massive festering tumor and declared the patient OK like the world's worst quack doctor.
Had they actually been interested in lightening the burden on students they would have worked on capping fees, or funding more scholarships, or at least restricting federal credit to employable degrees. Instead they voluntarily chose to take functionally the worst but also the most populist option to buy the loyalty of a bunch of "educated" fools, majority of whom will never contribute back nearly as much to society as was spent on them (because if they couldn't even handle low-interest loans they themselves voluntarily took out, what else can you expect?).