Isabeau wrote:
As opposed to real reform that would reduce the cost of education rather than forcing other people to pay for it.

No, republicans don't have a plan for this. Why does that make this counter-productive act better?

 Lazy8 wrote:

As opposed to the knee-jerk Republican solution of a massive Tax Cut tailored to the wealthy?

Republicans voted against Veteran's Care.
Republicans voted against the John Lewis Voting Right's Act.
Republicans voted against assistance with Affordable Child Care.
Republicans voted against Affordable Health Care.
Republicans voted against Raising the Age on obtaining a multi-round, semi-automatic weapon to 21.
Republicans voted against renewing the Violence Against Women Act.

Republicans who rail against Inflation have not countered with a feasible agenda to Address It. (See Tax Cut) 

When asked about the agenda of the Republicans if they take majorities in Congress, Mitch McConnell responded, "We'll let you know when we win."

Golly Mr. Wizard, What on Earth could that be?

 steeler wrote:
It's OK to not understand that argument because no one is making it.

It's not that people who
○ saved money for decades—putting off expenditures and purchases that would have made their lives better
○ sent their kids to colleges (or trade schools, or apprenticeships, or jobs) they could afford instead of colleges that would inflate their resumes
○ made sure their kids learned a trade that could pay their bills if they had to take a break from school
○ spent summers working instead of taking unpaid internships or studying abroad

resent the good fortune that Saint Biden bestowed on the poor bedraggled Art History graduates from ivy league schools (who were kidnapped in the dead of night, hauled off to spring break in Cabo and forced to take out loan after loan) out of his own generous pockets.

He's bestowing this gift upon those poor (earning less than $125K/year!) climbers of the ladder out of their pockets, their children's pockets, their grandchildren's pockets. He's inflating the currency to pay for it, making everyone a bit poorer. He's making it easier for those colleges to charge even more, because if you think you won't have to repay the money why not borrow and pay more?

He gets to pretend he's solving a problem when his act of supreme generosity will make the problem worse—not reducing the cost but shifting it to other shoulders. Shoulders that probably didn't even go to college, but who now have to compete in the workforce with a favored constituency who got a one-time bribe to vote for Democrats, all while having to face the same issue—made somewhat worse—for their own kids.

Is that too long? Do you understand that?

Stop improving things right now!
Everyone must suffer as I did!

"Sometimes I wake up in the middle of the night thrashing because I have had the nightmare again, the nightmare in which someone else is being spared a small hint of the suffering I endured. The world should not get better! The world should get worse along with me and perish along with me!

Every time anyone’s life improves at all, I personally am insulted. Any time anyone devises a labor-saving device, or passes some kind of weak, soft-hearted law that forecloses the opportunity for a new generation of children to lose fingers in dangerous machinery, I gnash my teeth. This is an affront to everyone who struggled so mightily. To avoid affronting them, we must keep everything just as bad as ever. Put those fingers back into the machines, or our suffering will have been in vain!"

Alexandra Petri, Washington Post

 steeler wrote:
The argument suggests that people made choices.  Some decided to spend their savings, work an extra job, and do whatever it took so that they didn't have to borrow. 

My last tuition bill (for a child) was in the spring of 2021.  Biden had been elected, and we could have borrowed money to pay the bill.  Full disclosure, there are rules and limits so I have no idea if we could have borrowed the right $10k to receive forgiveness.   I decided that borrowing at 7% (when mortgage rates were 3.5%) and paying a 2% origination fee seemed silly, so we paid out of savings...but I did investigate a bit thinking this might happen. 

My decision should not impact other taxpayers, but it would have.  I am also going to have to pay for millions of others who decided to borrow.  Sure, many of them had no choice... oh wait, they didn't HAVE to attend college.  Many people who are going to pay for these loans (via their taxes) made the choice not to borrow money and forgo college.  Should they have to pay?

I don't really have an issue with the government helping those who need it, but we didn't force people to attend college and borrow money, yet we're all being forced to pay for that choice made by others. 

I think the interest should have been waived...for everyone...regardless of means.  It's a usurious system supported by the government for years and helped create truly foolish fiscal policy like the Trump tax cuts.  The FY 2020 US budget had nearly $25B in interest revenue from student loans...and those are just the government ones.  It's crazy.

 Coaxial wrote: Best excuse I’ve heard for this executive odor was, well the rich got theirs so I’m getting mine…and at least I’m not rich.  IGMFU
Does nothing to remedy the escalating cost of college and related debt. On the contrary, it exasperates the situation. 
So perhaps even if this is well intentioned (see Islanders point), and not a poor attempt to grab votes…it will still make things worse, not better.  And as I noted, politically it was a bad call. 

I certainly didn’t pretend the tax cut was a good idea, and not because it didn’t favor me. And I’m not going to be a hypocrite and pretend the student loan cancellation is a good idea either, because it favors my kids.

 Coaxial wrote:
I really do not understand those making the argument that if I had to pay, so should you. That is not an argument based on the merits of the policy initiative. Frankly, it is an attitude that shows what is wrong in our culture.

 black321 wrote:

I'm not really a fan of these teams myself. But they are clearly different, and one is at least attempting governance.  The tax breaks helped low income people a little bit, but wealthy people a whole lot. And those that got the most help didn't really need any of it - they were already miles ahead in the race.  Yes the dems do dumb things and often with poor results, but they do them under the auspice of help, or improving things, or some aspect of common good. Sure they often fall short and have unintended consequences. But they aren't malicious.  That's a clear difference. 

I used to say I was fiscally conservative and socially liberal. That's still pretty true. But now I mostly hate people who take advantage and act like bullies. So guess which party I favor these days.  

And why the random EO thought? Lots of policies by both parties have been enacted this way for the entirety of our history. It's not new, but the outrage over it certainly is.

 black321 wrote: 
Requires good will from the other side.  Trump has made it very difficult, so far,  for republicans to even be seen as open to some sort of conciliation.

 black321 wrote: 
Executive Odor?
Pretexts?

 islander wrote:
It helps my kids, but not current and future taxpayers. 
GOP tax cuts help low and high income groups, but not future taxpayers. 
$ out the window.  
and dems do plenty to inflict harm…
Unfortunately I have no horses in this race.  

Not to mention it was done with an EO (OV can define)
Ps, rather see him fulfill his promise to heal the divide.  

 islander wrote:

 oldviolin wrote:
What is Lol?  And Wait?  I can't keep up.

 black321 wrote:

Mitch quiet.... HAHAHAHAHA... This may have given him something more concrete to bitch about, but it hardly brought him back from silence.   

The middle is pretty squishy and wide depending on how you want to define it (often varies by subject and target).   This was a campaign promise to a generally disaffected / dissatisfied group.  I'd bet the calculus was that it helped bring that group in more than the handful of the 'middle' lost.

And per standard politics, we have the democrats doing the wrong thing to help people vs. the republicans doing the wrong thing to inflict harm.  I'm not a fan of either approach, but as an either/or choice it's pretty easy. 

 black321 wrote: 
Lol. Wait. I wasn't stipulating. I was just saying what it stood for...

 oldviolin wrote:

It's not socialism if it goes to those who already have.

 islander wrote:

I'm not disagreeing with the tax cuts, etc...
but strategically it was a bad move.
Got few if any points from the center, 
and meanwhile gave fuel to Moscow Mitch (who had been pretty quiet in recent weeks) and the rest of the right to take the focus off abortion.

And as others pointed out, it didn't address the college cost issue....just more money thrown out the window.

 Steely_D wrote: 
I got mine, FU

 R_P wrote:

I have no idea what that means.