Student Loan forgiveness. Yay or nay?

[Grumps 3,704]

https://www.newsweek.com/people-who-dont-have-debt-care-student-loan-forgiveness-1548115

Thoughts on student loan forgiveness? Biden seems to like forgiving $10K, while Schumer pushes for $50K.

[homersapien 11,372]

It's problematic on a moral/ethical basis.  Here's a good write up:    https://www.ethicssage.com/2019/07/the-ethics-of-forgiving-student-debt.html

On the other hand, there's a moral/ethical risk to other things we don't seem to have much problem with, such as financial bailouts for Wall Street companies.

I do think there's a need to provide some relief - forbearance - based on the covid 19 pandemic.

[homersapien 11,372]

Here's an interesting piece on the causes of excessive student debt:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/18/upshot/student-debt-forgiveness-biden.html

".......The American higher education system is a gigantic debt-producing machine with no one at the controls. Any student attending almost any accredited college can take out a federal loan, and the federal government does not regulate what colleges can charge for tuition......"

"........The parts of the higher education system that produce the most debt — private, graduate and professional schools — have greatly increased tuition in recent decades. Some online master’s degree programs — a lucrative and fast-growing sector that returns 50 percent profit margins to universities and their corporate partners — charge $50,000 or more in annual tuition. How much will they charge if they can effectively promise that the first $10,000 or more will be free?

"There are powerful arguments to forgive some outstanding debt. But debt forgiveness alone would be like treating a contaminated river without stopping the source of the pollution. Truly resolving the student debt problem will require tackling many other parts of the machinery of higher education........."

[McLoofus 35,182]

3 minutes ago, homersapien said:

But debt forgiveness alone would be like treating a contaminated river without stopping the source of the pollution. Truly resolving the student debt problem will require tackling many other parts of the machinery of higher education

This is compelling and it's a discussion that hopefully the decisions makers have been already having for a long time. 

Quote

Is it fair to Sally and Joe who incurred $200,000 in debt, paid it off, and now see other students the recipient of loan forgiveness?

This, from the previous article, is soooooo stupid and selfish. (ESPECIALLY if Sally and Joe have kids.) "Fairness" has nothing to do with it unless there is a tangible cost to the supposedly aggrieved parties.

Now, if taxes go up for folks who paid off their own loans so that they can pay for Mr. and Ms. Millennial's loans, too, then that's a conversation. 

[aubiefifty 16,788]

1 hour ago, McLoofus said:

This is compelling and it's a discussion that hopefully the decisions makers have been already having for a long time. 

This, from the previous article, is soooooo stupid and selfish. (ESPECIALLY if Sally and Joe have kids.) "Fairness" has nothing to do with it unless there is a tangible cost to the supposedly aggrieved parties.

Now, if taxes go up for folks who paid off their own loans so that they can pay for Mr. and Ms. Millennial's loans, too, then that's a conversation. 

if people were not selfish we would have had way less covid deaths by wearing masks. i understand somethink they do not work but my gut feeling is they just do not give a damn period.

[DKW 86 7,419]

A partial relief based in income?

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

Nope.  They are called loans, not grants.  People signed the paperwork knowing exactly what they were getting into.  Also, the money to wipe away this debt doesn't just come from thin air.  If we're going to spend money, use it to take care of the root problem.  Wiping away student loans is a band aid that does nothing to address the issue of rising educational costs.

Use that money instead to fund things like free or reduced technical/community college.  Encourage kids to explore their options outside of a four year degree and realize that so many well paying jobs don't need the "classic" degree.  Just doing that should force traditional four year schools to lower costs as demand for the product should drop over time.

[TitanTiger 20,481]

I would be in favor of some sort of one-time debt relief package that is means-based, but it need to be tied to something that's corrective for the out of control cost of a college education.  Brad's idea of funding free/reduced cost technical and trade schools, community colleges and such might be one mechanism for that.  There might also be some things the federal gov't can do to colleges in terms of administrative cost benchmarks if they are going to be eligible to receive federal student loan money.

There could also be some extra monetary incentive for certain career fields such as teachers or doctors.  If they agree to work in an underserved community for a certain number of years after graduation - an inner city school, a rural hospital, etc. - they can get more loan forgiveness.

[McLoofus 35,182]

6 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

People signed the paperwork knowing exactly what they were getting into.

Yeah, but

6 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

Encourage kids to explore their options outside of a four year degree and realize that so many well paying jobs don't need the "classic" degree.

this. I can't speak for everyone, but I was raised- by my parents and by the society around us- to believe that going to college was 100% the goal, period, and that I needed to do whatever it took to make it happen. Fortunately I just made it through before tuition spiraled out of control and was able to pay off my loan debt a few years ago. (Also "helps" that I didn't do any post-graduate work. My wife makes more money than I do but she still carries a lot of student loan debt.)

Anyway, yeah, people knew what they were getting into, but they also felt like they had no choice. And with the way the economy is set up, they weren't exactly wrong. 

Cool to see some creative solutions in here. I just don't see it as an either/or thing. 

[AUFriction 1,179]

12 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

Nope.  They are called loans, not grants.  People signed the paperwork knowing exactly what they were getting into.  Also, the money to wipe away this debt doesn't just come from thin air.  If we're going to spend money, use it to take care of the root problem.  Wiping away student loans is a band aid that does nothing to address the issue of rising educational costs.

Use that money instead to fund things like free or reduced technical/community college.  Encourage kids to explore their options outside of a four year degree and realize that so many well paying jobs don't need the "classic" degree.  Just doing that should force traditional four year schools to lower costs as demand for the product should drop over time.

Three issues:

1. People sign these loans when they are like 17, and they don’t really know what they are doing. Im not even sure I completely understood that I was going to have to pay anything back. 

2. The cost of tuition has skyrocketed relative to inflation. College degrees are substantially less affordable than they were 20 or so years ago. 
 

3. It is true that, right now, tech schools and trade schools are a better deal. College graduates often have a hard time finding decent jobs even with bachelors degrees. But, there’s expected to be a college educated labor shortage in 10-15 years (due to both industry changes and baby boomers being retired). So, in 10 years, college educated people will be at the front of the line for really good paying jobs while trade occupations offer little in terms of promotions and raises. So, directing people away from college might actually hurt them badly in the future.

I don’t think straight loan forgiveness is the answer. It is unsustainable. Are we just going to keep forgiving student loans to the end of time? What if you start college after the student loan forgiveness happens and they only do it once? They need to address the causes of student tuition hikes in order to lower tuition. Once that’s done, they could implement a partial forgiveness program so that those affected by the out of control pricing end up paying the rates they should’ve had to begin with.

[McLoofus 35,182]

Just heard an interesting point that we're going to have to stop just giving loans to anybody who wants one in order to drive down tuition. 

Basically we're creating another sub-prime crisis by giving these huge loans to people who will never be able to pay them back. 

[AUcivE09 582]

The problem is the federal loan system. It is a system that hands colleges as much money as they ask for without any understanding of the person receiving the loan. Colleges raise tuition, feds hand over more loan money without any acknowledgement to the students standing or career path. Nice student activity center and dorms though...…

If students had to go to a private lender each year, hand over grades and desired degree you would see a whole lot less debt and an increase in the trades/2-yr degrees. Not to mention I am willing to bet you would see student success rates increase when they realize they could lose their loan.

All I understood back then was that My tuition got covered AND I got about 1.5-2k for living expenses. I almost wrote living expenses with a straight face.

[ValleyTiger 2,894]

1 hour ago, AUcivE09 said:

The problem is the federal loan system. It is a system that hands colleges as much money as they ask for without any understanding of the person receiving the loan. Colleges raise tuition, feds hand over more loan money without any acknowledgement to the students standing or career path. Nice student activity center and dorms though...…

If students had to go to a private lender each year, hand over grades and desired degree you would see a whole lot less debt and an increase in the trades/2-yr degrees. Not to mention I am willing to bet you would see student success rates increase when they realize they could lose their loan.

All I understood back then was that My tuition got covered AND I got about 1.5-2k for living expenses. I almost wrote living expenses with a straight face.

This. Plus like @Brad_ATXmentioned, the cost to "forgive" the debt will ultimately be on the tax payers. 

We should not be rewarding fiscal irresponsibility. Get a degree that will help you obtain a fruitful occupation or learn a trade. College is not for everyone. Some learn that fasters than others. We shouldn't be "forgiving" debt that didn't garner a degree, either. 

BTW, @TitanTigerthere's already loan forgiveness programs for certain occupations like teachers, doctors, and other public servants serving those communities. It's a good thing for those communities and the incentive for professionals may go out the window if sweeping "forgiveness" happens.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

2 hours ago, AUFriction said:

Three issues:

1. People sign these loans when they are like 17, and they don’t really know what they are doing. Im not even sure I completely understood that I was going to have to pay anything back. 

2. The cost of tuition has skyrocketed relative to inflation. College degrees are substantially less affordable than they were 20 or so years ago. 
 

3. It is true that, right now, tech schools and trade schools are a better deal. College graduates often have a hard time finding decent jobs even with bachelors degrees. But, there’s expected to be a college educated labor shortage in 10-15 years (due to both industry changes and baby boomers being retired). So, in 10 years, college educated people will be at the front of the line for really good paying jobs while trade occupations offer little in terms of promotions and raises. So, directing people away from college might actually hurt them badly in the future.

I don’t think straight loan forgiveness is the answer. It is unsustainable. Are we just going to keep forgiving student loans to the end of time? What if you start college after the student loan forgiveness happens and they only do it once? They need to address the causes of student tuition hikes in order to lower tuition. Once that’s done, they could implement a partial forgiveness program so that those affected by the out of control pricing end up paying the rates they should’ve had to begin with.

Fair enough.  To your points:

1) Not exactly true.  A 17 year old can't just sign on for a loan.  They need a co-signer.  Also, my student loan came when I was 25 when I went back for a Master's.  Tons of student loans are for people getting graduate degrees.  Should those also be forgiven?

2) Agreed, which is why we need to fix the root problem, which is skyrocketing costs.  Wiping away loans doesn't incentive colleges to lower costs.  It actually does the opposite.

3) I'm not advocating for every student to go to a tech school.  But as someone who taught classes at AU for a while, I can 100% with certainty tell you that many kids would be better off there than at a four year college.  This may sound elitist, but college isn't for everyone.  Lots of unqualified kids in school right now, all because they can find a way to get tuition paid.  Also, although we will need college educated students moving forward, we also will always need welders, surveyors, diesel technicians, etc.  All of those gigs pay more than many jobs where four year degrees are required just for entry level positions.

I always use my cousin as an example.  He was a terrible student in primary school, but the guy is amazing with tools and his hands.  We finally got him to try technical school for one year.  He came out with multiple job offers, makes good money, and is able to take care of his two kids.

My point being, let's work to get students into the right situation that best utilizes their talents and gives them optimum chance for success.

[ValleyTiger 2,894]

3 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

Fair enough.  To your points:

1) Not exactly true.  A 17 year old can't just sign on for a loan.  They need a co-signer.  Also, my student loan came when I was 25 when I went back for a Master's.  Tons of student loans are for people getting graduate degrees.  Should those also be forgiven?

2) Agreed, which is why we need to fix the root problem, which is skyrocketing costs.  Wiping away loans doesn't incentive colleges to lower costs.  It actually does the opposite.

3) I'm not advocating for every student to go to a tech school.  But as someone who taught classes at AU for a while, I can 100% with certainty tell you that many kids would be better off there than at a four year college.  This may sound elitist, but college isn't for everyone.  Lots of unqualified kids in school right now, all because they can find a way to get tuition paid.  Also, although we will need college educated students moving forward, we also will always need welders, surveyors, diesel technicians, etc.  All of those gigs pay more than many jobs where four year degrees are required just for entry level positions.

I always use my cousin as an example.  He was a terrible student in primary school, but the guy is amazing with tools and his hands.  We finally got him to try technical school for one year.  He came out with multiple job offers, makes good money, and is able to take care of his two kids.

My point being, let's work to get students into the right situation that best utilizes their talents and gives them optimum chance for success.

I agree with everything you said. You did a very good job with the highlighted portion. I work with skilled laborers, technicians, small business owners, tradesmen, etc everyday who aren't college educated. They worked hard to get where they are, too. And to mention another issue at hand, many of them would be devalued, in a sense, by a national minimum wage increase to $15/hr because increases to their hourly wage would be unlikely or it'd negatively affect their small businesses.

[tomcat 569]

Student loans were designed as a profit producer for the Federal Government. That created an opening for opportunistic lenders. This entire deal is toxic. Perhaps there is a no interest compromise out there. 

[McLoofus 35,182]

I'm learning a lot in a hurry, here and elsewhere. Good conversation.

[homersapien 11,372]

Good article that provides some interesting "factoids" and presents the case for both sides of the argument.  (Emphasis mine.)

 

Go Ahead, Forgive Student Debt

Debt forgiveness is not the best form of stimulus available. But Joe Biden shouldn’t waver.

Annie Lowrey

Staff writer at The Atlantic

 

President-elect Joe Biden could conjure a sweeping financial-relief policy into existence on the first day of his presidency, without the participation of Congress, the Federal Reserve, or any other institution. That is, he could forgive student loans.

On Monday, Biden said that loan forgiveness figures into his plan to rev up the American economy, citing a provision in the House’s stalled-out HEROES Act that would pay off $10,000 a person in student loans. Senator Chuck Schumer, the minority leader, and Senator Elizabeth Warren are pushing the incoming administration to forgive up to $50,000 a person in federal student-loan debt. That would completely eliminate the burden of three in four borrowers.

That kind of radical provision might not be the best form of stimulus available. Nor would it fix the country’s crushing student-loan crisis, or rationalize its higher-education financing structure. Nor would it be a clear-cut political winner. Nevertheless, it would be a stellar policy for the Biden administration to undertake on day one.

Over the past few decades, higher education has become impossibly expensive, saddling 44 million Americans with $1.6 trillion in debt. The cost of a year at a private college is now $37,650, on average, and $10,560 at public institutions, more for out-of-staters. The heft of those bills obligates a majority of attendees and many of their parents to take out loans; in fact, 2019 graduates owe an average of $29,900. The United States is an outlier in the size and scope of its loan infrastructure; in many peer countries, higher education is seen as a public good and a college degree is low-cost or free.

Even as getting millions more Americans into college has had tremendous social value, this metastasizing debt crisis has had tremendous social costs. An entire generation has been set back: Millennials are on track to be the first generation in modern history to end up poorer than their parents. Student loans are delaying retirements. They’re suppressing the housing market. They’re suffocating new business formation. They’re even leading young people to delay getting married and having children.

Derek Thompson: The scariest student loan number

They are also widening the country’s racial wealth gap. A higher share of Black college students take out loans than white students, and those loans tend to be bigger, because Black students have access to less familial wealth. The economist Thomas Shapiro notes that, two decades after they enter school, the median white borrower has paid off 94 percent of debt, whereas the median Black borrower has paid off just 5 percent. (“Are you sitting down?” he asked me, before rattling off the statistic.) Indeed, going to college now provides no boost in wealth for Black students, largely because it is so costly.

The student-loan crisis has an underappreciated emotional valence too: The debt makes people miserable. In one survey, more than half of borrowers said that they have experienced depression because of their debt. Nine in 10 reported experiencing anxiety. Even if taking on student-loan debt does tend to boost a person’s lifetime earnings, even if it is justifiable and manageable and makes sense on paper, people hate it.

It did not have to be this way, nor does it have to be this way. And although having a federal student-loan debt jubilee would not fix higher-education financing or end the COVID-19 recession, it would take a boulder off of millions of Americans’ backs—the exact number depending on how much Biden chooses to forgive and for whom.

Why not do it? Opponents make a few good arguments. First, as noted by the Harvard economist and former Obama adviser Jason Furman, the federal government would not get much bang for its buck. The Trump administration has already deferred student-loan payments through the end of the year, to give families some financial relief. Canceling payments outright would not lead to much of a boost in consumer spending. Using public dollars on another super-dole or on something like infrastructure would be a far better investment.

A second, related argument is that it is a regressive policy, which helps rich people more than poor people, much like the Trump tax cuts. Most student-loan borrowers are college graduates, and thus winners in this winner-take-all economy. A majority of student-loan debt is held by Americans toward the top of the income scale, with 56 percent held by those with graduate degrees. Doctors, dentists, lawyers, engineers, and statisticians do not need financial help from Uncle Sam right now, whereas the unemployed and minimum-wage workers really do.

Read: How the Democrats got radicalized on student debt

Third, the debt jubilee would be unfair: unfair to people who paid off their student loans; unfair to people who will take them out five or 10 years from now; unfair to people who declined to take them out and worked their way through school; unfair to people who chose community college instead of a private institution; unfair to people with private student-loan debt that the federal government could not disappear without an act of Congress. A debt jubilee might be bad politics too: College graduates helped deliver the election to Biden. Do they really need a five-digit thank-you?

Last, such a policy might prompt universities, colleges, and other institutions to increase tuition on the expectation that the federal government will absorb more of the cost of higher education going forward. It might create moral hazard for students, too, who might take out bigger loans expecting Washington to step in eventually. If it did not, the student-loan crisis would worsen.

For all that, student-debt forgiveness is still a good policy. It may not count as an effective stimulus, but there is no reason to frame it as such, given that debt forgiveness does not crowd out other forms of spending. (The government is borrowing for free right now.) This is a yes-and situation, not an either/or one: Why shouldn’t the government eliminate student-loan debt while also trying to pass another unemployment extension? That gets to another argument for debt forgiveness: Biden can do it unilaterally. Senators cannot filibuster executive orders.

As for the plan’s regressive elements: Wealthy individuals and individuals likely to become wealthy in the future do hold the most student debt. But millions of low-income and middle-income families, as well as young people without the fallback of familial wealth, are also burdened. The smallest borrowers struggle the most with their loans, as noted by the economist Susan Dynarski. Even $5,000 or $10,000 of forgiveness might be life-changing for them. Plus, many of the student-loan forgiveness options out there have progressive elements built in: Warren’s campaign, for example, pushed to forgive $50,000 in loans for households with less than $100,000 in income, while tapering off support at the $250,000 level. The fact that the giveaway would be so helpful to Black students and Black families should factor into the political calculus too.

Read: Yet another way student debt keeps people from buying homes

As a broader point, giving money to rich people does not erode the benefits of giving money to poor people; and the government should not avoid giving money to poor people because it would also entail giving money to rich people, at least not in this unusual case. The United States needs a much more progressive tax-and-transfer infrastructure, given how dramatically inequality has increased. But not every single policy needs to be ideally progressive to achieve that goal. The principle matters here too. The fact that higher education should be a public good matters.

The possibility that a jubilee would increase college costs down the road is perhaps the most serious concern—but hardly a reason not to help the people now in need, and people Biden could help without Congress. Politicians and policy makers could follow up debt relief with a plan to make college affordable and accessible, ideally with direct federal investment in higher-education financing.

This is a policy that would help middle-class families, could be passed instantly, and would advance racial justice. Student-loan debt is suffocating an entire generation. Why not, during this miserable pandemic, magic at least some of it away?

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/11/why-biden-should-forgive-student-loan-debt/617171/

[ValleyTiger 2,894]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

Good article that provides some interesting "factoids" and presents the case for both sides of the argument.  (Emphasis mine.)

 

Go Ahead, Forgive Student Debt

Debt forgiveness is not the best form of stimulus available. But Joe Biden shouldn’t waver.

Annie Lowrey

Staff writer at The Atlantic

 

President-elect Joe Biden could conjure a sweeping financial-relief policy into existence on the first day of his presidency, without the participation of Congress, the Federal Reserve, or any other institution. That is, he could forgive student loans.

On Monday, Biden said that loan forgiveness figures into his plan to rev up the American economy, citing a provision in the House’s stalled-out HEROES Act that would pay off $10,000 a person in student loans. Senator Chuck Schumer, the minority leader, and Senator Elizabeth Warren are pushing the incoming administration to forgive up to $50,000 a person in federal student-loan debt. That would completely eliminate the burden of three in four borrowers.

That kind of radical provision might not be the best form of stimulus available. Nor would it fix the country’s crushing student-loan crisis, or rationalize its higher-education financing structure. Nor would it be a clear-cut political winner. Nevertheless, it would be a stellar policy for the Biden administration to undertake on day one.

Over the past few decades, higher education has become impossibly expensive, saddling 44 million Americans with $1.6 trillion in debt. The cost of a year at a private college is now $37,650, on average, and $10,560 at public institutions, more for out-of-staters. The heft of those bills obligates a majority of attendees and many of their parents to take out loans; in fact, 2019 graduates owe an average of $29,900. The United States is an outlier in the size and scope of its loan infrastructure; in many peer countries, higher education is seen as a public good and a college degree is low-cost or free.

Even as getting millions more Americans into college has had tremendous social value, this metastasizing debt crisis has had tremendous social costs. An entire generation has been set back: Millennials are on track to be the first generation in modern history to end up poorer than their parents. Student loans are delaying retirements. They’re suppressing the housing market. They’re suffocating new business formation. They’re even leading young people to delay getting married and having children.

Derek Thompson: The scariest student loan number

They are also widening the country’s racial wealth gap. A higher share of Black college students take out loans than white students, and those loans tend to be bigger, because Black students have access to less familial wealth. The economist Thomas Shapiro notes that, two decades after they enter school, the median white borrower has paid off 94 percent of debt, whereas the median Black borrower has paid off just 5 percent. (“Are you sitting down?” he asked me, before rattling off the statistic.) Indeed, going to college now provides no boost in wealth for Black students, largely because it is so costly.

The student-loan crisis has an underappreciated emotional valence too: The debt makes people miserable. In one survey, more than half of borrowers said that they have experienced depression because of their debt. Nine in 10 reported experiencing anxiety. Even if taking on student-loan debt does tend to boost a person’s lifetime earnings, even if it is justifiable and manageable and makes sense on paper, people hate it.

It did not have to be this way, nor does it have to be this way. And although having a federal student-loan debt jubilee would not fix higher-education financing or end the COVID-19 recession, it would take a boulder off of millions of Americans’ backs—the exact number depending on how much Biden chooses to forgive and for whom.

Why not do it? Opponents make a few good arguments. First, as noted by the Harvard economist and former Obama adviser Jason Furman, the federal government would not get much bang for its buck. The Trump administration has already deferred student-loan payments through the end of the year, to give families some financial relief. Canceling payments outright would not lead to much of a boost in consumer spending. Using public dollars on another super-dole or on something like infrastructure would be a far better investment.

A second, related argument is that it is a regressive policy, which helps rich people more than poor people, much like the Trump tax cuts. Most student-loan borrowers are college graduates, and thus winners in this winner-take-all economy. A majority of student-loan debt is held by Americans toward the top of the income scale, with 56 percent held by those with graduate degrees. Doctors, dentists, lawyers, engineers, and statisticians do not need financial help from Uncle Sam right now, whereas the unemployed and minimum-wage workers really do.

Read: How the Democrats got radicalized on student debt

Third, the debt jubilee would be unfair: unfair to people who paid off their student loans; unfair to people who will take them out five or 10 years from now; unfair to people who declined to take them out and worked their way through school; unfair to people who chose community college instead of a private institution; unfair to people with private student-loan debt that the federal government could not disappear without an act of Congress. A debt jubilee might be bad politics too: College graduates helped deliver the election to Biden. Do they really need a five-digit thank-you?

Last, such a policy might prompt universities, colleges, and other institutions to increase tuition on the expectation that the federal government will absorb more of the cost of higher education going forward. It might create moral hazard for students, too, who might take out bigger loans expecting Washington to step in eventually. If it did not, the student-loan crisis would worsen.

For all that, student-debt forgiveness is still a good policy. It may not count as an effective stimulus, but there is no reason to frame it as such, given that debt forgiveness does not crowd out other forms of spending. (The government is borrowing for free right now.) This is a yes-and situation, not an either/or one: Why shouldn’t the government eliminate student-loan debt while also trying to pass another unemployment extension? That gets to another argument for debt forgiveness: Biden can do it unilaterally. Senators cannot filibuster executive orders.

As for the plan’s regressive elements: Wealthy individuals and individuals likely to become wealthy in the future do hold the most student debt. But millions of low-income and middle-income families, as well as young people without the fallback of familial wealth, are also burdened. The smallest borrowers struggle the most with their loans, as noted by the economist Susan Dynarski. Even $5,000 or $10,000 of forgiveness might be life-changing for them. Plus, many of the student-loan forgiveness options out there have progressive elements built in: Warren’s campaign, for example, pushed to forgive $50,000 in loans for households with less than $100,000 in income, while tapering off support at the $250,000 level. The fact that the giveaway would be so helpful to Black students and Black families should factor into the political calculus too.

Read: Yet another way student debt keeps people from buying homes

As a broader point, giving money to rich people does not erode the benefits of giving money to poor people; and the government should not avoid giving money to poor people because it would also entail giving money to rich people, at least not in this unusual case. The United States needs a much more progressive tax-and-transfer infrastructure, given how dramatically inequality has increased. But not every single policy needs to be ideally progressive to achieve that goal. The principle matters here too. The fact that higher education should be a public good matters.

The possibility that a jubilee would increase college costs down the road is perhaps the most serious concern—but hardly a reason not to help the people now in need, and people Biden could help without Congress. Politicians and policy makers could follow up debt relief with a plan to make college affordable and accessible, ideally with direct federal investment in higher-education financing.

This is a policy that would help middle-class families, could be passed instantly, and would advance racial justice. Student-loan debt is suffocating an entire generation. Why not, during this miserable pandemic, magic at least some of it away?

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/11/why-biden-should-forgive-student-loan-debt/617171/

It's a good article until the end. How do you detail all of those considerable negatives and THEN conclude that it's the best approach to "magic at least some of it away"?? It would as she mentioned be public dollars. There is no magic wand. 

Also, I'd like to know the remaining debt ratio numbers after two decades for other minority groups. 

Extension of forbearance and forgiving interest on the fed loans should be the conversation, but it just doesn't move the needle enough does it? We should be concerned that we're not "treating a contaminated river without stopping the source of the pollution" like mentioned in the earlier article referenced. The sources of pollution are complex.

[Grumps 3,704]

Virtually all known information is accessible via the internet for free. There is NO reason for college to be so expensive. Before the government pays off college loan debt they could encourage colleges to cut their costs. Work to make public college education free or really affordable.

It seems completely reckless for the government to guarantee that  private colleges get exorbitant tuition fees from people who cannot afford it.

I'd rather see the government help people with medical debt. People with large medical debts didn't voluntarily agree to incur massive amounts of debt.