Student loan forgiveness will sink any candidate that runs on it.

[Recursion]

There's two groups it infuriates, two groups that normally don't have anything in common: middle-class people who paid off their loans or never took any on, and people who didn't go to college in the first place.

We've seen the anger of the first group, in the form of that guy who confronted Warren. Yes, he was probably a plant, and this is an example of why plants like that work.

The second group, though, has what I think is a much more legitimate grievance. They're going to see their tax money go to people who are, almost entirely, much richer than them. As far as they're concerned it's going to be just like the tax cuts for people richer than them or the bailouts for banks a decade ago.

We stumbled with white people without college degrees in 2016, famously. Student loan forgiveness is like erecting a giant flaming "screw you" sign in their front yard.

This doesn't mean we can't do anything. Fund income-based repayment and public service repayment more. Limit interest to the inflation rate and don't recapitalize it. Allow student loans to be dischargeable like any other debt. Make colleges take on some of the financial risk with their students. These are all good ideas that don't enrage half of the country. (And when I say "enrage" -- remember that the Tea Party started as a response to simply the suggestion that the government pay off some of the mortgages of homeowners who were underwater).

People also seem to be confusing student loan forgiveness with free tuition. These are two completely unrelated concepts. Norway has zero tuition but their students take on a higher debt load than Americans, for instance. I paid zero tuition when I went to college because my famly was really poor but I still had to take on student debt because I have this habit of eating every now and then. But paying off existing student loans doesn't reduce future tuition, and reducing future tuition doesn't pay off existing student loans. These are unrelated questions.

Free tuition, though, is an interesting idea and one we should look at more. I think it tends to cause some changes that Americans may not like (countries that do free tuition wind up being much, much more selective about who gets to go to college than we are in the US), but it's definitely worth looking at and wouldn't cause a huge backlash like debt forgiveness would.

If we want to do a massive spending project to give everyone a nest egg, like Cory Booker advocated, and let people with student debt use that to pay if off, that's something we can sell. If we want to expand -- even massively -- the help we give to low-income people with student debt, that's also a politically feasible idea. But it is absolute fucking political suicide to say "we're going to spend a trillion dollars of tax money and most of it is going to go to people who are already rich".

[Dorn]

1. What an odd idea, what an odd piece. Who are you?

Student loan forgiveness is not a give away, it is a minor step toward fixing out out of wack economic system.

Interesting that you lean on the Koch brother's Tea Party response to the 2009 financial crisis as a reason not to work toward fixing a broken system.

[exboyfil]

3. Universal forgiveness does not fix a broken system

And he is right that that issue alone will cost us the election.

[Recursion]

4. I'm someone who doesn't want to help already-rich people

while ignoring the people who never even got a chance to go to college. More importantly, I'm someone who is accurately trying to warn our party that this is politically a disastrous idea -- it's popular with the people who already vote for us, and fantastically unpopular with the people we need to win over.

[jberryhill]

8. You must have really hated the draft dodgers who could afford moving to Canada

When Carter granted blanket amnesty to them, I’ll bet it chapped your hide no end.

[Recursion]

9. I wasn't alive then, but, sure, people get irritated at inequality, yes

People don't like it when others who are a lot more fortunate than they are leverage that inequality into politics to further help themselves.

[dsc]

30. ah that is absurd

as someone who was alive then, since going to college and grad school kept one out of VietNam this is the exact opposite. Vast portions of the country live within 100 miles of Canada and thus this wasn't a huge expense.

[jberryhill]

33. Ok, so, for those that went, and the survivors of the dead

Then it’s just tough stuff for them, eh?

[dsc]

34. that isn't what you said

you specifically compared it to wealthy kids and college, and no, it wasn't that expensive to go to Canada nor was it the college bound because they were given deferments. It was a willing to break the law vs not willing to break the law issue and had pretty much nothing to do with wealth. The college deferments on the other hand.

[TexasTowelie]

45. There were plenty of people that had issues with Carter granting that amnesty,

particularly since amnesty was not granted to the draft deserters. It was viewed as discriminatory since the draft dodgers were primarily white students while the draft deserters had a larger cross-section of minorities.

[exboyfil]

2. You are right

And while I would never confront a potential Democratic nominee, I could be that guy as well. I work with folks who make more than me and drive around in much better cars and live in better houses who never shut up about their kid's student loans. These kids screwed around in high school and screw around in college as the meter runs.

[denem]

6. 'They're going to see their tax money go to people who are ... much richer than them'

Warren's proposal is funded 100% by the 2% wealth tax on fortunes of $50m on more. You can argue that it's not constitutional, but you can't make that particular argument this plan.

[Recursion]

7. Warren's plan is better than Sanders's in that sense, particularly with the repayment cap

But money is fungible and what people without college degrees will see is public money going to people better off than they are.

[dansolo]

11. No it's not

That money is already needed to cover the costs for her M4A plan. Why do people keep insisting that the wealth tax will be this magical funding that can be used for every single thing that she proposes?

[Recursion]

13. Bernie has spent his financial transaction tax about 10 times already (nt)

[NCProgressive]

29. Only 10? I counted 27

[NCProgressive]

32. There just isn't enough money in wealth tax

It sounds like a great "sock it to the rich" idea but it will never pass, there will be strategies around it and it will be hung up in courts for years with no guarantee the government would win.

[KPN]

10. I like Warren's plan. I have no problem with loan forgiveness. The young of our nation have been

screwed by the parasitic financial industry in our country when it comes to public higher education. Just like like class the marginal homeowners who were sold a bill of goods leading up to the mortgage crisis. My wife and I sacrificed a lot to pay for our three kids way so they could get a higher education without huge debt at the other end. We are fortunate in even being able to sacrifice to do that. It hurt us financially and our retirement is not as stress free as we would have liked had we not made that choice. But I’m glad we did. And I certainly don’t hold it against others who couldn’t or didn’t make that sacrifice. Certainly not the kids.

Having said that. Your points are well made and well taken - by me at least. We shouldn’t get our hopes up on this one. Warren’ plan makes good sense to me but will easily be spun by lobbyists to make mindless people think their money is paying for other kids’ education. Nevertheless, we have to do something and it needs to be significant. It also needs to be fairly simple. The ACA has not succeeded to the extent it could or should have in part because of it’s complexity. In trying to keep everyone too happy, by necessity it became complex. So complex that it could be easily disabled bit by bit, to the point that it hasn’t solved the problem for a vast majority of Americans. That’s my view at least; do keep it simple.

[Recursion]

12. The income inequality between college graduates and non-graduates is already huge

Loan forgiveness makes it huge-er. That's not a policy I want to push.

[KPN]

15. That's a gross generalization. There are millions upon millions of college grads

who are working for peanuts these days. Our economic structure is at fault. Not the students.

[Recursion]

16. They're not making peanuts compared to high school graduates

There's really no way to get around the existence of the college wage premium

[KPN]

19. They are all making peanuts. Sorry. We disagree.

[Recursion]

24. You know what high school graduates really love? Hearing college grads complain about

their financial situations.

[Moostache]

26. This is an argument in service of the 0.1% of the nation...

Let's just try a 1,2,3 A,B,C approach...

1) as a nation, we either decide that education - college, trade school or other via apprenticeship or training - has value to society or it does not...

2) if we agree it is in our collective interest to stop having more new engineers in China annually than students in the USA, then action is required...

3) the rest is "woe is me, they're too rich to get assistance" crying ass bullshit and dividing the party along lines of financial demarcation.

A) STOP calling the solutions "free college" and "debt forgiveness"...the terms have been hijacked by the likes of that slimy Frank fat ass conservative pollster jackass...words matter, especially once they have been weaponized and divorced for their initial intent...

B) START talking about removing the INTEREST on these loans when it is becoming usury for many who take them out...debt that cannot be paid off regardless of high wages is SLAVERY. Lifting people - all people - out of the edges of existence should never be an issue used at a place like DU to divide the party, ever. Terminology aside, strengthening opportunity and promoting equality is the point of this whole debate - NOT giving 'free stuff' to someone less deserving than another.

C) DEVELOP a plan that uses the nations' wealth to STOP funding wars and military spending as sacrosanct (although if you watched any of that nauseating Super Bowl pregame military blow job you know this is going to be tough...) and STOP funding wealth exchanges/giveaways to the top 1% at a rate 9 to 10 times the rest of the country (4 to 5 times is not enough apparently?). Where the money comes from is always going to be from where the money is accumulating...

Educating the populace serves the common good and creates opportunities for all - in ancillary benefits, and monetary movement WITHIN the buying and selling of goods and services (the real "economy", not 401k's and Stock portfolios) instead of hoarding by the ultra-wealthy. Fighting about it instead of finding a better message and WORSE YET, using right wing talking points and Koch Brothers bullshit 'logic' to defend it is, or should be, anathema.

[octoberlib]

14. It'll never pass Congress and if done through

an executive order , it’ll be taken to court where it will be overturned. Not happening. You’re right. It polls horribly. I’m not against it but can’t see it being successful.

[Tiggeroshii]

17. But UBI is the real winner, right?

[Recursion]

20. Exactly. Everybody gets it. It's not just a giveaway to the rich like this is (nt)

[Tiggeroshii]

22. Not everybody gets it.

If you are rich you get it. If you have ss, or other government benefits you dont or it gets prorated. So it is more a giveaway to the rich than loam forgiveness, which actually benefits people who could not make enough money to pay them off (not rich)

[Recursion]

23. As proposed it stacks with SS and Medicaid, just not with TANF or SSI

But it pays much better than TANF or SSI, so it basically ends those two programs at least for adults. (Kids would still get TANF and SSI, though.)

[Jake Stern]

18. Some workable ideas:

1. Restore the ability of those below a certain asset threshold to discharge student loans in bankruptcy.

2. Free (or heavily subsidized) community college and trade school. Encourage industry groups to establish apprenticeships through incentives such as tax advantages and grants.

3. Expand Pell Grants for low income students.

Each of these gives relief to those with the greatest need and are politically achievable.

[Recursion]

21. All great ideas, which I think people would get behind (nt)

[renate]

40. yes, I think these are MUCH better ideas than loan forgiveness

Our society would be better off and better educated with free higher education, but OP's objections to loan forgiveness as a campaign issue seem spot on to me.

Your ideas would make education accessible to everyone who wants it without seeming like giving handouts to those who are already advantaged.

[pattyloutwo]

25. Great point!

I think it’s a mistake to be pushing this idea, and swing voters reject it. Miuch smarter to campaign on ending corruption in Washington.

[Zolorp]

27. I paid off my student loans.

[NCProgressive]

28. KnR

[LongtimeAZDem]

31. It would definitely look bad for Bernie, whose campaign co-chair Ro Khanna owes $50,000

despite the fact that Khanna's wife has $27 million.

[redqueen]

35. Agreed! No idea why more people don't see this. nt

[highplainsdem]

36. K&R!

[kcr]

37. The ludicrous claim that college debt forgiveness

only helps rich people is a lie pushed by the very same rich people who will continue to benefit from an education system that overwhelmingly benefits them. We're either going to decide as a country that we want an education system that's equally accessible for all, or cut off our noses and let the rich laugh their way to the bank, feeling good that at least they weren't helped.

[Recursion]

38. We can't talk about the people left behind by the economy

And then give a bunch of money to people who went to college and nothing to people who didn't. If you don't see how completely tone-deaf that is I can't explain it to you.

People who went to college make a lot more money than people who don't. You can put your fingers in your ears and stomp your feet all you want but it doesn't change that fact. This idea is political suicide.

[kcr]

39. There's the lie

That no one wants to help people without college degrees. That isn't true. It's certainly true, however, that insisting that we can't ever change anything because no one will ever vote for any candidate that wants change will ensure that the people left behind will stay there.

[Recursion]

41. You can want to help them all you want. *This plan* leaves them behind

Which is why it would be psychotic to take this plan to the GE

[MineralMan]

42. So, what percentage of Amiricans have outstanding student loans,

and what are their demographics? I don't know, but I'm sure someone does. I'm quite sure it's a minority, population-wise and pretty sure it's mostly a white minority. Mostly

Answers to those questions would either support your theory or not. I suspect they would support it.

[Recursion]

43. 44 million Americans have outstanding student loan debt, or 13% of the population

https://lendedu.com/blog/average-student-loan-debt-statistics

https://www.bls.gov/emp/chart-unemployment-earnings-education.htm

Their median monthly payment is $220, and their median weekly earnings are $1198, as compared to median weekly earnings of $730 for someone with a high school diploma. So they got a $468 weekly pay bump for a $220 monthly payment. That sounds like a pretty good deal.

(Now, yes, of course there are college graduates who make less than high school graduates, which is why I think doing more for income-sensitive repayments is a politically feasible idea; but in broad strokes taking on even a lot of debt to go to college is a sound financial decision. And people who don't graduate from college don't get nearly as much of a pay bump, $802 without an Associates or $862 with it; this is another area where I think there's public appetite to do something.)

[MineralMan]

44. Thank you very much. I really appreciate that!

Your numbers do support your post. No doubt there are those who have a much higher monthly payment, but the median is a good place to start, statistically.

I have a friend whose daughter graduated from college about a year ago. She borrowed considerably more than her actual costs during her college years amounted to. She bought a new car, a lot of clothes, and spent money rather foolishly, I thought. But, she did it with money she borrowed as student loans. So, part of her "student" debt is really consumer debt.

She doesn't have a job yet that allows her to begin amortizing that debt, so her parents are paying the monthly payment. Actually, they were paying most of her college expenses, too, but she borrowed anyhow to support her "lifestyle." She's not happy right now. Her parents are not happy right now. She's not living at home, despite not having a job. So, her parents are paying her rent, too. She says she's looking for a job, but there's not much sign of that.

So, would this loan forgiveness reward her for her bad decisions? I suppose it would. I'm sure she likes the idea, anyhow. She has said as much.

Your point is a good one. I'm not particularly fond of the idea of my tax dollars going to that spoiled young adult, to be quite frank.

[demofan40]

46. Is giving a flat rate of 1000 a month to every American fair?

Why should people who make 80,000 a year get the same amount as those who are busting their asses to make 14,000? How is that not screwing the poor? Is that not unfair

I'm a little mystified by this post given the candidate whom the poster supports.

[Recursion]

47. Huh? It's literally called "Universal" basic income

Everybody gets it.

Only the smaller and richer minority of the population that went to college gets student loan forgiveness.

[demofan40]

48. But why should everyone get Universal Basic Income? Or entitled to the same amount?

I'm speaking to the argument about student loan forgiveness "enraging" those who don't get to benefit from it. A similar case can be made about Yang's idea.

You don't think it would enrage someone who works hard but can't seem to get further than a 16,000 a year getting the same amount per month as someone who can more than make ends meet on a 70,000 a year salary?

That doesn't seem very fair to me.

And why does it have to apply to every American? Why should people who can more than afford things be entitled to an extra 1000 a month?

[Recursion]

49. Umm... same reason everybody should get Medicare?

And, no, you have it backwards.

Everybody gets a UBI. Not everybody gets loan forgiveness. Your question doesn't even make sense.