The idea to pay off student debt infuriates me on an individual level AND on a systemic level. And if one wants to boil everything down to 'stimulating the economy', which is on its own a red herring in this case, then we'd be far better off giving out free money to the working class and poor people who never went to college in the first place. That money would be injected immediately into the consumer economy. Universities need to start failing, I mean going bankrupt, I mean university administrators getting canned, and borrowers need to gain a strong sense of individual responsibility.
A larger point: I'm a leftie but the blaming of everything on some big macro demon obviates the need for people to make wise decisions, given whatever circumstances they exist within. It's always easy to lay blame, but what are individuals and families doing to make their lives work? Only in a nanny state can everyone shrug and hope that Big Uncle Sugar will take care of them. That's not the US I want to live in.
Warren's talk of student debt is done to garner votes, nothing more. I'm cool with that, but the hammer needs to fall on universities, vice the velvet hand-outs going to them and students. That's where hay can be made that helps ALL of us, not a choice few. When I see university types on unemployment and tuition rates falling, that's when I'll know we're making progress.
L L wrote:
Your view is more popular and easier to articulate (which is why it is more popular).
Conservative economics is always easier.
But the progressive route helps more long term while is not as tangible to most right away.
"I think those who work hard, spend money wisely and frugally should be rewarded."
Of course that sounds nice.
And if you draw a line where college is tuition free going forward, those that work hard, spend money wisely and frugally will be rewarded over those that don't. But you would have a society less burdened by debt for something that is becoming a basic need.
Over 2008 and 2009 we handed over $1.5 billion to rescue the economy from the financials crisis.
That was not fair to frugal Americans and companies. But it got us over a hump and helped the frugal people long term by keeping America solvent.
That was not example of progressive forward-thinking economics. It was a bailout.
But my point is the money was not distributed fairly.
The first beneficiary of social security did not contribute to social security. Didn't seem fair.
But it's nice to have it now.
Back to the topic:
A group of people will vote for Biden because they are scared of change of economic status quo (ironic because he was on the Hope and Change ticket). And they fear losing to Trump (he is more likely to beat Trump, I agree)
And a group of people will vote for Warren or Sanders because they believe in big change that will make progress.
We are a long way from the first primary. Plenty of gaffes to go and who knows what kind of meltdown Trump will have.