"We shouldn't eliminate student debt, because rich people would benefit."
"So we should eliminate student debt for the poor?"
"No, not that either."
"Why not?"
"Sorry, going through a tunnel!"
"So we should eliminate student debt for the poor?"
"No, not that either."
"Why not?"
"Sorry, going through a tunnel!"
Not actually joking, by the way. The piece is all about how we shouldn't eliminate student debt for the wealthy, but when he finally gets to the debt of the poor, he says this:
"People whose income is below a certain threshold should have SOME OF their debt forgiven."
"People whose income is below a certain threshold should have SOME OF their debt forgiven."
(my emphasis)
And no, he never explains why.
My own view is that public higher education should be made free, and that as part of that project the student debt that exists should be forgiven. And that yes, that project should start with the debt of those who most need relief.
"Eliminate student debt and make college free" may not be exactly what I'm looking for—or exactly what we'd get out of the process—but as a soundbite, it's a whole hell of a lot better than "elimination of all student debt...is a bad idea."
And again, since folks are piping up, reasonable people can disagree about whether eliminating ALL student debt is solid progressive policy. That's not what this thread is about.
What this thread is about is the fact that the column under discussion is pretending to be an attack on the idea from the left, but is actually an attack from the right. Which is not at all uncommon in this arena.
"Take the money you'd use to retire UMC-and-above college graduates' undergrad debt and use it to pay for books, childcare, and living-expense stipends for every community college student in the country" is a left argument.
This column ain't that.
This column ain't that.
