That is too narrow a question as the 'pressure' is not always specific to any one program. The pressure is about gov't focus and trying to maintain it.

There is a growing push in American society, with the changing demographics by both POC and Younger people, to shift the focus of gov't 'give backs' away from the historical (military, Seniors, Rich, Suburbs (aka white people generally). Corporations) to include and prioritize the injustices and priorities of POC and Progressive needs. This tension is real and growing and those who enjoy the current benefits and those of the past, are pressuring the gov't to back away from fulfilling to those OTHER groups.

Does that answer your question above? Would you disagree this shift and tension exists and will be a key battle for the future?


the donors do not believe its binary but they will fight it as if it is, in the belief that this dam is breaking (and will break eventually with benefits flowing to OTHERS) and thus their job is to hold the line as much as possible currently. I liken it to the gun debate where even modest compromises (assault weapons ban) are fought due to slippery slope fears and those who currently benefit not wanting to lose any benefits.

Yes. That is the reality.

It is just not how 'sides' treat it in politics. Compromise SHOULD be possible, but those in the Politicians ears will not support that.


The risk is not so much with how the GOP will disingenuously frame this issue. The GOP can frame help on Prescription medicine costs as a socialist evil and they do.

The risk is that the MSM is mostly in on it with the GOP on behalf of the donors and will echo many of the worst points to try and stop these changes.

Anyone awake to the MSM should see at this point that they too are All In in protecting the status quo and working directly for the Donor class. They will play both sides of the issues and act as if they have sympathy for Progressive or POC issues but come crunch time, as voting nears, they almost always emphasize the donor or corporate positions while echoing points that suggest Progressives and POC not 'COMPROMISING' and allowing more 'limited bills devoid of their agenda items' to pass is the greatest wrong. And that these 'non compromising' Progressive and POC threaten Dem rule and putting people like Trump back in power.

It is blatant at this point and always comes down to the same messaging they know is very effective.

'you Progressives and POC need to just pass, this time, on your agenda issues in the name of compromise and keeping the GOP from power. You are to blame if you do not and then the GOP wins'.

Agreed.

But what is far worse, is people going thru the crap that is bankruptcy as they cannot keep their head above water, and then emerging into that troubled after life still with student debt obligations in tact.

The entire point of bankruptcy is that despite going thru all that crap and dealing with the aftermath, at least you have a clean slate to start rebuilding from.

If student debt is protected from bankruptcy, then it should have the lowest coupon interest payments possible. The interest they pay should mirror the interest Banks pay for our savings accounts.

The notion that students who take on debt to finance an education are “spoiled” is an amazing take and I hope the Republicans push that message out loudly and frequently.

That is my take as well .

Bottom line is the GOP had a great chance to take the senate and of course the house and what do they do screw themselves with abortion and horrible candidates in the senate race and the Democrats response lets pass student loan debt and see what that does for us in the Midterms

Yes? Trump enacted policies that benefited his base in exchange for their votes, I don’t consider that any more or less of a “bribe” than student debt relief. It’s sort of revealing that you need to resort to loaded language to critique this policy.

The point you are missing is that it is a TACTIC to try and isolate something like Student Debt Forgiveness and attack it with ...

'does it contribute to deficits?' ...'is it new debt?'... 'do you not think debt is bad?'

Because while each of those is a truism, they miss the point DELIBERATELY.

This tactic is very common in politics where you focus on elements of truth while stripping the context.

What is the context?

The context is that all such 'Bribes' (word is chosen also for same reason) typically add to gov't spending, thus debt and deficit pressures. So if it is true for all why bring it up as if it is a SPECIFIC wrong in this case?

The proper full context is not 'debt bad ...ergo program bad' which is how many want it framed but rather is 'amongst the massive landscape of spending priorities is this one wrong and if so why?'

If you are just going to fire out 'debt bad' then people should bring up other examples (whatabout's ) to show that argument is empty.

Whatabouts can often be specious and empty but are not always. They are often appropriate. And in the lazy position of 'debt bad', as the prime argument, a whatabout is the proper counter.

For instance when the GOP and other scream 'HOW DO YOU PAY FOR IT???' when talking about improvements to Medicare, etc, while then never asking that question about 10 and 20 year budget increases to Military that pass unchallenged, a whatbout is a necessary addition to the argument. If such considerations (how do we pay for it) are not necessary there, then that shows the argument being put forth is hollow and disingenuous elsewhere.

Both parties seem to vote for those all the time. Who here would deny the GOP are hypocrits?

I really do not understand this critique.

At its very essence the JOB of gov't is to amass money thru taxation from the masses in hopefully an equitable way and to then redistribute that money back out to society based on priorities. Those priorities in almost all instances can be called 'bribes' of 'free money', if your goal is politicize them negatively but that is literally gov'ts job.

A proper functioning Democratic gov't is one that reflects the priorities of the very citizens that money was taken from. And while not perfect a majority vote is the best way to reflect that.

So now the Party has power and looks at the various priorities of the citizens who gave them power and you are acting like is bad, 'Bribe', "Free Money' to give them anything when that is how the system is SUPPOSED to work in a well functioning society.


When the system is broken is when citizens vote in a party but due to lobbying (real bribes) the special interests can get the politicians to ignore the mandate they got from the citizens who voted them in, and instead give the benefits to the special interests instead.

Let’s say for example biden launch a program that covers universal health care on like 1st September and so free up spending for all Americans .
Should some Americans be angry because they just pay medical healthcare 2 years ago that would be covers hence forward on September 1?
I mean yeah every policies benefits more some people then other , that is the whole purpose of government helping those that needed the most isn’t ?

I really doubt students republicans will be against lowering their students debt burden .
To me the education system seem kinda of broken in the US and writing of debts is much better fiscally then sending out checks to fight inflation .

I’m not sure if the critics of this really appreciate how completely standard it is as part of the middle-class American lifestyle to have student loan debt, or to have a kid with debt, or to have paid off loans but still have basic human empathy for the people still paying them off. The idea that voters are going to be furious about this is so completely out of touch.

I mean, it’s a student loan, for crying out loud. These kids aren’t spoiled brats who blew $10k on blackjack, they’re actively trying to be more productive members of society. It’s the sort of thing any sensible government would want to help finance.

This is what I was speaking to above.

There are certain loaded outrage terms that rightfully bring outrage. 'Bribes', 'Free Money', 'Debt', 'Hypocrite', etc, etc, etc.

Very easy to get agreement and whip up negative sentiment on these issues as the gov't is rife with problems in all these areas.

Some seem to not see how they are manipulated by the MSM when these words are used to focus on only certain issues and not others.

So 'you feel mad and impotent when it comes to gov't 'bribes', 'debt' etc, well lets attack and stop this 'Student Debt relief' to finally give you a way to feel you did some good to stop big gov't abuse'.


Meanwhile spin it as a wrong 'whatabout' if someone raises how Military Budgets not only go thru supported by both parties without question on how to pay for it but almost always get support to raise above the military ask, giving them free bonus money, much of which they don't have to account for.

We are failing as a society if we do not raise that 'whatabout', and instead let that pass unquestioned while then a screaming focus on 'debt' and 'who will pay for it' is only directed at 'student debt relief' and the like.

NO. Whatabout NOT giving the Military that extra money they did not even ask for and instead PAYING FOR the student debt relief with that money? Whatabout looking at other existing spending priorities.


Some whatabouts are meant to simply take your eye off the issue but in gov't spending the 'whatabout' IS the issue. Every single current spending obligation needs to be questioned and compared to new ones as gov't is about PRIORITIES, and prioritizing one item over another is by definition a whatabout exercise.

Those who call for you not to whatabout are simply interested in protecting the status quo. Its an argument of 'Leave all the past spending alone and lets just focus on the 'wrongs' of these new priorities so we can kill them as we do not want OTHERS starting to get benefits too.'

As with health care, higher education is another area in which the U.S. seems to started along a suboptimal track a long time ago.

In the name of productivity, personal responsibility, fetishization of wealth, etc., the U.S. has pursued policies for decades, if not centuries, that have resulted in a very barbelled economic society. You have a surprisingly large percentage of the population that can afford to pay literally any amount that colleges and universities see fit to charge, and a disturbingly large percentage of the population that can afford to pay little, if anything, out of pocket for higher education.

In addition, we have created an economy and society in which access to higher education is almost mandatory to assure participation in the middle class, and access to the best colleges and universities is a huge advantage if your goal is to enter (or stay in) the ranks of the wealthy.

These policies, along with the racial legacy of the United States, created a huge access to education problem. Colleges and universities attempted to solve the optics of the access problem through need blind admissions. That's fine as far as it goes, but how do you absorb students who have no capacity to pay? You do it by offering students who can't pay a combination of scholarships, grants, and easy access to debt. You cover the non-debt piece by jacking up tuition (which is your only tool to soak the wealthy families), but that has the knock on effect of requiring the less wealthy students to take on even more debt.

Now you have a bunch of graduates who can't meet their student loan obligations. How do you solve that problem? Apparently the answer is with an amalgamation of forbearance and debt forgiveness.

Meanwhile, you further strain school budgets and exert upward pressure on tuition with absurd races to the top on facilities -- football stadiums, grand libraries, arts facilities, nursing centers, whatever, whatever -- which have limited impact on education but considerable impact on school brochures and tours.

Finally, you run a public university program which isn't nearly large enough (or in many cases, strong enough) to alleviate the problems described above.

Like a lot of the things in the U.S., higher education policy is a big ball of Band-Aids that largely ignores the underlying problems.

That may be true for people who live outside the United States, but it would be hard to go to college or live in the United States as a young person without an appreciation of how prevalent student debt is. God knows I took on plenty of it.

this has been the ENTIRETY of the republican platform for like 3 decades. except with an even smaller number of people receiving benefits.

I disagree, but I guess we will see in November.

I graduated from law school during the worst of the great recession. Everybody I know has student loans, even now, and that includes myself. The people that cry that their federal loans are crippling them financially are being disingenuous, as there are favorable repayment options available, programs that allow for the total cancellation of all loans, no interest since early 2020, and no required payments since early 2020. Even before COVID, there were income based repayment options that had negligible monthly payments.

I guess in my opinion, if we are going to give $300 billion of charity to a group of people, giving it to college graduates is not a good place to start. There are groups of people in this country that will never be able to get ahead, people with a college education are not one of those groups.

Sort of like an Elite Establishment

Most of the bootstraps narratives boil down that way. Basically strats to thin the field competing for the goodies. You should sit there feeling guilty about any govt help--while we cart off another gymnasium full of tax dollars

Good post.

Further i think it is necessary to highlight that this is part of the battle to keep people in their lanes. The have and have nots or as Trump would say 'Make America Great Again', which is code for stopping the shift of benefits, wealth and power, going to others when it was prior almost the exclusive domain of white males.


I don't think most people understand that is a core underlying factor here. There is a coming shift, and those with current power are trying to forestall it as long as they can while reaping as much additional benefit as they can.

Debt is a weapon that slows down the accrual of generational wealth within families. So the more debt that can be kept on POC and the lower class, the longer it will take them to work their way out... the longer the current ruling class gets to control the asset base to their near exclusive benefit.

The GOP is very woke to this shift and can see Democrats will win nearly all future elections by 'bribing' their growing POC and Progressive base, requiring them to shift the benefit flow. So after 250 years of those benefits flowing mostly to white males in the form of bribes, they suddenly have found their offense to 'bribes'. Now they 'should not' or put another way 'leave the status quo, which we benefit most from, in place.'

Here is the issue though.

You can say how Perfect is the enemy of the Good here and there can be better ways to do it, but no better way proposed will not face that same scrutiny and reason to not do it.

All those benefits thrown at high turn out seniors over the years to help with medication costs, etc, (bribes) were not the perfect way to do it. MC4A would have been the best way. But they did not do nothing as they sought to only do the Perfect.

I think u underestimate the role of middle Class in gdp .
Lowering debts so they can use that to invest in the economy should have good outcome .

And again I think reducing debt (middle class) or giving money (poorest) is not the same thing .

Now if u talk about a UBI form of allocation , I think it would of been even better .
Help the poorer while helping those with their students debts and nothing at the higher ladder .
But that idea would be too profound a change for midterm election imo .

I still think this 10k student loan forgiveness help out the dropouts the most. Don’t like 30-40% of freshman drop out of college? This group is basically getting a fresh start,whereas many of them would never get out of that 10-15k debt. I see nothing wrong with that.

Biden should throw in a sweet retail job for each person getting debt forgiveness to help alleviate the staffing shortages.

Crazy idea but how about maybe there is just too many unprofitable companies trying to survive with poor wages conditions that would explain so many jobs not fulfill?

Imo people should be more entitled to have good raisonnable education cost instead of being entitled to own a business at the expense of the economy and the masses ?

How does owning a business create an expense for the economy and the masses?

Typo ? -> I said unprofitable business .
Zombies companies uses ressources (capital and labour) that would better be used by other successful companies .
It cripple gdp growth which decrease profitability of the economy as a whole and hence , cripple wages .
It’s certainly not a prosperous circle .

It create more unnecessary debt .

That cheap labour that zombies companies uses and exploit would be better use by start up companies as well .

And we’re not even speaking about government ressources they uses like government programs or debts .

And what happens when the economy is full of zombies companies ?
A situation like today , government can’t raise much interest rates ( with all the negative effect on pension funds and saving for the middle class existing due to low interest rates ) to fight inflation without creating a big recession .

Fwiw , I believe will see a massive plunge in jobs opening when those zombies companies will crash with such hiking rates by the fed .

And no one thinks that the people who avail themselves of those options are greedy or spoiled or whatever ridiculous loaded language you choose to use to describe people who will get this debt relief.

It's not charity. It's obvious you use ridiculous hyperbole because your argument is weak (maybe this tactic works better in the courtroom?). Investing in education is a phenomenal investment that probably pays for itself when these graduates get jobs and pay taxes. It's why public education is 100% free and no one finds that even a little controversial (maybe you're against it, idk).