Representatives in a democracy are elected to make policy choices. This goes for Republicans who cut taxes in part in the hope that the government will ultimately shrink as a result. And it applies no less to Democrats, whose voters and campaign volunteers come out in no small part in the hope that campaign promises for a fairer chance at the American dream of meritocracy will become actual policy.
Democrats are elected to make such policy choices, and that’s all that is happening with student loan forgiveness.
Leaving aside the issue of constitutionality and separation of powers concerns about the limits of executive orders, and such limits in this case of Biden’s loan forgiveness decision for a moment, Biden was quite explicit during campaign that he would consider easing the burden of high interest government student loans if he were elected president.
Focusing on resentment because one has already paid one’s student loans highlights the wrong issue.
Democrats who are criticizing Biden‘s loan forgiveness are seemingly oblivious to the importance of putting all this in context.
Who has the advantages in our society from birth? Do we aspire to be a society that is closer to being a meritocracy? Or are we fine with allowing our society to spin ever more out of orbit toward being an oligarchic system?
These are the issues that loan forgiveness is indirectly addressing as a policy matter. I am thankful President Biden is doing his best to successfully keep yet another campaign promise.
Is he pushing the envelope in terms of separation of powers? In my opinion he is. But that will be resolved with time.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt also pushed those limits, when he accomplished things like the outlawing of child labor. (The example is not precisely analogous because in that case, the issue was whether the Supreme Court would continue to strike down such New Deal laws as violating the private right to contract. Nonetheless, in this case Biden’s executive order appears to me to be in the same spirit – a spirit of pushing the government to be a useful instrument for the betterment of ordinary people in ways that perhaps had not been previously attempted.)
Bravo President Biden. Let the constitutional litigation begin.
My understanding is the XOs are for how to administer the Executive Branch of which Biden is of course the head, so I think this does fall within his purview. Laws also are enacted all the time which benefit certain people going forward in ways that people could not take advantage of before it was passed. That’s pretty much the definition of progress. Also I would argue that society as a whole benefits from people being able to afford college, including those who did not themselves attend.
Amen!
The complaints from Democrats are just more traditional Democratic Party circular firing squads. It is disappointing that any prominently visible Democrats are so foolishly self-destructive.
OTOH, it appears that most of the wailing and gnashing of teeth comes from predictable sources: right wing insurrectionists and the media outlets that pander to them.
In other words, the Republican give financial bailouts to their wealthy corporate base and the Democrats give bailouts to their college educated base while both give lip service and advice to work harder or get a better education to the poor non-college educated working at essential jobs all across the USA. Seems fair enough.
False equivalence alert! We want to encourage and give the opportunity for higher education, which benefits both the individual and society. We do not want to encourage the hoarding of wealth which is to the detriment of society. Your anti-intellectual and anti-education side is so unattractive.
Are you saying that essential jobs that do not require a formal education certification beyond high school do not benefit society should not provide any benefit to those performing those jobs?
Your credentialism is showing….one of the ugliest “isms” that remain today unnoticed by many.
No matter how many times you repeat this dishonest canard, it will remain untrue and dishonest.
Nobody has EVER said what you assert — you are literally making it up.
Well Tom, President Biden’s own campaign website in 2020 announced that the only way for a member of the working class to reach middle class status and wages was with a college education. So no, I am no literally making it up, or figuratively making it up.
Yes, we have a crisis with American citizens saddled with college debt that their jobs cannot support.
Your “remedy” for this debacle is to forgive the loans which has no economic effect on the schools selling the certificates or the Democratic politicians who promised that the certificates would lead to higher wages.
Professors like Dr. Jill Biden keep their paychecks while her husband, President Biden keeps his job, Tod and Sarah get their loans forgiven and remain at low wage jobs. The money that was loaned to them could have been used for other purposes that may have provided a better outcome for many, instead of just the universities and politicians, don’t you think?
Please cite a URL for ANY site from ANY Democrat that says:
“… essential jobs that do not require a formal education certification beyond high school do not benefit society should not provide any benefit to those performing those jobs”
It is a simple fact that a middle-class lifestyle is MUCH harder for those without higher education. That simple fact has been true since the WWII era — that’s why the GI Bill was created (by Democrats).
All that language about “do not benefit society” is your own and is not said by any Democrat. Similarly, no Democrat promises that college degree guarantees anything.
Democrats always and correctly strive to remove or reduce economic barriers that block our least fortunate brothers and sisters from obtaining education beyond High School.
You always attack and distort those statements.
“It is a simple fact that a middle-class lifestyle is MUCH harder for those without higher education” Yes, and that started in 1973, according to many economists.
And it is a simple fact that our government choose to make that so. Both parties played a role in it.
“Democrats always and correctly strive to remove or reduce economic barriers that block our least fortunate brothers and sisters from obtaining education beyond High School.”
Question for you Tom.
If Edward and Elizabeth do not go to college and both work at Target but Phillip and Patty do attend college but fully funded by the government, and work at Fidelity, what justifies the higher wages for Phillip and Patty?
Um, Fidelity jobs are more skilled than Target jobs? I can’t take you seriously when you can’t see the obvious truth that there some jobs that require more education than others. Some jobs almost anyone can do; others not so much.
The wages of Edward, Elizabeth, Phillip, and Patty are set by the market. For each position, there are a certain number of employers seeking to hire people and a certain number workers seeking to obtain those jobs.
Target and Fidelity each choose how much they want to offer. Individual workers each choose which opportunities they wish to pursue.
A locally famous bakery produces bread and sandwich rolls under its own label that are on the shelves in Stop and Shop and Market Basket at some price. The same bakery produces the same products with a “Trader Joe’s” and “Wegman’s” label, and those store-branded products are on the shelves of Trader Joe’s and Wegman’s at a significantly lower price. What is the “justification” for the more expensive pricing?
It is not meaningful to ask what “justifies” the price of any product in a (mostly) free market.
Free markets? That’s a hoot.
And yes, some jobs require more education than others, but it that education is provided to the individual at no cost, no risk, no investment, why should they receive a higher wage then another?
Any chance of getting the comment rating function back? Some of these comments could use them.
Sadly, not for the time being.
It requires more attention to the server than anybody can provide right now.
NO! But you and others who object are acting as if this is the only policy anyone has come up with and that there are not other things that can/should/are done to assist those without a college education.