Republicans in general are, as I would put it, in the pockets of banks, and someone more sympathetic to them would put it, “fiscally responsible.” (An epithet I consider risible, but anyway…)
They have vocally and legally and through the legislature opposed and prevented, rolled back and increased the requirements to forgive student loans. A sympathetic person to their cause would say this is a moral choice because you should “repay what you owe,” me, I don’t buy that and would argue they get lots of donations from big banks to keep their cash cow alive.
Due to them being so ideologically opposed to so-called “debt forgiveness” (a misnomer to me as you can have paid back your loan multiplicatively but still be charged for it for the rest of your life due to interest and fees) makes people worry they will continue that beyond simply annuling Biden’s administration’s efforts and further push it to roll back decades-old protections and programmes.
Why? Well, as mentioned, a sympathetic viewer might call it “The right thing to do” if you believe that, say, if someone takes out loans to become a teacher, and there is a forgiveness programme that says if you teach for 10 years, teaching is so valuable and so understaffed that as a reward they’ll forgive your loans, and you believe that is an unconsciable burden on the financial institutions that service the loans, and They Should Have Thought About That before taking up their profession- then you would take steps to eliminate such a program and ensure that those rascally teachers pay back their full debt that is owed, plus interest and fees.
Would that negatively affect education? Yes, but there are many (many!) people who believe that is an unfortunate but necessary side effect.
“But that sounds illogicial”
Within living memory we had the red scare, the lavender/pink scare, Jim Crow and segregation. All of which were considered legal and “moral” (by some) at the time.
Republicans in general are, as I would put it, in the pockets of banks, and someone more sympathetic to them would put it, “fiscally responsible.” (An epithet I consider risible, but anyway…)
They have vocally and legally and through the legislature opposed and prevented, rolled back and increased the requirements to forgive student loans. A sympathetic person to their cause would say this is a moral choice because you should “repay what you owe,” me, I don’t buy that and would argue they get lots of donations from big banks to keep their cash cow alive.
Due to them being so ideologically opposed to so-called “debt forgiveness” (a misnomer to me as you can have paid back your loan multiplicatively but still be charged for it for the rest of your life due to interest and fees) makes people worry they will continue that beyond simply annuling Biden’s administration’s efforts and further push it to roll back decades-old protections and programmes.
Why? Well, as mentioned, a sympathetic viewer might call it “The right thing to do” if you believe that, say, if someone takes out loans to become a teacher, and there is a forgiveness programme that says if you teach for 10 years, teaching is so valuable and so understaffed that as a reward they’ll forgive your loans, and you believe that is an unconsciable burden on the financial institutions that service the loans, and They Should Have Thought About That before taking up their profession- then you would take steps to eliminate such a program and ensure that those rascally teachers pay back their full debt that is owed, plus interest and fees.
Would that negatively affect education? Yes, but there are many (many!) people who believe that is an unfortunate but necessary side effect.
“But that sounds illogicial”
Within living memory we had the red scare, the lavender/pink scare, Jim Crow and segregation. All of which were considered legal and “moral” (by some) at the time.
Got it. So the thought is “pay it off so I can say it’s done, so that if they try to roll back already executed forgiveness it shouldn’t hit me”.
on a personal level, yes, but also there is such a thing as considering other people too.
edit: didn’t mean to sound snarky, just saying that there are other reasons to oppose this than “it affects me personally”