Agree with the sentiment as I was also raised on a household where both my parents worked and (while we were not frugal) we took care of every $, and I learned at a young age not to get myself into deals that I could not honor, including, of course, not asking for money you can't or don't know how you'll pay back.
I don't think this is constitutional, in the sense that it really is unfair to some people who made the extra effort to fulfill their financial obligations, they should also get something back.
Also, the elephant in the room is dropping this a few months before the election definitely looks like a political move, but let's not devolve the conversation into that ...
I think this is sending the absolute worst message you can to both sides of people involved here:
* To the ones who paid their debt, it tells them "sorry, sucker, thanks for the $$$"; not explicitly, but that's definitely how I would feel about it.
* To the ones who didn't pay, it could create the impression that debt is forgivable. You do not want this message to spread, particularly in a country like the US where debt is so fundamental for pretty much everything. You do not want more people taking on debt with a more careless approach. You also definitely do not want to do that in this particular moment where there's a lot of uncertainty about the US hegemony over the rest of the world. $7B is nothing for a country like the US; but this will create a sentiment that could cripple the economy for years on end.
There's a third group of people as well, what about those who decided not to study, or to attend some small community college, because they couldn't afford a more expensive alternative? Now it turns out it was free all the time? Dang.
Comments
Agree with the sentiment as I was also raised on a household where both my parents worked and (while we were not frugal) we took care of every $, and I learned at a young age not to get myself into deals that I could not honor, including, of course, not asking for money you can't or don't know how you'll pay back.
I don't think this is constitutional, in the sense that it really is unfair to some people who made the extra effort to fulfill their financial obligations, they should also get something back.
Also, the elephant in the room is dropping this a few months before the election definitely looks like a political move, but let's not devolve the conversation into that ...
I think this is sending the absolute worst message you can to both sides of people involved here:
There's a third group of people as well, what about those who decided not to study, or to attend some small community college, because they couldn't afford a more expensive alternative? Now it turns out it was free all the time? Dang.