The Case for and Against Canceling $39 Billion in Federal Student Loans

The Biden administration's proposal to cancel $39 billion in federal student loans has stirred a heated debate. Advocates argue that the servicers' negligence and misguidance have burdened borrowers with exorbitant debts. On the other side, critics view this as a politically driven plan that doesn't meet the criteria for it to be considered fair or necessary.

Arguments For Cancelling the Student Loans

One of the central arguments for cancelling the student loans is based on the heavy-handed actions of the servicers themselves. Critics argue that these servicers, motivated primarily by profit rather than the borrowers' best interests, diverted borrowers into payment plans, deferrals, and forbearances. These actions have capitalized additional interest and significantly increased the overall loan amounts over 10 to 30 years. Despite eligible programs being available through Congress, these servicers failed to guide borrowers effectively, leading to the current precarious financial situation.

The new plan aims to rectify this wrongdoing for approximately 800,000 borrowers. By providing relief and ensuring that borrowers are not unfairly penalized for issues outside of their control, the administration seeks to level the playing field. Critics, however, argue that similar programs have existed since the government began its involvement in student loans. They claim that the current situation is simply the government finally addressing a flawed system.

Responding to Critics: The Role of Think Tanks and Media

A significant portion of the debate against the bill comes from those who label "think tanks" as mere propaganda outlets funded by American oligarchs. These groups often take extreme conservative positions and provide misleading studies to propagate their views. More concerning is the role of the media in amplifying these narratives. Fringe conservative voices are given a platform, and their lies are repeated until they become accepted as truth by the public.

It is argued that genuine policy discussions should be based on factual information rather than misinformation. The current plan is described as a political propaganda tool rather than a well-thought-out solution. Critics point out that various programs have allowed for debt forgiveness over a period of 20 to 25 years, provided certain criteria are met. This is not a new idea; it has been in place since the government's initial involvement in student loans.

The government simply acknowledges that the existing system has been poorly managed and operates on the premise that now is the time to correct course. This is not a special treatment or forgiveness of debts that were not already set up in the legal framework, but rather a reflection of the government finally fulfilling its obligations to its citizens.

Conclusion

The debate surrounding the $39 billion in student loan forgiveness is complex and multifaceted. Proponents argue for a fair and humane approach, addressing the injustices perpetuated by servicers, while critics argue that this is merely a politically motivated maneuver. Whether this plan will ultimately pass and achieve its intended goals remains to be seen. However, what is clear is that this discussion will continue to affect future policies and the way student loans are handled in the United States.