No amount of money is too great to spend to prevent the wrong people benefiting. All sides can agree on this principle. It’s the definition of wrong people where the argument lies.
?? Maybe I misunderstand you, but I think this is exactly one thing that people don’t agree on.
For conservatives wrong = poor/minorities
For liberals wrong = rich
Yeah it’s like your name, dogs are friendly to everyone which is great, no reason to get mad when a dog loving licks the arm of a pervert or wealthy person, go dogs being good.
Yeah if liberals drop that shit it will be great tactically and practically.
I mean, you’re not exactly wrong. The idea that people have a right to provide consequences for bigoted speech is pretty core to modern progressivism. You have to be able to boycott those who support bigotry, as well as use your freedom of speech to explain why. And that’s what “cancel culture” ultimately is.
Not that I see what that has to do with his post. My only quibble with it is that I think you have to acknowledge that the more well off you are, the less likely you are to need student loans. So it’s not quite as regressive as it may seem.
But it is still regressive, as it’s not like those who can afford it don’t take out student loans, or that they don’t wind up with jobs where they could pay it back. The main argument I see for it is whether or not it would cost more to actually means test it.
(You know, like how it often costs less to give everyone free lunches at public schools than to try and figure out who actually needs it.)
Is there an example you can give of liberals spending without limit for the puropse of preventing rich people from benefiting from a program?
Oh yeah? Well, I heard a caller to C-Span this morning say that the plans involved socialism AND communism! The caller didn’t specify, but he sounded certain.
They are gonna make me get gay married!
Kamala Harris’ policy was widely mocked for its narrow criteria.
Bingo BigT. And it reduces the stigma of some kids getting them and others not and that’s a lot of stigma and it’s kids stigma which is a sad type of stigma, poor kids (poor as in sympathy for them)
To me it’s not only that its narrow it’s that the subset its restricted is a non-sequitur. I agree that it makes sense to encourage people to start businesses in disadvantaged neighborhoods but what does that have to do with crippling student debt?
What’s next? Medicare for those who install solar electric panels on their roofs?
Yeah it plays into the idea that certain people deserve good things and others are unworthy.
Running the numbers, giving “free college” to the 1% in addition to the 99% is probably worth it just to save on the administration cost of excluding 1% of college goers. I mean, creating a separate class of non-eligible participatants is a cost of its own, and not a negligible one. I agree with Manwich here.
Always riding on my coattails.
Let the trailblazer take the glory, I’ll take the profits. 
I think Destroying The Middle Class is a bad idea. I heard from a guy on facebook that Biden is going to do this by next week.
Why doesn’t everyone fight against this Bad Liberal Idea?
My friend on facebook is deeply confused by this.
I think as a good faith token to the middle class, we should have a tax cut for the wealthy! (Do I have it, Republicans?)
Now you’ve successfully stolen the election, go wild guys, you’ve earned it.