Yeah this policy is going to help some of us, not all of us go to school, but we benefits solely for us. It’s not far fetched to say, that this partial debt eradication will be like AA, where most of the goodies go to non-ADOS.
The jury is still out on her in regards to reparations. She said she supports it, but never mentioned(at least what I read on her) financial compensation nor what her plan for reparations is.
If a candidate says that they’re supporting reparations, we should see exactly what it is before co-signing them.
If AA's are the one's most affected by canceling student loan debt, how would most of the goodies go to non AA? Point me to where this is even possible? The assertion absolutely makes no sense in this situation. This is not affirmative action.
Nobody knows what the fukk reparations would look like, hence HR 40, which she does support.
This notion that we shouldn't support any candidate with a full blown plan for reparations, when there's all these details around implementation, size, etc. still to be worked out and agreed upon, makes it obvious that the "reparations or no vote" crowd is simply a shadow vehicle of voter suppression.
For Japanese reparations, a commission was created, and the details were worked out over 8 years.
But you have idiots who think creating a commission to work out the details for a reparations package, that should be 123412341324 times bigger and more complex than what the Japanese got, is needless and we shouldn't vote for politicians that support HR 40.
How you people don't see the trickery being pulled on us is beyond me.