Let’s say Mark graduates with $150,000 in debt. As he attends school, it has already been accruing interest. For Grad PLUS loans, the current interest rate is 6.3 percent, set by statute to be 4.6 percent above the ten-year Treasury note yield. This rate has little to do with the specifics of Mark’s creditworthiness; it is hard-coded into the law to create profit for the lender (which since 2010 has always been the federal government).
What am I missing. Why tout credit worthiness of student loans as an argument when your overall argument is based around the borrowers inability to pay of the loan they took on to begin with?
If the issue is interest, then merely arguing for interest relief without the histrionics seems more sane, but almost certainly different than canceling student debt altogether.
And these issues almost entirely affect people with advanced degrees, which seems to affect how the issue is discussed.
I feel student debt relief advocates spend too much time crafting arguments for their peers who make up only a fraction of society instead of more palitable arguments.
This is poor messaging if the intent is anything other than being academic about it.