Making it free for everyone is excellent, specifically because it removes the potential of "the consequences for the choice" of taking out loans.
If you're operating under the assumption that we can only do one or the other, sure: free going forward is better. I just think that we need to make it retroactively free, too.
You're not explaining why you think that, beyond wanting to punish people for taking out loans.
Your position is inconsistent, because you're arguing they shouldn't have needed to take out those loans.
Again: you're saying people made mistakes, but I don't think that's precisely the case. The majority of student debt isn't because of people going to incredibly expensive schools for useless majors, you know.
So free University only for majors you deem worthy? Or only for profit minded disciplines? MBAs yes, but art history no?
Besides, economic desperation makes people make poor choices, and I'd wager that most people taking on debt for education don't consider it a poor choice. Often higher education is key to economic success, but given tumultuous economic conditions in the past decades....things haven't panned out for everyone, which makes those decisions look worse in hindsight.
You can't claim everyone with student loan debt has it because they're a worthless hippie art student. The increase in the number of bachelor's degrees made it more competitive to get jobs requiring those degrees, meaning people need to get them just to compete...so people wind up shackled with debt.
It's free to be sympathetic to people who are in a tough situation, even if they bear some responsibility for it. We all do.
But...if you think free public university is a good thing...isn't not giving loan forgiveness analogous to saying "folks should stay in jail for trumped up marijuana charges until it's legal Federally"? IMHO people shouldn't have these loans in the first place.
If we can't afford loan forgiveness, we can't afford free public university. We can simultaneously fix the problems of the past while trying to improve things for the future.
I don't think it does much, but any tiny contribution to the fight against climate change is a good for the world, as is any slowing of the erosion of civil rights domestically, gutting of what remains of medicare/medicaid, etc.
I also know a GOP administration will be worse in terms of fighting against leftist movements in the streets, if only slightly. They're definitely worse re: labor movements overall, again: even if only marginally.
So I'm not going to claim it's a panacea, or even someone that will have notable effects, but I do think it matters at the margins, so the effort required is usually worth it, IMHO
Voting for the slightly less shit option makes it easier for the things we do in parallel to have a positive impact: direct action doesn't get slowed down much by voting once a year or so.
For my bills? I do have student debt, but have a job that pays well enough I don't have to stress about it. I do worry about others that aren't as fortunate.
And if we can't afford either, why are you arguing it should be free? If you're saying you want something that you're also saying is impossible, why not champion two impossible things?
Good luck trying to articulate your thoughts and positions in the future, because you've failed to do so thus far, and I've exhausted my patience...so I'm gonna bounce