Let me preface this by saying that I don't live in the US so I have a somewhat limited understanding of the topic. If I'm completely off base, let me know. You

Let me preface this by saying that I don't live in the US so I have a somewhat limited understanding of the topic. If I'm completely off base, let me know. Your comment seems to come from a place of anger and envy rather than a genuine concern over government spending. In recent history, the US government has allocated hundreds of billions, if not trillions of dollars to bailing out various industry sectors. To me, as an outsider, it seems completely reasonable to take the load off of people who are trapped under the weight of their student loans. In my humble opinion, the deciding factor for this kind of intervention should simply be whether it has a good chance of having an overall net positive effect on the society overall - a complex combination of factors that should include 2nd and 3rd order effects such as positive impact on mental health. "I suffered so you should suffer too" seems like a generally unproductive and harmful approach when it comes to politics. Why draw the line here? What makes this different from every other government handout, apart from the fact that this time it's regular citizens receiving the benefits rather than corporations?