Had a discussion regarding this on PoliEra with
AndyD and he did provide an interesting perspective. While I still think that this is backward thinking and is kind of a "FYGM" attitude, there are cases where this will be unfair to people.
Person A: Decided to pay off their loans for the past 10 years and did not invest in anything else (house, car, etc). Just finished payments.
Person B: Decided to make the minimum payment for 10 years, invested remaining money in a house, car, and other avenues of wealth.
Loan forgiveness kicks in and person B comes off better. This is indeed biased against person A in terms of wealth equity. So I understand the bitterness. I still don't think it's valid, because loan forgiveness is necessary and is extremely important. And most of the people rallying it against it are FYGM boomers who went to school when it was dirt cheap. However, candidates will need to have a good answer towards these sorts of scenarios, either towards a cash bailout or tax credit.
These cases may come off as "collateral damage" but politically it would be bad to shrug them off. Of course the person that needs it most is Person C: Can only make minimum payments and still has no money left over (me, lmao).