There is a difference between having the capacity to work, and the capacity to work enough to pay for all of your expenses. I am not saying that individuals aren't able to work, but you should not demand individuals work 30-40hours per week while also undergoing full time classwork if you want them to be healthy. Suicide and suicidal ideations due to stress are already not uncommon among the college population. By demanding that these individuals take even less time for themselves and stress themselves even more with increasing work and likely decreasing sleep is not healthy.

Aside from that, it makes no sense to not account for one of the largest expenses related to student loans when discussing student loans (that being housing). The amount an individual is capable of working varies for a large number of reasons, as does the cost of schooling. It should not be difficult to see how loan utilization of $37k would be normal without assuming some gross negligence or mismanagement on the part of the loan holder.

I do not believe people are saying your situation isn't valid, they are saying your situation is just that yours.  Even your sample which is the people you know is tiny compared to the millions that go to college. 

Lets take your not having time to work scenario.  How much were each of your friends making going to work and also attending college taking a full credit load of classes.  How much work, study, homework can you do if your classes are interspersed.  As I believe one person stated, they had classes throughout the whole day meaning they probably could not get a job until after that time and even if they could they still had studying and homework to do. That would basically leave the weekend which even then only a few jobs you can do and the majority of them are low paying.  When you have to pay for food, room and board, utilities exactly how much work you can do and what type of job can you get determine how feasible and maintainable such a situation is.  I am not sure about your situation but during my stay in college those low paying jobs were not going to sustain you based on the number of hours you can work and keep up with your classes.  Then you also have work study which pays you personally nothing but goes toward some portion of your college debt.

I believe you dismissing Room and Board which can be a significant cost to college debt is not fully viewing the different situations a lot of people find themselves under.

Saying someone can work, pay all their bills and also maintain a full college credit load including studying and doing homework is a very tall order.

I'm not demanding that. I'm also not demanding that they attend college. Or that they attend college full time.

I went into detail earlier how there are other career options available (that can pay very well) that require less schooling. I also detailed that some people choose to take a less than full load in order to balance out their work/school.

Provided that these other options are available, and it by no means is a societal requirement that you graduate college, why then, should we as a society provide for free the schooling that these people are CHOOSING to take in the method that they do it (whether it be to not work while going to school, taking a full load that they feel occupies all of their time, etc etc).

Look, our approach to this is entirely different. People tend to want others to solve their debt problems. It isn't just schooling. Our society has a massive car debt problem as well (one can argue housing isn't quite as extensive as a house tends to hold value more than a car). We also have a massive credit card debt problem. None of this, however, is my problem at all. It's a societal problem of over spending, and the absolute last thing that will fix this problem is just wiping these debts (this quite clearly illustrates that people who do consistently overspend don't have to worry at all about the consequences, as the government will just step in to save them).

Once people deal with their own debt situation, they tend to be a lot more vocal about not wanting to deal with other people's debt. They tend to realize it was all based on choices they were making. They stop coming up with excuse after excuse regarding the situation they are in and blaming the whole thing on everybody else. It's quite thrilling, really, to realize how much more in control of my situation I am in than I ever thought I was. This isn't just me. It appears to be a widespread reaction to taking control of your own debt and livelihood, as evident with my listening to Dave Ramsey, and the thousands and thousands of people he has helped.

Stop making excuses on why everybodys situation is apparently so horrible, take control, and realize that provided the right choices are made, they absolutely do NOT need to be $40k in debt after college.

Lol, blame a little known rapper named Tupac Shakur for my username.  Way back in the day, it sounded good and no one used it in forums.  Now I find it harder and harder to register it because of him.

NK will continue to run this game for as long as Trump is willing to entertain it.  This is not the first rodeo NK has done exactly the same tactic.

The government has a responsibility to maintain the health of its society. When crime increases, the government has a responsibility to step forward and take action to reduce this ill. It may not matter to someone who lives in a rich neighborhood, and they may complain when their taxes are raised in order to provide adequate policing for poorer neighborhoods, but it is something that must be done.

Similarly, the government has a responsibility to deal with the debt crisis. It may not benefit you personally, but at the end of the day, this contributes to an unhealthy society in many ways. At the end of the day, it isn't simply poor choices by individuals which got us into this situation. College has become a fundamental part of our schooling system, and is considered necessary for many individuals and many career paths. If we were to massively reduce college participation, we would very likely do damage to our economy. As such, the United States needs to maintain a high degree of participation, without punishing the individuals who choose to do what is necessary for the country.

The current cost of schooling is untenable. Millions of people have loans under this system which are not reflective of the value of the product they have received. However, market forces often do not push back against this to the necessary degree because of the necessity of the service that is provided.

As such, in order for the government to act within the interest of society, it must take action both proactively and retroactively. It must work to reduce the cost of higher education, and it must aid those individuals who have been harmed by the ills of these systems.

The simple fact of the matter, is that through a typical path through college, without gross mismanagement, student loans can grow exorbitant. You can certainly argue that individuals could have taken different paths, but at the same time, you cannot assert that the student loan crisis is due to frivolity; fancy cars and caviar. It simply is not.

That is what is at the heart of this disagreement. You can argue that someone doesn't have to follow this life path (however, there may often be additional negative consequences associated with alternate life paths), however, you cannot make the argument that the end result of debt is solely a result of frivolous spending, lavish college lifestyles and overall gross mismanagement. It is a natural consequence of the life which is held up as the gold standard of optimal career paths. The problem stretches far beyond the individual and should be treated as such.

I have a very difficult time comprehending somebody spending 3.3 hours outside of every class for each hour they spent in class, but perhaps this is where the difference in opinion starts. Most colleges have a guideline of 2 hours for each hour in class.

----

That being put aside, I like your drowning analogy, but what this doesn't look at is going forward. You don't simply tell the person they can never go in the water again, or that there will always be a floating device available every time this ever comes up again. Generally, the person is trained on what they did wrong, and can absolutely get themselves in the exact same problem again if they go back into the same water.

It is also inferring that everybody with student loans is drowning, which is far from true. Just like wiping $50k of debt (I believe unless they have an income in excess of like $100k) is inferring most all of these people are drowning. I don't think the problem is this widespread at all. I think there absolutely are people that are drowning in student loans. I'd likely be more inclined to appreciate legislation associated with student loans if it was truly addressing those who are drowning, but instead it is a widespread wipe (which REALLY comes off as trying to buy votes).

It may also make more sense to allow student loans to be a part of bankruptcy. If a court can truly agree that somebody is unable to make their payments, maybe THEN it is appropriate to allow these amounts to be wiped.

It is the across the board wipe that I can't handle.

Yeah i'm not a fan of this strategy either. I preferred the fire and fury strategy but if this does end up working I guess that's cool.

How were ya'll doing 50 hours of homework a week? I'm in college now and homework for me is usually like 14-16 hours a week.