Sure, I could see being in favour of loan forgiveness if at the same time we completely eliminated federally-subsidised loans. But I don't see that happening: I see us forgiving outstanding loans, then granting even more loans, with absolutely no pressure for students to economise.
True fact: one doesn't need a single-occupancy bedroom or a multi-room suite in order to get a good education. One doesn't need a winning football team. One doesn't need a fancy cafe with subsidised prices; one doesn't need a climbing wall. All one needs for a good education is food, shelter and good professors.
But as long as someone else is (or appears to be) footing the bill, students will angle for the nicest possible way to spend their four, or six, or more, years.
The point of a move this move is twofold. The first is to unburden people who were, in essence forced into massive debt at gunpoint as the result of fairly recent and arguably corrupt policy changes (note the lifetime health / income / well-being stats. for those without college degrees, and the role played by banking lobbies if you doubt any of this).
The second is to signal to the predatory class of administrators who have benefited the most that the party is over. It may be unfeasible to claw back what they got from massively inflating the cost of higher education, but it's more than feasible to cap the damages and force a reckoning that will almost certainly lead to vastly more efficient administrations and more economically healthy graduates.