To mitigate the social harms resulting from the current debt load that have accumulated over decades as part of a process that includes development of policies to prevent getting back to the same state.
(Some of which actually may already have been adopted, as all of the debt areas at issue have seen policy reforms over the last decades that could be part of that, though most cancellation advocates would argue—and I would agree, even though I don't necessarily agree with “cancel it all”—that further work remains to be done.)
At least, that's what seems "most likely" to me...
Can you give an example? I may just be out of the loop.
Considering just the educational side:
For policies that have already been put in place, the 2016 revision (partially undone by the 2019 revision) of the Borrower Defense rules are an example.
For not-yet-implemented rules that have been proposed, rules imposing total cost limits on programs accepting federal loans, or imposing other cost and quality requirements on such programs, are common. As are simpler reforms like making income contingent plans the default repayment plan, and other rules governing direct loan servicing (an issue with the student debt crisis haa been servicers active directing borrowers into deferment rather than income contingent plans.)
So the debt gets cancelled then banks and institutions restart their vicious cycle of predatory education price and predatory education loans?
What exactly is the goal here?