I think that's a completely reasonable position; obviously there's context there because changes to the tax code are legislative whereas this is executive action. But "hey let's try something less heavy handed please" makes total sense to me.

For me, I guess I don't want the perfect to be the enemy of the good, and this seems like it could positively affect millions of middle/lower class citizens and stimulate their local economies.

I see your point and get it entirely, though I do think you're generalizing an entire generation of people quite unfairly. Plenty of kids are still trying to work their way through college. It's because pell grants and other funding mechanisms were taken away quite intentionally, and student loan financing took over to prey on lower and middle class kids just trying to get some upwards mobility that education got so expensive. When I was financing my education 20 years ago - and doing work study, and working hard physical labor in the summers to pay for the bills, my private university cost ~$35k a year. It was crushing. Now it's twice that because for two decades we've not made lower and middle class education a priority. This is retroactively righting the wrong, anf I support it.

This take is weirdly pro Wall Street. Young professionals being riddled with debt only helps the banks, having them be able to participate in the economy helps everyone.

Every time you go through a hardship you get mad when others manage to avoid it? That's not a blueprint for a society I'd want to live in.