Borrowing money to go to a school is not the same thing as education. The one may lead to the other, but it isn't even a 50% overlap. This misuse of the term is common in society - both parents and students have an emotional interest in keeping up the pretense - but none use it more than the government agencies that distribute the money and the politicians who want to be closely associated with such things in the public mind.
The money is used to 1) pay for part of a credential, which may never be completed; 2) maintain student status, whether one is learning anything or not; 3) provide entry into a program where getting an education might be more efficiently accomplished, because professionals who know what the goal and what the pitfalls are work there. Even this last, clearly the best use of the three, is not synonymous with "education."
One course at a prestigious university costs $5000, BTW. One.
Worse, Warren doesn't promise to actually do anything about this debt the students have racked up. She simply notes it, expressing outrage and sympathy. Feelings. Whoa-oh-oh-feelings.
If someone pays X in taxes, you think they should pay 2X, but that's not the law and they still pay X, that is not a "tax break," nor is it the government "giving" you money. (Yes, even if they used to pay X + 20%.) The underlying assumption to that statement is that society really owns all that money and society can and should move it where it likes. And as we all know, society means government. There is not even much charade about this anymore, arguing that government is an arm or expression of society to do things efficiently. When I listen to Democrats, I don't think they are making that distinction anymore. Society should do X, government is in charge of society, so letting the government direct where it goes is only natural.