Who is going to lend tens of thousands of dollars to an 18 year old with no income, no assets, and no credit?
So, just to be clear 18 year olds getting tens of thousands in dischargeable loans is ridiculous, but 18 year olds getting tens of thousands in non-dischargeable loans makes total sense?
I mean, I understand why if you are a person making money off student loans, the latter is a great situation to have. But for anyone else, I'm not sure I agree that it's something we should fight for.
I believe they intend to mean that we should fix this problem without irreparably screwing over an entire generation of potential college students
But when a student needs a loan to pay for their education, the person lending money is more important than everyone else. If you are not going to incentivize lending money for college debt and instead going to add risks (of not getting paid back because discharging loans is now easy), then you will have less loans in the first place.
When a student needs money to pay for their education, why are we extending loans rather than need-based grants?
The concept of everyone should go to college is extremely Boomer; they're dying off and their beliefs are dying off with them. Likewise just wait until "Real estate only goes up!" dies out. Or watching TV pro sports being taken seriously as a hobby. Then you factor in demographic replacement; if most young kids are not native, they will not have legacy native beliefs. It doesn't matter what white hippies held dear in 1970, if a significant fraction of the kids are not legacy demographic. Demographic elimination means cultural elimination and nothing says "white boomer" quite like "Everybody gotta go to college"
Alternatively cap un-bankruptable dept to a reasonable amount, say 15k/yr or something. It's pretty much how it works here in Quebec Canada and very few students end up with more than 40k CAN in un-bankruptable dept.
Admission to a to school seemed like the only path to wealth when I was growing up. I don't think I can make that same claim for my kids.
For whatever I have saved for them I'll offer to put it towards college or give it to them when they turn 20 to start a business.
The problem comes when the actual value of graduating from a top college does not equal the expected value. That's where you get people making poor economic decisions (or when they don't read the interest rate on the loan). The people who have to pay $5k/month in student loans, but make $20k/month at their job are getting the deal they expected. But the people who knew they'd have to pay $5k/month but can only find a $8k/month job are having buyers remorse.
If I make a poor economic decisions, and choose to buy a ferrari, I'd also have to a find a bank willing to support my poor economic decisions. Naturally any bank will not take me seriously how much I plead with them on my ability to pay them back. That changes if I the bank is guaranteed by the government to get their money bank.
How much would a Toyota Corolla cost if the government was willing to fully back any car loan? Why wouldn't Toyota charge $500,000 for a Corolla if banks didn't care if their borrowers couldn't pay that amount back?
The short of it is people who would normally be completely priced out of a college education are now enabled by banks who give them fiscally irresponsible loans because they know the government is guaranteed to pay them back, whether or not the borrower can pay or not. If these loans didn't exist, there would be fewer people willing to pay $50k and schools would be forced to lower prices or go defunct.
I feel like your question is supposed to be making a rhetorical point but it has an extremely literal answer as of a few years ago.
Since the elimination of the Federal Family Education Loan program in 2010, there has been only one legally-possible lender for Federally-guaranteed student loans.
And they aren't a for-profit corporation, or an entity that evidences much concern for babalncing spending and revenue.