#223 You're not wrong. But taking in risk is supposed to be a two way street, and it's not.
Notice how it's never:
"Perhaps Better thought needs to be put into lending choices before you agree to extend that much credit." And we both know lenders will be made whole by the government when up against the wall; borrowers will not.
I can understand how not extending credit to everyone who asks is the only way to combat racism.
But that's not an economically rational decision.
But somehow those saddled with the debt are supposed to be economically rational actors?
There was never a "meeting of the minds" when these deals were made.
I call them "deals" because legally and from principles of economics, the things we define as "loans" can be discharged in bankruptcy, while student loans cannot.
Now they'll have $300B in our taxpayer money to develop further.
Republicans, remember: You asked for this.
Given the choice between a dozen solid conservatives and one Clinton-supporting con-artist and game-show host, you chose the con-artist.
You chose him freely. Nobody made you do it.