1. That's why I brought up bankruptcy. Taxpayers don't have to assume 100% liability, they can pay out anywhere from 5-50% of the liability and have the lenders assume the rest which is perfectly fair since they are the profit-seekers that drove a big part of the problem to begin with.
3. I don't see a true moral hazard here at all. It's like saying I graduated with a 3.8 GPA from the same university with the same major as my classmate but he got a 60K/year starting job while I only got a 40K/year entry job. It's no more a moral hazard than that which is to say it isn't really a moral hazard.
I agree that the underlying issue with tuition increases has to be addressed but that's a bigger issue with more moving parts.
Because your arguments are not based in reality but on right-wing scare tactics. I already provided the links and even conservative economic estimates say 0.1% to 0.2% inflation which is meaningless and unnoticeable by the average person (and smaller than yearly fluctuations in inflation from 2012-2020). So to use emotionally charged language about families suffering because of student debt forgiveness as you have when we are talking about something like a 0.15% potential increase is disingenuous and simply not accurate.
I don't think you have sinister motives, I think you've been had by right-wing talking points (perhaps stealth ones) and have not actually looked into this issue in a meaningful way.