But keep in mind that student loan reform was an odd fish back in 2010.

There were two parts. One was regulartory/executive: It took over student loans.

The other was financial: It allocated the "savings" and any profit from student loans to a very specific purpose, and was part of a package of legislation that had one and only one purpose. To reduce the projected expense of a specific bit of unrelated legislation to under $900 billion for a 10-year period. Under paygo, the increase in government spending was allowed, but any increase above that had to be "paid for" by some other revenue stream.

That bit of unrelated legislation was the HCRA and ACA. Part of the "savings" is student-loan related savings and profit.

Flash: In the last week the CBO said that the HCRA/ACA would result in something like $120 billion less in net expenditures over the next 10 years than forecast. This resulted in a round of glee for all (D), even if it does amount to $12 billion/year on average, unevenly distributed.

But, as education is not so much an expenditure as an investment into the future, the idea than the US could/should profit at all is shows lack of understanding. Student loans should be break even or minimal profit.

The rich should pay their fair share of taxes.