So are you against giving people of limited means a way to shift part of the purchase cost of a necessary replacement item into the future? As a concrete example, it seems entirely reasonable to me for someone of limited means to spend something like $2,000 on a credit card to repair a broken car so that they are able to get to their job. If you don't give people a legal means to access money like that (even if the rates are borderline usurious), I would expect them to seek out illegal methods -- and that seems worse all around for society.
Not American, but giving one of your country's credit cards to someone too poor to pay for vital car repairs is just throwing them into the street with extra steps. What that person needs is public aid that gets them out of the hole.
Taxpayer funded loans inevitably lack the requisite underwriting, and hence turn into subsidies to the businesses that the loans are eligible to pay, hence allowing them to increase price.
See higher education and home prices in the US.
Having most people be leveraged to the max, using their own children’s future tax payments, is great for employers who want workforces with less negotiating power.
Proper state aid would be cash, or giving people houses and education. Not chaining them with debt to pay for houses and education.
