Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

But in Sanders' case 1) it isn't his money (and no, that money doesn't just appear because he wants to spend it), and 2) it sets the expectation of future cancellations, promoting excessive borrowing (moral hazard).



I'd be interested in opposing views, as there must be some, judging by the reaction, but the above seems very apparent to me - I don't see why people would disagree or consider it controversial. Sanders wants to tax high earners to fund the debt forgiveness, and even if that would be sufficient, those funds would not be available for other spending (e.g., medicare for all, or the next "should be free for all" program - "housing for all", etc.)




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: