3) The money has to come from somewhere--it isn't free. By canceling $31M in debt, the government is causing $31M in losses to corporations and institutions tha

3) The money has to come from somewhere--it isn't free. By canceling $31M in debt, the government is causing $31M in losses to corporations and institutions that were owed that money. That means $31M less in spending, economic growth, job creation, not to mention taxes, which will have to go up to compensate for the loss. These taxes (or inflation) will hit the poorest people while the rich horde more money or offshore it to prevent it being taken away. Apparently you're not looking at both side of the ledger. The 31 million didn't disappear, it just stayed with the poor. So the poor have (had) 31m more to spend. And poor people do spend all their money, most likely on products that corporations sell. So this was effectively a stimulus measure supported by a tax on lenders. I also don't see why you can think of raising taxes on the poor, but not on corporations. In fact, the government could easily raise taxes only on corporations. They may even have considered this, but the whole debt forgiveness thing is actually preferable to corporations since it's a one time thing.