Biden's Semiconductor Plan Flexes the Power of the Federal Government (nytimes.com) 139
Semiconductor manufacturers seeking a slice of nearly $40 billion in new federal subsidies will need to ensure affordable child care for their workers, limit stock buybacks and share certain excess profits with the government, the Biden administration will announce on Tuesday. From a report: The new requirements represent an aggressive attempt by the federal government to bend the behavior of corporate America to accomplish its economic and national security objectives. As the Biden administration makes the nation's first big foray into industrial policy in decades, officials are also using the opportunity to advance policies championed by liberals that seek to empower workers. While the moves would advance some of the left-behind portions of the president's agenda, they could also set a fraught precedent for attaching policy strings to federal funding.
Last year, a bipartisan group of lawmakers passed the CHIPS Act, which devoted $52 billion to expanding U.S. semiconductor manufacturing and research, in hopes of making the nation less reliant on foreign suppliers for critical chips that power computers, household appliances, cars and more. The prospect of accessing those funds has already enticed domestic and foreign-owned chip makers to announce plans for or begin construction on new projects in Arizona, Texas, Ohio, New York and other states. On Tuesday, the Commerce Department will release its application for manufacturers seeking funds under the law. It will include a variety of requirements that go far beyond simply encouraging semiconductor production.
Last year, a bipartisan group of lawmakers passed the CHIPS Act, which devoted $52 billion to expanding U.S. semiconductor manufacturing and research, in hopes of making the nation less reliant on foreign suppliers for critical chips that power computers, household appliances, cars and more. The prospect of accessing those funds has already enticed domestic and foreign-owned chip makers to announce plans for or begin construction on new projects in Arizona, Texas, Ohio, New York and other states. On Tuesday, the Commerce Department will release its application for manufacturers seeking funds under the law. It will include a variety of requirements that go far beyond simply encouraging semiconductor production.
Wonder if any semiconductors will be made. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Wonder if any semiconductors will be made. (Score:5, Interesting)
If you are critical of the plan, what's the alternative? Letting China bully-hog the chip market didn't work out well.
To me, spreading the manufacturing among multiple democracies in different corners of the world would be a better option, but it's harder to control what other countries do than your own.
Re:Wonder if any semiconductors will be made. (Score:4, Insightful)
China is a country that we're *literally* preparing to go to war with. That doesn't mean we want a war; I certainly don't want a war with China, but it's militarily prudent to be ready. If that's true, does it make sense for our economy to be so *critically* dependent upon China? If China steps up to support Russia in Ukraine, as it is reportedly considering doing, we may see the emergence of a new Iron Curtain, falling straight across our supply chains.
Even if you take war off the table, China is increasingly looking unstable, economically, politically, and socially.
* China is a major driver of world economic growth, but its economy is a house of cards propped up by a real estate bubble of terrifying size.
* China is a society predicated upon double digit annual economic growth that is falling into the middle income trap, where workers have become too expensive for cheap jobs but aren't productive enough [wikipedia.org] to command higher salaries.
* China is facing a developing demographic crisis with an aging population, a uniquely skewed sex distribution [wikimedia.org] and a falling fertility rate [theconversation.com] currently just over half of what is needed to maintain a stable population.
It's going to be hard for China to fulfill its self-appointed destiny of global leadership. And it's got an authoritarian regime that's not going to take disappointment lying down when there's external scapegoats. That's one hell of a powder keg to be chained to.
Re: (Score:2)
Japan is in serious trouble too, but it has some huge advantages over China. Japan's GDP *per capita* is 2.5x that of China. It's worker productivity almost 4x that of China. Japan, while obviously a smaller economy, exports about 4x the dollar value *per capita* that China does. Japan is much better off because it's already escaped the middle income trap; it's workers can demand high wages and get them. Japan is much better situated to provide a high income to its population with fewer workers than Chi
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, because China is extremely invested in attacking the mainland of the USA, its national infrastructure, its civilian population. So America must defend itself! By projecting massive military power around the world! It isn't at all that China, or anyone else, is concerned about American military activities all around them, no, America is a peace loving nation that hardly ever goes to war and almost never spies on other countries! (PS I'm not going to stop the irony)
Yes, we can't forget that America has ICBMs capable of targeting every major Chinese city and military installation, so of course China feels a need to catch up. And that's not to mention the fact that The Good Ol' U-S of A likely has the greatest intelligence gathering (and spying) capabilities the world has ever known. Heck, we even spy on our friends enough to get caught sometimes.
Where we should draw the line, I don't know. You don't want to lose an arms race, or find out later that you were drastica
Re: (Score:2)
You might have to choose between things like domestic chip fabrication and aircraft carrier fleets...
Might not be able to afford both, not without pushing the national debt another few tens of trillions.
Then theres all that crap infrastructure you need to fix up.
How many wars has China started since 1945? How many coup d'etat has China been behind?
Which country does the world really need to worry about more?
Buy stock in the companies (Score:3)
Or just build public chip foundries. Or make a credible threat to do that. See how fast they're falling over themselves to build factories here then.
There's lots of alternatives to what we've been doing. [time.com] You just need to think outside the (very narrow) window given to you by corporate media. Think for yourself again. It's fun.
Re:Buy stock in the companies (Score:4, Insightful)
voting shares. Lots of them. Then vote in stockholder meetings to bring the factories here.
Or just build public chip foundries.
Are you implying the government should literally own the means of production? There's an *ism for that, and I don't think it goes over well with most people in this country.
No (Score:2)
Again, you're thinking is constrained. You still think of gov't as something that should rule over you instead of as a tool for getting things done the free market can't or won't.
Re: (Score:2)
Most people don't own stock directly. Usually it's indirectly via a mutal fund, retirement plan, etc. Even those poorer than the middle class don't even have that. There's so very little direct control over the company, not even with annual votes. The most we get is "approve/disapprove these 5 pre-selected board member candidates".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So the government shouldn't own the means of production, but the workers should instead? ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Generally, the US government can't do this. Despite the existence of capitalist "stock", this is technically socialism if done by a democracy (the people control the means of production). However there have been exceptions - the "bail out" of GM for instance. So really the biggest control the federal government has over corporations is the carrot - we give you this money with these conditions. This is not new, this has been a practice for quite some time and practiced by both Democratic and Republican p
Re: (Score:2)
All the handouts were a result of the shortage caused by Covid. But the shortage was a one-time black swan event.
My prediction: Five years from now there will be a massive glut in semiconductors.
Re: (Score:2)
> caused by Covid. But the shortage was a one-time black swan event.
I'm not sure about that because cold-war-like tensions are building up. China is getting bigger and braver, making them less hesitant to use trade restrictions as a political and/or economic weapon.
Just like it's not good to depend on oil from volatile nations, it's not good to depend on goods from a hostile nation. We'll probably still trade chips with them, but hopefully try to make sure they don't corner the market for anything critic
Re: (Score:2)
By hostile, I guess you mean China not liking e.g. US sending 2-3 spy planes every day of the year close to China's borders. Last year there was over 1000 spy plane flights may towards China by the US.
Those are friendship flights! The USA is trying to show its friendliness to China while China sends SPY BALLOONS to infringe on American sovereignty, and infiltrators to erode American national infrastructure to third-world levels!
Re: (Score:3)
Towards but not over.
Just because China considers the South China Sea and the Taiwan Strait their territory doesn't actually make it so.
Also the US has no functional need to fly spy planes over mainland China. At most it's a tit for tat for the balloon incident. Everyones got satellites now.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, Taiwan considers mainland China to still be it's sovreign territory.
Just because the US doesn't recognize that fact officially comes nowhere close to the statement of "US doesn't accept the Taiwanese constitution as being valid." you really went far on the jump to conclusions mat there.
also firstly, again, "towards" does not mean "over recognized airspace". Also satellites can see ports just fine, they are above the water level after all.
A plane can't spot a sub visually that is underway below surface
Re: (Score:2)
You know what actually shows you know anything about anything? Explaining it, not just "go read the book", that tells me you probably haven't read anything either. And don't say "it's not my job to educate" because thats a copout, you flexed creds, back it up. I am honestly always ready to learn.
Firstly you could point me to anywhere from the US official agency that has officially made a statement of "US doesn't accept the Taiwanese constitution as being valid"
Second, show me evidence that US military pla
Re: (Score:2)
> Every few months the US restricts chips allowed to be exported to China further and further trying to destroy China's tech industry
Sorry, but most the moves appear defensive so far, not a conscious attempt to "kick China". Too many chip eggs were in one basket. We don't want Xi to control our supply of critical parts, period. That's not "attacking", that's protecting one's own ass from the whims of a grumpy dictator.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wonder if any semiconductors will be made. (Score:5, Insightful)
So your plan is to ... do nothing and let them take over the market anyway? Are you a paid shill or are you just terrible at decision making?
Re: (Score:2)
Your fears are completely groundless. Your proposed response is absurd on its face and only would only benefit China. What else could you be but a complete moron or a paid shill?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That may have been the case 30 years ago but not today. It's not 1995 any more.
Re: (Score:2)
That may have been the case 30 years ago but not today. It's not 1995 any more.
No, its 1984 and we have always been at war with China.
Re: (Score:2)
It's very much still the case today. The markets are awash in Chinese knockoffs. Nearly everything out of China falls into one of three categories: Products designed by and manufactured foreign companies, products designed by foreign companies but copied by Chinese manufacturers (sometimes muntzed to the point of being barely operational, even dangerous), and products designed and manufactured by Chinese companies. That last group is usually not doing business in foreign markets.
And that's not even includin
Re: Wonder if any semiconductors will be made. (Score:3, Insightful)
It worked with the Soviets: we kept ahead of them long enough that they eventually collapsed under their own weight. With China's demographic collapse, perhaps the same thing will work there. And even if it doesn't, there's still value to be extracted from the delay (like getting time to rebuild our industrial base or cementing a first mover advantage).
Finally, don't forget that the Chinese would absolutely love to flood the west with backdoored tech. Keeping suspect tech out is imperative for countries tha
Re: (Score:2)
It worked with the Soviets: we kept ahead of them long enough that they eventually collapsed under their own weight. With China's demographic collapse, perhaps the same thing will work there. And even if it doesn't, there's still value to be extracted from the delay (like getting time to rebuild our industrial base or cementing a first mover advantage).
Finally, don't forget that the Chinese would absolutely love to flood the west with backdoored tech. Keeping suspect tech out is imperative for countries that don't want to become CCP client states.
And the USA doesn't flood the world with backdoored tech. Not at all. No sir. China is the only threat to world peace and security! No country in the world does as much spying as China!
Re: (Score:2)
Finally, don't forget that the Chinese would absolutely love to flood the west with backdoored tech. Keeping suspect tech out is imperative for countries that don't want to become CCP client states.
And the USA doesn't flood the world with backdoored tech. Not at all. No sir. China is the only threat to world peace and security! No country in the world does as much spying as China!
It's high noon... you are facing another gunslinger in the dusty road in front of the saloon. There is only one bullet to be had. Who gets it? You or the other guy?
You are arguing to give the bullet to the other guy and hope he doesn't shoot you with it.
Most rational people keep the bullet -and then decide whether to shoot it or not.
Re: (Score:2)
Finally, don't forget that the Chinese would absolutely love to flood the west with backdoored tech. Keeping suspect tech out is imperative for countries that don't want to become CCP client states.
And the USA doesn't flood the world with backdoored tech. Not at all. No sir. China is the only threat to world peace and security! No country in the world does as much spying as China!
It's high noon... you are facing another gunslinger in the dusty road in front of the saloon. There is only one bullet to be had. Who gets it? You or the other guy?
You are arguing to give the bullet to the other guy and hope he doesn't shoot you with it.
Most rational people keep the bullet -and then decide whether to shoot it or not.
I'm not American. You should realise that to much of the outside world, between the USA and China its very much a case of the pot calling the kettle black, and theres so much soot on both of them its hard to tell which is the pot and which is the kettle.
Re: (Score:2)
When you get down to it, that's the goal. The government doesn't have the national security policy that it wants, until it can shop in a glutted domestic market.
Re: (Score:3)
Incentives are pretty well aligned here. The chip companies get very favorable terms and basically free cash to expand their own operations. It's pretty low risk considering the fabs are going into a region already ripe with semiconductor companies and experience in a very stable geopolitical part of the world and dead smack in the largest consumer economy. The chips coming out of these fabs will have customers and long term for any company this should be a profitable venture and the fact so many compa
Re: (Score:2)
Well for questions like these it is a good idea to look into how similar things have played out before. And the way they play out is that the strings will be lobbied, stretched, and ignored to the point of being meaningless.
Even if we assume actual goodwill and problem solving attempt for Biden on this, and it will be a cold day in the hell when I assume any such thing for any which president, the reality is even then he would be the the only one in DC with such an agenda. Everyone else will be in it only t
big government hand out (Score:2)
I bet you aren't sending your social security checks back to the government. Is that not a hand out?
Re: (Score:2)
What in the world makes you think that's the goal?
If Washington can helicopter money over the countryside and buy some corporate behavior they want, it's a smashing success. Making any chips is purely a distraction.
Too many strings (Score:3)
If they attach too many strings to this, there's a good chance that money will be left on the table. It's happened before.
Re:Too many strings (Score:5, Insightful)
With what's being suggested here if a company see's this list of demands and feels like that's enough to turn down what is functionally free money to expand their own operations I wouldn't really want them seeing any taxpayer money to begin with.
This feels like a good filter to pass companies through.
Re:Too many strings (Score:4, Insightful)
This seems to be giving the executive branch legislative powers....as that I don't think (and I could be wrong) that the bills passed on this by congress had these child care and govt. turnover of "excess" profits in the laws.
This seems an overreach by the executive branch to attach requirements and regulations on a bill that was already passed. Didn't SCOTUS slap the EPA recently for doing just this type of thing?
Regardless of how you feel about these issues, we have to maintain our Constitutional balance of power as to who makes the rules and who enforces them.
I'm particularly troubled by the Feds wanting money that is deemed "excess profits"...this makes this incentive to be more of the govt. becoming a shareholder and getting dividends, rather than a governmental incentive program.
It's a bad thing historically when the government becomes owners of the private sector businesses...there are names for this.
Re: (Score:2)
UGH....damned autocorrect.
Should be precedents not presidents.
Re: (Score:3)
Generally for things like this Congress gives the executive a fair amount of leeway for enactment and enforcement. In this case Congress allocated the funds but left it to Biden to use EO's to start implementation. Especially enforecement which Congress sortof has to leave to the executive.
If Congress deems the executive has overstepped the bounds of the bill they are well within their rights to amend or rescind funding.
Now this isn't a full statement on the philosophical question of how much power Congres
Re:Too many strings (Score:5, Insightful)
Our money should come with strings attached. We've seen what happens when we give billion dollar companies our money with no restrictions and it isn't good for us. You can't trust these fuckers as far as you can throw them. They need to be kept on a tight leash.
It's a bad thing historically when the government becomes owners of the private sector businesses
This isn't the government taking over the means of production. Get that nonsense out of your head right now. This is about basic accountability. Oh, and if this leads to an unexpected windfall, why the hell shouldn't we get a cut? It was our money that enabled it in the first place!
I'm sick of giving already wealthy companies billions in corporate welfare and getting nothing back in return. Thank goodness we finally have a POTUS with a spine. We haven't had one of those since FDR.
Re: (Score:3)
I agree it should. The problem is WHO is attaching the strings here....in this case, executive, not legislative.
And the Constitution stipulates that legislative makes the laws/rules...not the executive.
That is the problem in this case.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is WHO is attaching the strings here
Nope. You really need to learn about the 3 co-equal branches of government and their responsibilities. Didn't I send you a link in a different thread?
The money will come back to the citizens through more jobs.
LOL! You actually believe that?! We've long disprove "trickle down" theory. Get your head out of your ass.
FDR was wheelchair bound, not the best person out there that I'd allude to with a "strong spine".
How stupid are you anyway?
Re: (Score:2)
The Legislative specifically told the Commerce Department (Executive) to make the rules. That's how it normally happens. Congress isn't an expert on things, so they delegate the details to the experts in the Executive Agencies THEY CREATED to do just that.
Every Executive Branch agency was created by an Act of Congress and signed into law by the President.
Re: (Score:2)
hell, I don't really even believe at this moment he's the one calling the shots, honestly.
A lot of times he'll just go along with whatever anyone wants, which is how he was as a senator, too. But sometimes he has a strong opinion, and he will push it hard, no matter who disagrees with him. A clear example is the pullout of Afghanistan, and pushing back on the state department saying, "We will make sure Ukraine wins."
Re: (Score:2)
It's also good to be extra careful this time, because of the whole thing with covid relief funds that were greatly exploited.
Re: (Score:2)
They're free to not spend my money expanding their business if they think basic accountability to too burdensome.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, you think limiting "excess profits" is bad. You are, therefore, arguing that the companies can use federal dollars - my tax dollars, to do what they should be using their own money for, so as to provide higher ROI for CEOs and other major investors.
Right?
Just like the oil companies massive profits the last year. But oh, no, there's no such thing as "too much profits", and the idea that ultra-rich are price gouging the rest of us is just find with you.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's not forget what this incentive money is for....it is to bring chip manufacturing BACK to the US as a matter of national security, so that we can't be held hostage by foreign countries, like China.
If this works, then THIS is what the US Feds are getting out of the deal.
And with manufacturing back in the US, the co
Re: (Score:2)
By that same logic, shouldn't the Fed be gifting goodwill and federal dollars to the oil industry, rather than trying to go out of their way to kill it through any means necessary? Europe has certainly learned a lesson with regards to
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think this is conflating the Legislative and Executive. Congress writes laws to say "do this", but the actual implementation is up to the Executive, who employs subject-matter experts for details in many cases. This law, like most, has several phrases like: "The Secretary shall prescribe such regulations or other guidance as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out the purposes of this section, including regulations or other guidance with respect to..."
That is, Congress is expressly leaving the
Re: (Score:2)
This is taxpayer money. We should be able to include whatever restrictions or caveats we want since it's our money. If the companies don't like these restrictions/caveats, they can use their own money to build the plants.
I'm particularly troubled by the Feds wanting money that is deemed "excess profits"...this makes this incentive to be more of the govt. becoming a shareholder
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're missing the point.
If you want these restrictions attached to the money...it needs to be written in the legislation of the law that is passed by congress (house and senate).
The legislature writes and passes the laws and rules and regulations.....NOT the executive branch (president and agencies).
In this case, Biden is using power, basically altering or re-writing the legislation the i
Re: (Score:2)
Walt Disney World [cnn.com].
The new law amounts to a state takeover of the Reedy Creek Improvement District, the government body that has given Disney unique powers in Central Florida for more than half a century. It allows the governor to replace the district's existing board - mostly people with ties to Disney - with a five-member body that he hand-picks.
"Today, the corporate kingdom finally comes to an end," DeSantis said Monday at a Reedy Creek fire station in Lake Buena Vista, Florida. "There's a new sheriff in town and accountability will be the order of the day."
Re: (Score:2)
This is revoking a very unique situation Disney had that no other business in the US has or has had.
This deal, back in the day, basically granted Disney a private corporation, it's own city.
They were an entity unto themselves, they bypassed regulation other companies had to abide by, Disney has their own postal service, own zoning, etc...
They also bypassed a lot of taxation, etc.
Disney, through that old deal, really did have it sweet.
No other company had a special ca
Re: (Score:2)
The legislature writes and passes the laws and rules and regulations.....NOT the executive branch (president and agencies).
Congress writes the laws. The executive writes the rules and regulations authorized and funded by the laws Congress passes. That's how it has worked for two centuries. This is nothing new, it is not controversial, and it is not special. And you knew that. Quit concern trolling.
In this case, Biden is using power, basically altering or re-writing the legislation the is passed and he does not have that power.
Writing the detailed rules the legislation expressly delegated to the Executive is not "altering or re-writing" anything. It's doing the job of government.
Did you never watch School House Rock? You seem unusually ignorant about
Re: (Score:2)
Similar strings have been used in the past. Even by republican presidents. You get our money you have to follow our rules. This is not legislation, it only applies to those accepting the money. It's no different than the idea "if they get our welfare then they need to be actively looking for jobs". Many of the big companies already comply with the requirements anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
How dare the Government... (Score:1)
... insist that companies properly treat the employees they make $billions out of. This country is sinking into a communist utopia.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How dare the Government... (Score:5, Informative)
Strings are ALWAYS attached to government money. most often private money does it too; you can't see as clearly.
Look at train regulations being trashed during the last admin-- that private train money got those curbed... and the right town got hit with the consequences... but not hard enough to knock any sense into them; they'll vote for the crook who brought them some bottled water (and the train crash.)
Re: (Score:1)
You unironically say that like it's a good thing. The train regulations shouldn't have been trashed. Voters are stupid. And also these strings should have been attached to this deal. Now if the strings had been about repayment, fines if the company fails to produce enough ships, guarantees about suppliers, and the like it would have been fine: that was the point of the act. Tying it to "and also treat your employees better" is stupid even if it's just Tues
Re: (Score:2)
Strings being attached to government money is GOOD but it can also be BAD depends on the strings.
Treating employees better is not a bad string to attach; what is wrong with you??
You don't seem to realize that sizable businesses have people who's job is to game whatever system is in place. I'd rather have them sucking up in productive ways than only playing legal paperwork games. Sucking up in campaign funds and helping out former staff with jobs etc... is the norm and this is not good. I certainly would b
Re: (Score:3)
Do you mean special interests lobby the government for special treatment and money!?! How dare they!
Jimmy Carter deregulated airlines under authority granted by congress in the 70s
The ICC was abolished which had tight control over railroads in 1995, which was under Clinton.
Companies and special interests lobby all the time, once the NTSB has concluded its investigation there will more than likely be regulatory implications, maybe even *gasp* bringing back a caboose for safety and observation? Who knows, but
Why do they say this like it's bad? (Score:5, Insightful)
While the moves would advance some of the left-behind portions of the president's agenda, they could also set a fraught precedent for attaching policy strings to federal funding.
Why do they say this like they think it's a bad thing. Maybe there should be some strings attached in order to get government funding? Clearly, the policy of just tossing money at multi-billion-dollar corporations for nothing hasn't been doing much for us. From the carriers taking funds to build networks that never materialize to the auto industry and the airlines taking government funds and only using them for stock buy-backs and executive bonuses, I think it's high fucking time there be some sort of tit-for-tat when the government comes to hand you a big check for a specific purpose.
Re: (Score:2)
The problems that this is causing a lot of folks, isn't so much the "strings"....but WHO is adding the strings.
The strings, if they were wanted should be added by congress when they write and pass the bill.
Biden is in the executive branch...and is NOT supposed to have legislative powers. He is trying to add onto laws that were passed by congress and that is not a power th
Re: (Score:3)
Actually the stock buyback rule is in the law:
Limitation on Using Amounts for Stock Buybacks or the Payment of Dividends.--
(1) > In general.--A person receiving amounts appropriated under this section or from a covered fund may not use such amounts, as determined using the criteria for eligible uses of amounts under sections 9902(a)(4) and 9905(a)(4) of the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act
Re: (Score:2)
Why is it that you right-wing nuts never seem to have even a basic understanding of our government?
You could use some remediation: [phe.gov]
The most common types of legal instruments discussed are laws and regulations. Laws are passed by both branches of Congress and signed by the President. Laws establish requirements or prohibitions. Regulations are published by executive branch agencies to clarify their interpretation of a law and how a law will be implemented. Regulations also state requirements or prohibitions.
Re:Why do they say this like it's bad? (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure, they can clarify all day long.
They just cannot make up NEW law....and that's what they are attempting here.
Unless I missed it, the law contained no stipulations regarding child care for example.
They can state requirements or prohibitions BASED on the actual written law....they cannot pull shit they want out of thin air.
Again, look at last SCOTUS session where they slapped down the EPA for overstepping their bounds, and basically creating new law.
These limitations on the executive branch are there for a reason...if the president can actually write law, rather than only enforce it....that leads to dictatorship.
Re: (Score:2)
What do you call someone who doubles-down on their nonsense in light of irrefutable evidence to the contrary? Delusional? Ignorant Troll? Just plain stupid?
Re: (Score:2)
I dunno...you keep doubling down...what do you identify as these days?
Re: (Score:2)
Sigh... You said something stupid because you don't understand even basic civics. You can admit that you were wrong, or you can say nothing and go away. Only in your crazy Fox News world does repeating your nonsense give it credibility.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you even from the US?
Re: (Score:2)
LOL! This is getting pathetic. Read the link I sent, be better informed.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do they say this like they think it's a bad thing. Maybe there should be some strings attached in order to get government funding? Clearly, the policy of just tossing money at multi-billion-dollar corporations for nothing hasn't been doing much for us.
Yes, the government SHOULD be sure they get something of value from corporations in return funding. After all, the business sector always makes damn sure that the money they give to the government, via lobbying and campaign contributions, is well spent.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why do they say this like they think it's a bad thing. Maybe there should be some strings attached in order to get government funding?
The cheerleaders for "Team Red" think it's a bad thing because the people who advocated for it are on "Team Blue."
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is congress writes the laws and conditions for the laws, the administration is responsible for enacting them. These types of strings aren't in the original legislation.
Re: (Score:2)
and so you get lines like that in "news" articles.
We do? Which media are you listening to? I haven't heard a pro-corporate store in years.
I don't give multinational companies money for nothing and neither should my elected representatives. And I want the good stuff, voting shares.
I got an idea we can both get behind: let's not give companies tax money at all. Keep your taxes and buy the shares yourself. Keep me and Washington out of it. Deal? Crony deals like the CHIPS Act are just asking for corruption of both government and corporations.
Well! the money is gone. (Score:3)
Chip makers can use Hollywood accounting (Score:2)
This is how Hollywood ensures actors get no cut of the profits. They create fake expenses to eat up the profits.
Just ask David Prowse and the cast of Gilligan's island.
Offer Money for 3 American Chip Startups, Too (Score:2)
Wait... (Score:1)
Wait, don't they also have to specify correct pronouns and submit d.i.e. statements?
Re: (Score:2)
So kids who only have one parent to raise them of no fault of their own... "fuck em" is the prescription?
Re: (Score:2)
Government welfare that promotes out of wedlock birth and thus generational poverty is the real "fuck em" you are referring to, whether you know it or not.
Do you really think that's what's behind single parent households? Maybe it's a complex set of societal and ecnomic issues that interact in a modern age where both parents have to work, women have more choice about their choice of partner, an ever widening income inequality gap as well as several other factors? No it's just "women are gonna get free money from the government so they pump out babies" which is a naive and silly way to look at an issue.
not willing to hold people accountable for their own actions, like having a child out wedlock.
just say you hate women, takes less words.
If you REALLY want to help single parents, then go do it yourself. Give them your money.
This is the stup
Re: (Score:2)
Just to expound upon the MLK point, he advocated for a UBI whch kinda really helps with the issue, or do you just want to us the man's words only when convienent?
It seems to me that the civil rights movement must now begin to organize for the guaranteed annual income, began to organize people all over our country and mobilize forces so that we can bring to the attention of our nation this need and this something which I believe will go a long, long way toward dealing with the Negro's economic problem and th
Re: (Score:2)
It seems to me that the civil rights movement must now begin to organize for the guaranteed annual income, began to organize people all over our country and mobilize forces so that we can bring to the attention of our nation this need and this something which I believe will go a long, long way toward dealing with the Negro's economic problem and the economic problem with many other poor people confronting our nation.
Giving money to people does not help them. Expecting people to behave honestly and responsibly, does help them. Didn't you parents set any expectations for you?
BTW 70% out of wedlock birth IS the reason for the black communities economic problems. Studies back up the link between the explosive growth in government welfare — begun in the '60s — and the increase of out-of-wedlock births. In 1960, 5% of America's children entered the world without a mother and father married to each other. By 19
Re: (Score:2)
Giving money to people does not help them. Expecting people to behave honestly and responsibly, does help them.
Not only is this wrong (giving money does help people, even on it's face saying it doesn't is kindof silly) but no problem, ever, in all of human history has been solved by just telling broad swathes of people "just make decisions, it's easy!". People make decisions based on the options they have the environment around them. Want them to make better decisions? Change those factors.
You can call it moral cowardice all you want but I am not the one loading every sentence with just dripping disdain and emotio
Fascism (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
Except no one actually knows if Mussolini actually said that:
https://politicalresearch.org/... [politicalresearch.org]
Also most fascist states engaged in broad privitization, including of state owned enterprises:
Fascist privatization policies were driven by a desire to secure the support of wealthy industrialists as well as by the need to increase government revenues in order to balance budgets. Significantly, fascist governments were among the first to undertake large-scale privatizations in modern times. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
If you think Biden is fascist then you do not grasp what the word means. Meanwhile Trump is the closest an American leader has been to Mussolini, who is the definitive fascist.
They can't nail that quote to Mussolini; however, the characterization is correct. I read an expert historian's account having studied the speeches, manifesto and founding of Fascism that it was generally in line with his thinking. The details of corporate power and state power make the statement itself open to interpretation and deb
Is this true ? (Score:2)
we have a report from the NYT saying that the gov't will release regulations requiring child care
but so far, as of 4PM teusday 28th feb, those regs are not public
so we don't actually know if this is true or not
after all companies are incredibly invenntive at getting around so called requirements
and lets say Intel doesn't do what it is is supposed to and then gets fined; big whoop
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
No, Foxoids wouldn't mention anything close to "screws China", but rather just call him a Deep Socialist or the like.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
It's about protecting our supply chains, not punishing China. I don't propose "punishing" China just for the sake of punishing, unless it's a response to specifically identified bad behavior.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, it's time to inject a little reality. China is about 3 generations -- or 20 years -- behind in semiconductors. It's time to turn off Fox. Your fears are completely imaginary.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
government programs to incentivize domestic production always end up wasting a ton of money, and this one will be no different.
Don't assume that graft isn't the unstated goal of these kinds of programs.