Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Senate passes bipartisan bill to subsidize U.S.-made semiconductor chips

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 489 posts

Re: Senate passes bipartisan bill to subsidize U.S.-made semiconductor chips

#271

Post by cowtools »

thfuran wrote: post #185
cowtools wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

banning cryptocurrency is easier said than done.

No, it should be pretty easy to effectively end them. Just make it illegal to possess, buy, or sell them and suddenly all the corporate interest vanishes, the exchanges disappear, and all the crypto bros quiet down. Sure, some people would still use them but it'd be a rounding error compared to current adoption.

>Just make it illegal to possess, buy, or sell them

How do you enforce that? This would just drive everyone to KYC-less exchanges.

>corporate interest vanishes

I welcome the abolishment of corporate investment. This wave of corporate dollars have only served to distract, hijack, and pevert the true purpose of cryptocurrency.

>the exchanges disappear

The exchanges disappear? It seems like it would be pretty simple to set up an exchange as an onion service.

So long as there is a easy route to a single cryptocurrency (be it PoS or otherwise) then there is an easy route to any other cryptocurrency via Crypto-to-Crypto pr P2P exchanges.

>Sure, some people would still use them but it'd be a rounding error compared to current adoption.

Rounding error? I think you'll find that we're actually the majority, despite what the mob of custodial money-chasers would have impressed upon you.

Besides, those investors are bound to leave after they lose enough money on the shell game. It's inevitable.

Re: Senate passes bipartisan bill to subsidize U.S.-made semiconductor chips

#272

Post by qaq »

alldayeveryday wrote: post #82
qaq wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would be a good way?

Nationalization, imo. Nationalize semiconductor manufacturing, such that the profits flow back to the people.

Yep that always works out great

Re: Senate passes bipartisan bill to subsidize U.S.-made semiconductor chips

#273

Post by seandoe »

cft wrote: post #259
tablespoon wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It should be noted that the US decided not to extend the universal free school meals program, because it was "too expensive" at $11B. They also stopped the expanded and early payment of family tax credits, causing a double-whammy hit to poor families (then pile on inflation/food prices, and gas prices). But $50B to large monopolistic companies isn't "too expensive," and we can afford that. That's misleading framing…

Quoted post unavailable.

It was in direct response to the comment. What are you talking about?

Re: Senate passes bipartisan bill to subsidize U.S.-made semiconductor chips

#274

Post by pclmulqdq »

phkahler wrote: post #75
pm90 wrote: post #20

WaPo article, which has more details about the bill and less details about what different “personalities” are saying: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/07/27/senate-ch... . Overall, it looks great. We absolutely need to fund more semiconductor manufacturing. Losing that ability to China/Taiwan was just a terrible strategic mistake. The US hasn’t lost this battle (over semiconductors) just yet. While curren…

>> We absolutely need to fund more semiconductor manufacturing. Losing that ability to China/Taiwan was just a terrible strategic mistake. The correct solution to that is tariffs. That would hurt us short term and should have been done long ago before it would have been a problem. This will add to the debt pile, so it will be with us for a long time.

The debt pile won't notice an extra $50 billion. To make a meaningful dent in it, spending on entitlements needs to get cut or taxes on the middle class need to dramatically increase. Neither of those things are going to happen.

Re: Senate passes bipartisan bill to subsidize U.S.-made semiconductor chips

#275

Post by verdverm »

01100011 wrote: post #16

Such a monumental scam and a gross theft from taxpayers. Companies making billions of dollars in profits don't need free money. I could be onboard with a subsidized loan, but handouts are not needed. FWIW, I work at a company that stands to benefit from this bill. Does the US need to secure reliable semiconductor supply chains free of China? Sure. This is not the most cost effective way to do it.

We don't need the most cost effective way, something that costs a bit more and will make it happen (faster) is preferable

Re: Senate passes bipartisan bill to subsidize U.S.-made semiconductor chips

#276

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 »

memonkey wrote: post #262
tablespoon wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It should be noted that the US decided not to extend the universal free school meals program, because it was "too expensive" at $11B. They also stopped the expanded and early payment of family tax credits, causing a double-whammy hit to poor families (then pile on inflation/food prices, and gas prices). But $50B to large monopolistic companies isn't "too expensive," and we can afford that. That's misleading framing…

Ah, yes, the ol' write your congresspeople. Part of the problem is that for years they are running on these platforms saying they will help the people but end up not doing any of the things they say they are going to do.

Democracy doesn't mean everyone gets what they want. You are not the only constituent with a voice.

Re: Senate passes bipartisan bill to subsidize U.S.-made semiconductor chips

#277

Post by jprd »

mathattack wrote: post #191
djur wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A substantial number of those 52 senators oppose free school meals not because they're "too expensive" but because the policy itself (the government giving free food to children) is something they object to on ideological grounds. A much smaller subset of that group also oppose the government giving free stuff to industry, but in either case the cost is not what they're concerned about.

I’m all for healthy free lunches for poor kids. Is it really necessary to give free meals to all Palo Alto kids independent of financial status? https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2022/06/19/palo-alto-uni...

Yes!

Why would a human being feel that feeding children is NOT their responsibility?

Clearly you have never had to be the "free lunch kid", or idealize your childhood independent of the cruelty of "different". You are extremely privileged.

The idea that we'd limit what kids we fund for meals, education, etc. is just gross and bifurcates any moralistic or democratic ideals.

The US has a serious problem with "bootstraps" and whatnot. Which really means, survival of the sh1tt1est.

If you feel that investing in the future of your community is BS, stop living in a community.

You don't have kids? Cool!

Meanwhile, you don't feel like you need to contribute to the future you wish you had secured for yourself without struggle? F*ck you. Your community is an investment in the continued existence of a people with similar DNA as yourself.

It is beyond my understanding to fathom how in 2022 we're all still trying to deal with false scarcity as some sort of reality.

There is MORE than enough for everyone, but we don't really care about that beyond a family or clan directive. That's a shame for any culture.

Re: Senate passes bipartisan bill to subsidize U.S.-made semiconductor chips

#278

Post by ejb999 »

kergonath wrote: post #236
mathattack wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m all for healthy free lunches for poor kids. Is it really necessary to give free meals to all Palo Alto kids independent of financial status? https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2022/06/19/palo-alto-uni...

It is not necessarily a problem with progressive income taxes: the wealthier still pay more. Also, giving every kid the same treatment is a good idea in general as it reinforces the idea that they should be treated equally.

>>Also, giving every kid the same treatment is a good idea in general as it reinforces the idea that they should be treated equally.

Actually what it does is teach kids they should depend on the government for handouts - even if there families can easily afford to pay their own way. Not a message I would choose to send.

Re: Senate passes bipartisan bill to subsidize U.S.-made semiconductor chips

#279

Post by jpdaigle »

mathattack wrote: post #191
djur wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A substantial number of those 52 senators oppose free school meals not because they're "too expensive" but because the policy itself (the government giving free food to children) is something they object to on ideological grounds. A much smaller subset of that group also oppose the government giving free stuff to industry, but in either case the cost is not what they're concerned about.

I’m all for healthy free lunches for poor kids. Is it really necessary to give free meals to all Palo Alto kids independent of financial status? https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2022/06/19/palo-alto-uni...

The Palo Alto school meals are by no means healthy. At least at my kindergartner’s school last year, nothing’s really prepared onsite, it’s mostly microwave-in-a-bag fast food (factory made burritos, pizza, 2-ingredient sandwiches). Often this would come with a side of fruit (canned and sweetened) and crackers.

My kid would always bring a lunch from home but often return with it uneaten, because when you pit healthy home cooked food against microwaved pizza and crackers, for a six year old, it’s no contest.

I’m still supportive of the program - if there are starving kids in our community, of course having free options is great, I just wish they’d managed to have a cook onsite so it wouldn’t be so factory-made and artificial.

Re: Senate passes bipartisan bill to subsidize U.S.-made semiconductor chips

#280

Post by Clubber »

galangalalgol wrote: post #249
Clubber wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>In 2013, Senator Harry Reid did it for federal judges (and not supreme court judges). Yes, it was an extremely aggressive and short sighted thing for him to do. Most people don't know this story though, so it seems the Democratic Party gets a pass. Here's McConnell lambasting Reid about it in 2013. https://www.c-span.org/video/?316395-12/minority-leader-mcco... >It appears to have led to an era of unprecedented judi…

But there is likewise nothing preventing court packing right now except the concern of some democrats right? They could assign 8 more, then next time there is a swap the gop would add 16 etc. You have to go exponential by nature of the vote to account for deaths. So in as little as 116 years the whole population might be on the bench! I don't like that the macro level policy of our nation is getting decided based on…

>But there is likewise nothing preventing court packing right now except the concern of some democrats right?

Right. FDR threatened this during his administration and bullied the SCOTUS into deciding his way. He was quite Machiavellian. For me, doing something like this would neuter one of the tiers of the check and balance system.

https://www.history.com/news/franklin-roosevelt-tried-packin...

>I'm not a historian, but it seems like the filibuster was already a hack around intended operation of the legislature.

Yes, but it's procedure that the senate had agreed on for quite some time. There's nothing in the constitution that says how many votes are needed to pass, the senate decides that, and for most things, it's 60.

>require 60 votes on absolutely everything.

Depends on how you look at it. Do you want a political party to make laws of the land with only 25+ states supporting it? It sounds good when it's something you support, but doesn't sound great when it isn't. The idea of the 60 vote rule is the federal government can't enact legislation that a supermajority of the country isn't in favor of. Regardless of your party affiliation, you can imagine what horrible legislation would be passed if the opposing party was allowed to pass anything with just 50+1 votes in the senate.

Post reply on HN