this post was submitted on 20 Aug 2025
63 points (97.0% liked)

politics

25308 readers
2689 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
all 16 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Turret3857@infosec.pub 5 points 1 hour ago

if this was biden fox would be running 24/7 coverage about this communistic act

[–] xyzzy@lemmy.today 25 points 7 hours ago

I'm against the government cutting a check to a corporation without extracting a direct, concrete benefit to the American taxpayer. So I'm in favor of this.

[–] ScoffingLizard@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 4 hours ago

Dont be fooled. This federal asset will end up as a billionaire asset. Id take the win but I know better.

[–] Hegar@fedia.io 15 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

According to Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, the plan would see the US disbursing approved CHIPS Act grants only after acquiring non-voting shares of Intel and likely other chipmakers. That would allow the US to profit off its investment in chipmakers, Lutnick suggested, and Sanders told Reuters that he agreed American taxpayers could benefit from the potential deals.

"If microchip companies make a profit from the generous grants they receive from the federal government, the taxpayers of America have a right to a reasonable return on that investment," Sanders said.

The plan is that instead of just giving Intel the public's money with no strings, the public would get something in return. I have to admit that doesn't sound awful to me.

[–] Gamoc@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago

Yes. Of course. Because that's what will happen, that money will go into improving services for the public rather than being funnelled into a rich pricks pockets. Totally what will happen, no reason to doubt that whatsoever.

[–] N0t_5ure@lemmy.world 27 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power."

— Benito Mussolini

[–] wheezy@lemmy.ml 2 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

Fascism is Imperialism turned inwards.

Fascism is capitalism in decline.

Both of these quotes get attributed to Lenin but I think only the second is.

They are essentially equivalent though. Imperialism is a requirement of capitalism and the methods capitalist use to oppress the third world get turned inward on the imperial core. You will see ICE use the same methods the IDF has used in the west bank and Gaza. These were training grounds for Fascist oppression and specifically in methods of crowd control.

[–] danc4498@lemmy.world 10 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

I wonder what this would mean for competition. Would US adopt rules that are beneficial to Intel to increase their share price?

[–] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago)

How it may happen: Nvidia and AMD get restrictions on selling to China (already happening, but discussed more in the past weeks before this announcement) and can't sell their best. Intel may be allowed to sell their newest tech to get a competitive edge which will even the playing field, or Nvidia and AMD can be told if they want an even playing field they must sell portions of their company to the U.S. government as well.

Want to sell the newest tech, throw in a couple board seats.

[–] crusa187@lemmy.ml 6 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

What in the ever living fuck happened to “the free market”?!?!

Don’t innovate and sell faulty chips which ignite in people’s PCs? Should go out of business. This bail out nonsense is so stupid. Always privatize the gains and socialize the losses in good ol USA.

[–] SkyezOpen@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago

Well this isn't exactly a bailout per se. The government will own a chunk of Intel, which is pretty much the beginning of what should happen if something is "too big to fail" and needs a bailout: nationalization.

Now, who the hell knows if this will end up being a good use of tax dollars, but at the very least it's not a free bailout for fucking billionaires whose milking of the system crashed it.

[–] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world 5 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago)

I can see where this may help open the door / set precedent for the country to buy out or into companies long term.. but when Intel declared they are basically dead in the water because their tech was at least 5 years behind on research now and in the last 5 years their stock as essentially halved, who can say what it will do other than cushion Intels fall.