Trump Imitates Chinese Communist Party

[Oddball]

Oddball - you still shilling for Trump? I thought maybe you'd finally had enough.

Nope...Never was...When he's right, I'm good with it, when he's wrong -like this instance- I'm against it.

So go hand out some rigged choice voting agitprop.

 

[dblack]

Nope...Never was...When he's right, I'm good with it, when he's wrong -like this instance- I'm against it.

Then why are you trying to shout down the thread??

 

[Oddball]

Then why are you trying to shout down the thread??

Because there already at least four others....DUUIUUUUUUH!

 

[dblack]

Because there already at least four others....DUUIUUUUUUH!

Aspiring mod?

 

[kyzr]

Trump is a prime example of that merger.

Explain your typing.
Subsidies have been happening for decades.
Its even been called "corporate welfare".
Trump is seeing that taxpayers get value (stock) for their tax dollars.

 

[BackAgain]

Nope...Never was...When he's right, I'm good with it, when he's wrong -like this instance- I'm against it.

So go hand out some rigged choice voting agitprop.

Yep. I have said earlier today that I’m not sure the President is right about acquiring a stake in a public company. However, I’m also not sure he’s clearly wrong. It seems to me that it does have an aspect of socialist governance to it, imho.

But here’s the thing, along the lines of the point you just made. It is still perfectly ok to decide for ourselves which actions by this or any other President we deem correct and which ones we deem wrong or something in between.

Shallow minded “thinkers” like Db can’t handle the nuance.

And it’s not “shouting down” any thread to note that there are already other threads discussing the same topic. Frankly, that does get pretty tiresome.

 

[BackAgain]

Aspiring mod?

No. It was a perfectly valid point which his meme clearly made.

 

[Oddball]

Yep. I have said earlier today that I’m not sure the President is right about acquiring a stake in a public company. However, I’m also not sure he’s clearly wrong. It seems to me that it does have an aspect of socialist governance to it, imho.

But here’s the thing, along the lines of the point you just made. It is still perfectly ok to decide for ourselves which actions by this or any other President we deem correct and which ones we deem wrong or something in between.

Shallow minded “thinkers” like Db can’t handle the nuance.

And it’s not “shouting down” any thread to note that there are already other threads discussing the same topic. Frankly, that does get pretty tiresome.

For the record: I hate it.

But you already knew that.

 

[BackAgain]

For the record: I hate it.

But you already knew that.

Indeed. And you have your reasons. And your reasons aren’t trite or lacking in merit (at least not entirely).

The reason you came to your conclusion is clear. You have an actual political philosophy which you adhere to with determination. It guides your decision making on this and on most other issues.

As you and I have noted in the past, I don’t expect or require anybody to agree with me. And I appreciate that you have shown a willingness to accept the views of others without any need to agree with them.

I find that most (thankfully not all) of the “liberals” or “progressives” here aren’t nearly as open minded.

 

[Oddball]

The reason you came to your conclusion is clear. You have an actual political philosophy which you adhere to with determination. It guides your decision making on this and on most other issues.

Actually, I used to be a free trade absolutist, which you also already knew.

But I saw the results, noted that they were shit, and have changed my POV because of the new information.

 

[BackAgain]

Actually, I used to be a free trade absolutist, which you also already knew.

But I saw the results, noted that they were shit, and have changed my POV because of the new information.

Holy crap! Imagine that. A person is allowed to take in information from observation and can then change his mind accordingly.

Some would condemn you. But they shouldn’t.

 

[Winston]

Giving taxpayer money to corporations as "subsidies" is fascism, not communism.
Subsidies have been given out for decades, its not new.
What Trump is saying is, instead of gifting taxpayer subsidies, we want stock in the companies we are giving the subsidy to.
That is capitalism. Money for nothing is fascism. Investing in companies is capitalism. See the difference?

Which U.S. Companies Receive the Most Government Subsidies?

Government subsidies are nearing tens of billions for some companies. Here’s the ones which got the most taxpayer support.

www.visualcapitalist.com

View attachment 1154258

Wow, I mean just wow. The absolute ignorance here is astounding. Where are the fossil fuel subsidies? I mean you guys can rationalize anything. I take this from the linked article in the OP.

Under the deal announced last week, the government is set to give Intel $8.9 billion — the remainder of the amount that was earmarked for the U.S. chipmaker as part of the bipartisan CHIPS Act, which President Joseph R. Biden Jr. signed into law.

The Biden administration had conditioned the rest of that cash on a series of milestones to try to ensure that Intel produced chips domestically in return for taxpayer money. But the Trump administration has done away with those protections, dispensing the funds immediately in return for the equity stake.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/25/us/politics/trump-intel-economy-strategy.html#:~:text=Under%20the%20deal,the%20equity%20stake.

I mean can we think about this for a moment. MAGA Republicans were against the CHIP act. And when Trump came into office he started calling for its permanent repel. But then, well he figured he could just tap the money. Not sure how that is constitutional, I don't think anyone really is. Changing funding already approved by Congress. But Trump does it, over and over again. I mean it isn't like it is a slippery slope, Trump just wholeheartedly jumped off the damn cliff.

Look, I agree, we should not be dependent on foreign nations for our computer chips. Hell, they are in everything. And I got to say, to have, say Taiwan, making our AI chips, that is a little worrisome. And what about jobs, what about Trump's promise to bring back American manufacturing? Under the CHIPS act Intel had to achieve certain bench marks in order to get the money. Bring production back to the US. Create jobs for US citizens. Both promises Trump made on the campaign trail.

Now, well Intel gets all the money, up front. Do they have to move production back to the US, NOPE. Do they have to create domestic jobs, NOPE. Do they have to do anything, NOPE. I mean look, Trump done threw working Americans under the bus the day he won the election. How many damn times does he have to back-up, run over you, and then run over you again, before you wake the **** up?

I, for one, don't want my tax money being used for the government to hold an equity position in ANY ******* COMPANY. And damn, I am pretty loose with the government's tax revenue. How in the hell anyone could call themselves "conservative" and support this is mind numbing. Again, from the article,

Administration officials have implied that they could use their equity stake to help the company, for example by potentially leaning on other technology firms to become Intel customers and help power the business.

Who the **** are these "officials"? Do they not know that Intel paid one of the largest fines ever imposed under the Sherman Anti-trust act for doing just what they saying, leaning on other technology firms to become Intel customers. That under that settlement they are precluded from doing just that? I mean damn what a clown show this administration is.

And perhaps the biggest thing, you don't bet on monopolistic firms to be innovative. You just don't, it ain't going to happen. It is a stupid investment.

 

[theHawk]

Three days after the United States agreed to acquire a stake in the chipmaker Intel, President Trump signaled on Monday that he would pursue similar investments in other major companies, describing his new economic strategy as an attempt to “get as much as I can.”

Mr. Trump’s pledge underscored a significant and potentially risky shift in the relationship between government and private enterprise. With a particular focus on powerful computer chips, the White House expressed new fervor for nationalizing certain industries and technologies, in ways that conservatives once may have found unfathomable.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/25/us/politics/trump-intel-economy-strategy.html

There really is a paradigm shift occurring here. MAGAs are going far to the left of most democrats on government interference in private business. MAGA like their hat, is going full red. Seems to me Trump is mimicking the Xi model of economic development. Trump is on the march to start nationalizing private enterprise or having the government heavily involved in private business affairs. Can you imagine what the right would be saying if this were Obama or Biden???

Well going socialist is the best way to become a dictator.

This is Project 2025. By the next election he will be made King.

Is that your theory?

 

[EMH]

This is a terrible idea.

It will spawn all sorts of conspiracy theories that Intel gets preferential treatment.

 

[kyzr]

Wow, I mean just wow. The absolute ignorance here is astounding. Where are the fossil fuel subsidies? I mean you guys can rationalize anything. I take this from the linked article in the OP.

Under the deal announced last week, the government is set to give Intel $8.9 billion — the remainder of the amount that was earmarked for the U.S. chipmaker as part of the bipartisan CHIPS Act, which President Joseph R. Biden Jr. signed into law.

The Biden administration had conditioned the rest of that cash on a series of milestones to try to ensure that Intel produced chips domestically in return for taxpayer money. But the Trump administration has done away with those protections, dispensing the funds immediately in return for the equity stake.

I mean can we think about this for a moment. MAGA Republicans were against the CHIP act. And when Trump came into office he started calling for its permanent repel. But then, well he figured he could just tap the money. Not sure how that is constitutional, I don't think anyone really is. Changing funding already approved by Congress. But Trump does it, over and over again. I mean it isn't like it is a slippery slope, Trump just wholeheartedly jumped off the damn cliff.

Look, I agree, we should not be dependent on foreign nations for our computer chips. Hell, they are in everything. And I got to say, to have, say Taiwan, making our AI chips, that is a little worrisome. And what about jobs, what about Trump's promise to bring back American manufacturing? Under the CHIPS act Intel had to achieve certain bench marks in order to get the money. Bring production back to the US. Create jobs for US citizens. Both promises Trump made on the campaign trail.

Now, well Intel gets all the money, up front. Do they have to move production back to the US, NOPE. Do they have to create domestic jobs, NOPE. Do they have to do anything, NOPE. I mean look, Trump done threw working Americans under the bus the day he won the election. How many damn times does he have to back-up, run over you, and then run over you again, before you wake the **** up?

I, for one, don't want my tax money being used for the government to hold an equity position in ANY ******* COMPANY. And damn, I am pretty loose with the government's tax revenue. How in the hell anyone could call themselves "conservative" and support this is mind numbing. Again, from the article,

Administration officials have implied that they could use their equity stake to help the company, for example by potentially leaning on other technology firms to become Intel customers and help power the business.

Who the **** are these "officials"? Do they not know that Intel paid one of the largest fines ever imposed under the Sherman Anti-trust act for doing just what they saying, leaning on other technology firms to become Intel customers. That under that settlement they are precluded from doing just that? I mean damn what a clown show this administration is.

And perhaps the biggest thing, you don't bet on monopolistic firms to be innovative. You just don't, it ain't going to happen. It is a stupid investment.

1. If you revisit my post #8 and read the $8.4b subsidies Intel has already received, and the additional $7.9b they will receive under the CHIIPS Act, you should notice that $16.3b totals to the largest subsidy, even more than Boeing.

2. Your "argument" is that "I, for one, don't want my tax money being used for the government to hold an equity position in ANY ******* COMPANY."
I do want my tax dollars invested as opposed to be given out as corporate welfare TO ANY ******* COMPANY.
We already have a $37T National Debt. We cannot justify doling out cash like Santa Claus. Buying stock is an investment, not throwing cash down a rat hole, picking winners and losers. AMD is not getting subsidies, why not? AMD makes the same type of CPUs that Intel makes. So why not also invest in AMD, the better company? I agree Intel has an innovation problem, so why is AMD better, but Intel gets the taxpayer cash?

Intel vs AMD: Which CPUs Are Better in 2025?

We put Intel vs AMD in a battle of processor prowess.

www.tomshardware.com

 

[Winston]

1. If you revisit my post #8 and read the $8.4b subsidies Intel has already received, and the additional $7.9b they will receive under the CHIIPS Act, you should notice that $16.3b totals to the largest subsidy, even more than Boeing.

2. Your "argument" is that "I, for one, don't want my tax money being used for the government to hold an equity position in ANY ******* COMPANY."
I do want my tax dollars invested as opposed to be given out as corporate welfare TO ANY ******* COMPANY.
We already have a $37T National Debt. We cannot justify doling out cash like Santa Claus. Buying stock is an investment, not throwing cash down a rat hole, picking winners and losers. AMD is not getting subsidies, why not? AMD makes the same type of CPUs that Intel makes. So why not also invest in AMD, the better company? I agree Intel has an innovation problem, so why is AMD better, but Intel gets the taxpayer cash?

Intel vs AMD: Which CPUs Are Better in 2025?

We put Intel vs AMD in a battle of processor prowess.

www.tomshardware.com

Well my first question is, why do you not have a problem with fossil fuel subsidies?

But second, as you can see from my previous post, Biden's subsidies to Intel came with benchmarks that had to be met. Just buying an equity position, with no benchmarks, no requirements, that is nothing less than gambling.

 

[candycorn]

The Intel stake has no government influence. No board seat, no influence period. It’s just getting stock for the subsidy. Instead of getting nothing.

If you happen to work for a competitor…do you really feel that you get a fair shake in government contracts if the govt owns the competition? You sad little man.

Not sure if you are opposed to all subsidies, or getting stock for the subsidies? Since this thread is about the stake in Intel and if that could lead to socialism, I tend to say no. I want to stress that ALL subsidies need to be given only if justified. But if that subsidy is given, I want stock for the investment to protect taxpayers.

Subsidies for developing technologies is just smart. Government ownership is inviting disaster.

 

[dblack]

There is a reason I call MAGA, Red MAGA. Trump is emulating China and their state capitalism. This a wake up call where trump is taking us.

You'll need an industrial strength klaxon to wake up these bozos.

 

[dblack]

Subsidies for developing technologies is just smart. Government ownership is inviting disaster.

Both are abuses of government power.

 

[candycorn]

If you happen to work for a competitor…do you really feel that you get a fair shake in government contracts if the govt owns the competition? You sad little man.

Subsidies for developing technologies is just smart. Government ownership is inviting disaster.

I also left out, subsidies to support organizations that serve the public good are welcomed (or should be) by all thinking Americans.