4 ms·
> It's not "aid" I don't see that claim supported by the text: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-semiconductors/u-s-lawmakers-propose-22-8-billion-in-aid
by acqq 6y ago
> It's not "aid"
I don't see that claim supported by the text:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-semiconductors/u-s-lawmakers-propose-22-8-billion-in-aid-to-semiconductor-industry-idUSKBN23H39M https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-semiconductors/u-s-la...
"A bipartisan group of U.S. lawmakers on Wednesday introduced a bill to provide more than $22.8 billion in aid for semiconductor manufacturers, aiming to spur the construction of chip factories in America"
Do you have some quote to support your claim?
- tharne 6y agoIt's a bad choice of words on the part of the journalist, but that's journalists for you. "Aid" implies an economic motive, whereas here the motive is very clearly national security. We don't give "aid" to the Marines or the Air Force. We spend public dollars on things are are important to national defense and security. Semiconductors fall into that category.
- acqq 6y ago> whereas here the motive is very clearly national security. It doesn't look as such. As far as I see it's mostly additional tax breaks for the companies that would anyway be awarded taxpayer's money through the defense contracts, and the "security" is a magical excuse for that. The contracts could already have the desired conditions, but this is a way to avoid showing the real cost of them.