6 ms·

Republicans are upset that Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (a Democrat) recently stripped provisions from the bill that would prevent its stimulus dollars

Republicans are upset that Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (a Democrat) recently stripped provisions from the bill that would prevent its stimulus dollars from flowing towards China: https://freebeacon.com/national-security/schumer-stripped-security-measure-from-china-bill-republicans-are-furious/ https://freebeacon.com/national-security/schumer-stripped-se... Only conservative outlets are reporting this, and they’re not completely reliable. Then again, sometimes they scoop major stories. I don’t know whether this one’s real or overblown. Maybe someone with more info can fill in here.

ThaDood 4y ago
Asking because I would genuinely love to know. But how could they enforce a provision like that in the current globalized economy? China for good and bad is basically the worlds factory and even if a product is made in the US, chances are some of its components or raw materials came from China, so essentially to my untrained perspective seems impossible.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > how could they enforce a provision like that in the current globalized economy? The point of this bill is to begin deconstructing this aspect of the globalized economy.
  - ThaDood 4y ago
    I understand that is the intent, but again, seems unfeasible and more then likely, impossible. So again - how does one enforce this?
    - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
      > how does one enforce this? You’re asking how the U.S. government is supposed to enforce its contracts?
skavi 4y ago
Seems a provision like that would make each dollar less effective. Also seems it push the bill from being focused on tech R&D and to more of a general economic stimulus. I may be misunderstanding. The only research I’ve done on this is to read the article you linked.
- hickvision 4y ago
  >Seems a provision like that would make each dollar less effective. The same thing could be said of sanctions on Russian oil. Sometimes it has to be about more than pure economics, even as we try to craft rational economic policy.
light_hue_1 4y ago
I don't see anything in the old act like that. https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/s3933/BILLS-116s3933is.pdf https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/s3933/BILLS-116s3933is.pd... And the new act contains way more anti-China language and provisions than the old act. https://www.commerce.senate.gov/services/files/CFC99CC6-CE84-4B1A-8BBF-8D2E84BD7965 https://www.commerce.senate.gov/services/files/CFC99CC6-CE84... The problem is, these right-wing "news" sites never cite their sources. They could easily have linked to a version of the bill saying "they removed lines 40-44" and that's the problem. But they don't. Because it's not about news, it's about fake outrage.
- keneda7 4y ago
  Here are a couple links to a source for you. It is the second of the three amendments purposed in the first link. You can click on the amendment to see the actual text of it. The second link should link you to the video of Rubio in session talking about how the amendment was killed. Rubio's site is the first google result for "democrats block amendment to keep china from receiving chips funds". https://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=5712EBB1-680F-4144-BA13-C91A036905FF https://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases... https://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=81741F0B-454A-466A-81F5-AA3ED98F8A08 https://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases...
  - light_hue_1 4y ago
    This is not at all what those right wing "news" articles are talking about. For one thing, this is Rubio. Wrong senator. Another thing, did you read his amendment? This is again, nonsense posturing by people disinterested in the truth. Read his amendment vs the original. The original literally says the Secretary of Defense decides what legacy semiconductors are which aren't protected by the act. His amendment makes congress play a role in that decision in addition to the Secretary. That's it. It adds no meaningful protections. Unless you think the Secretary of Defense is a Chinese spy.
LordDragonfang 4y ago
>they’re not completely reliable. Indeed. Caveat emptor. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/washington-free-beacon/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/washington-free-beacon/
- gameman144 4y ago
  The upshot of biased news sources is that they are extremely strongly motivated to find any stories that corroborate their world view. Nine times out of ten that leads to reductive propagandist journalism, but every once in a while they stumble upon something that mainstream outlets hadn't bothered to look that deep for. For instance, I'd not expect a far left outlet to look into misdeeds of Bernie Sanders, and I'd not expect a far right outlet to look into misconduct by Trump. As long as you call a spade a spade and don't pretend things are objective in their presentation, there can be a lot to gain from even super skewed journalism.
  - KerrAvon 4y ago
    That's not how it works in practice, though. Right-wing sources are known to simply make stuff up to fit their worldview. Your example is problematic, because the left is willing to hold its leaders accountable and the right simply isn't. If Bernie is discovered to have ever harassed a woman, he'd have to resign in disgrace. With that background, you have to start with the assumption that the right wing site is making things up and find a reliable source that isn't itself sourcing only from the right wing media universe, as the mainstream media is sometimes known to do.
    - boppo1 4y ago
      > left is willing to hold its leaders accountable Horseshit. Pelosi is insider trading like her life depends on it. The leaders on the left generally don’t seem as dangerous to me, but your statement is hilariously false.
    - deepdriver 4y ago
      Predators and power politics know no party. I guess I'm old, but I still remember: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_sexual_assault_and_misconduct_allegations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_sexual_assault_an... And this headline from 2015: https://observer.com/2015/03/the-jeffrey-epstein-affair-imperils-hillary-clintons-presidential-prospects/ https://observer.com/2015/03/the-jeffrey-epstein-affair-impe... In fact the Clinton-Epstein relationship didn't "imperil Hillary Clinton's Presidential prospects" at all, because none of the major networks reported on it. An ABC reporter had the full story including the Clinton connection as early as 2015, but was told to quash it: https://thehill.com/homenews/media/469042-abcs-robach-caught-on-hot-mic-claiming-network-killed-epstein-story-3-years/ https://thehill.com/homenews/media/469042-abcs-robach-caught... When Biden leaves office I'm sure we'll be allowed hear more about him, just as it's now become OK to discuss Clinton and Epstein on the mainstream left.
JumpCrisscross 4y ago
What's the language that was allegedly removed?

ThaDood 4y ago

Asking because I would genuinely love to know. But how could they enforce a provision like that in the current globalized economy? China for good and bad is basically the worlds factory and even if a product is made in the US, chances are some of its components or raw materials came from China, so essentially to my untrained perspective seems impossible.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> how could they enforce a provision like that in the current globalized economy? The point of this bill is to begin deconstructing this aspect of the globalized economy.
- ThaDood 4y ago
  I understand that is the intent, but again, seems unfeasible and more then likely, impossible. So again - how does one enforce this?
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > how does one enforce this? You’re asking how the U.S. government is supposed to enforce its contracts?

skavi 4y ago

Seems a provision like that would make each dollar less effective. Also seems it push the bill from being focused on tech R&D and to more of a general economic stimulus. I may be misunderstanding. The only research I’ve done on this is to read the article you linked.

hickvision 4y ago
>Seems a provision like that would make each dollar less effective. The same thing could be said of sanctions on Russian oil. Sometimes it has to be about more than pure economics, even as we try to craft rational economic policy.

light_hue_1 4y ago

I don't see anything in the old act like that. https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/s3933/BILLS-116s3933is.pdf https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/s3933/BILLS-116s3933is.pd... And the new act contains way more anti-China language and provisions than the old act. https://www.commerce.senate.gov/services/files/CFC99CC6-CE84-4B1A-8BBF-8D2E84BD7965 https://www.commerce.senate.gov/services/files/CFC99CC6-CE84... The problem is, these right-wing "news" sites never cite their sources. They could easily have linked to a version of the bill saying "they removed lines 40-44" and that's the problem. But they don't. Because it's not about news, it's about fake outrage.

keneda7 4y ago
Here are a couple links to a source for you. It is the second of the three amendments purposed in the first link. You can click on the amendment to see the actual text of it. The second link should link you to the video of Rubio in session talking about how the amendment was killed. Rubio's site is the first google result for "democrats block amendment to keep china from receiving chips funds". https://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=5712EBB1-680F-4144-BA13-C91A036905FF https://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases... https://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=81741F0B-454A-466A-81F5-AA3ED98F8A08 https://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases...
- light_hue_1 4y ago
  This is not at all what those right wing "news" articles are talking about. For one thing, this is Rubio. Wrong senator. Another thing, did you read his amendment? This is again, nonsense posturing by people disinterested in the truth. Read his amendment vs the original. The original literally says the Secretary of Defense decides what legacy semiconductors are which aren't protected by the act. His amendment makes congress play a role in that decision in addition to the Secretary. That's it. It adds no meaningful protections. Unless you think the Secretary of Defense is a Chinese spy.

LordDragonfang 4y ago

>they’re not completely reliable. Indeed. Caveat emptor. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/washington-free-beacon/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/washington-free-beacon/

gameman144 4y ago
The upshot of biased news sources is that they are extremely strongly motivated to find any stories that corroborate their world view. Nine times out of ten that leads to reductive propagandist journalism, but every once in a while they stumble upon something that mainstream outlets hadn't bothered to look that deep for. For instance, I'd not expect a far left outlet to look into misdeeds of Bernie Sanders, and I'd not expect a far right outlet to look into misconduct by Trump. As long as you call a spade a spade and don't pretend things are objective in their presentation, there can be a lot to gain from even super skewed journalism.
- KerrAvon 4y ago
  That's not how it works in practice, though. Right-wing sources are known to simply make stuff up to fit their worldview. Your example is problematic, because the left is willing to hold its leaders accountable and the right simply isn't. If Bernie is discovered to have ever harassed a woman, he'd have to resign in disgrace. With that background, you have to start with the assumption that the right wing site is making things up and find a reliable source that isn't itself sourcing only from the right wing media universe, as the mainstream media is sometimes known to do.
  - boppo1 4y ago
    > left is willing to hold its leaders accountable Horseshit. Pelosi is insider trading like her life depends on it. The leaders on the left generally don’t seem as dangerous to me, but your statement is hilariously false.
  - deepdriver 4y ago
    Predators and power politics know no party. I guess I'm old, but I still remember: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_sexual_assault_and_misconduct_allegations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_sexual_assault_an... And this headline from 2015: https://observer.com/2015/03/the-jeffrey-epstein-affair-imperils-hillary-clintons-presidential-prospects/ https://observer.com/2015/03/the-jeffrey-epstein-affair-impe... In fact the Clinton-Epstein relationship didn't "imperil Hillary Clinton's Presidential prospects" at all, because none of the major networks reported on it. An ABC reporter had the full story including the Clinton connection as early as 2015, but was told to quash it: https://thehill.com/homenews/media/469042-abcs-robach-caught-on-hot-mic-claiming-network-killed-epstein-story-3-years/ https://thehill.com/homenews/media/469042-abcs-robach-caught... When Biden leaves office I'm sure we'll be allowed hear more about him, just as it's now become OK to discuss Clinton and Epstein on the mainstream left.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago

What's the language that was allegedly removed?