3 ms·

> Now, the taxpayer has to pay Intel $8.5B to bring back manufacturing capacity to the U.S The tax payer had nothing to do with it. This is yet another example

> Now, the taxpayer has to pay Intel $8.5B to bring back manufacturing capacity to the U.S The tax payer had nothing to do with it. This is yet another example of the government taking our money (or borrowing our future money) and spending it in ways that we never agreed to and had no input on.

ethbr1 3y ago
> in ways that we never agreed to and had no input on. You don't vote in local, congressional, and presidential elections?
- mcbuilder 3y ago
  If this is Biden's initiative, then the alternative is Trump? I'm sure there could be a technocratic rational non-idealogical third party that would get a bunch of HN voters but does any viable third party actually exist? Fixing our education system is a lot bigger problem then we've ever been able to tackle as a country by popular initiatives.
  - _heimdall 3y ago
    The fact that Trump and Biden are the two candidates we've been offered is a sign of a much more fundamental, and disappointing, problem. I don't think anyone would agree that those two are the best candidates this country has to offer, and most people I've talked to about the election feel stuck picking between which one is less bad.
- _heimdall 3y ago
  Find me a candidate that had any input on this Intel investment that campaigned on giving billions to Intel to onshore chip manufacturing. Maybe they do exist, but I don't remember it coming up. Also to clarify, local elections wouldn't have helped here. Congressional and presidential elections are a different beast, The Machine (reference to the University of Alabama) heavily influences elections and elected officials. I do vote, but I have little faith that such a massive and heavily funded political system allows my vote to count for more than winning a seat. I've been regularly disappointed by those I've voted for when they inevitably ignore or break promises they campaigned on and make decisions that often fly in the face of the very principles they originally claimed to stand for.
moate 3y ago
You sound like you’re agreeing with the statement. What is your syntactic point here? That the taxpayer has nothing to do with the decision making is irrelevant the point you responded to. They still pay for it.
- _heimdall 3y ago
  Technically we haven't paid for new spending in tax dollars since Clinton was in the White House, its hard to say taxes pay for something when its paid for with debt. That said, my point was that the tax payer isn't really paying for it when the tax payer has no say in what is being paid for. If the taxes are collected either under false pretense, or no pretense at all, for what the money will be spent on then the citizen is only responsible for paying the tax bill. The money is the government's at that point, and responsibility for how it is spent at that point stops at their desks. If the tax payer were truly the one paying for this, we would at minimum have a voice in the program. At best, the government would propose the plan and leave it up to the tax payers to fund it in almost a kick starter type of approach. A simple vote would make more sense IMO, but if we are to pay for it with tax dollars and the government refuses to run a surplus, tax payers (should) have to kick in more money to pay for it.
  - gen220 3y ago
    Acknowledging the complexity inherent in how the U.S. gov't finances initiatives. However, eventually, the buck stops at the taxpayer. Yes, the federal gov't issues bonds to finance their activities (i.e. deficit spending), but the creditworthiness of the U.S. is intrinsically supported by the federal government's capacity to collect taxes from its citizens. Eventually, "we the people" foots the bill. It might be amortized over decades and deferred more years still, but it's still a debit to "we the people" of $8.5B in the ledger.
    - _heimdall 3y ago
      I'm honestly not sure if that is the case anymore. With a purely fiat system we really can't afford to pay off the debt, doing so would remove money from the money supply and could lead to an economic contraction. I'm no sure what would happen economically if we paid off federal debt in any meaningful amount. I'd be really curious if you have any insights into what that would look like.

ethbr1 3y ago

> in ways that we never agreed to and had no input on. You don't vote in local, congressional, and presidential elections?

mcbuilder 3y ago
If this is Biden's initiative, then the alternative is Trump? I'm sure there could be a technocratic rational non-idealogical third party that would get a bunch of HN voters but does any viable third party actually exist? Fixing our education system is a lot bigger problem then we've ever been able to tackle as a country by popular initiatives.
- _heimdall 3y ago
  The fact that Trump and Biden are the two candidates we've been offered is a sign of a much more fundamental, and disappointing, problem. I don't think anyone would agree that those two are the best candidates this country has to offer, and most people I've talked to about the election feel stuck picking between which one is less bad.
_heimdall 3y ago
Find me a candidate that had any input on this Intel investment that campaigned on giving billions to Intel to onshore chip manufacturing. Maybe they do exist, but I don't remember it coming up. Also to clarify, local elections wouldn't have helped here. Congressional and presidential elections are a different beast, The Machine (reference to the University of Alabama) heavily influences elections and elected officials. I do vote, but I have little faith that such a massive and heavily funded political system allows my vote to count for more than winning a seat. I've been regularly disappointed by those I've voted for when they inevitably ignore or break promises they campaigned on and make decisions that often fly in the face of the very principles they originally claimed to stand for.

moate 3y ago

You sound like you’re agreeing with the statement. What is your syntactic point here? That the taxpayer has nothing to do with the decision making is irrelevant the point you responded to. They still pay for it.

_heimdall 3y ago
Technically we haven't paid for new spending in tax dollars since Clinton was in the White House, its hard to say taxes pay for something when its paid for with debt. That said, my point was that the tax payer isn't really paying for it when the tax payer has no say in what is being paid for. If the taxes are collected either under false pretense, or no pretense at all, for what the money will be spent on then the citizen is only responsible for paying the tax bill. The money is the government's at that point, and responsibility for how it is spent at that point stops at their desks. If the tax payer were truly the one paying for this, we would at minimum have a voice in the program. At best, the government would propose the plan and leave it up to the tax payers to fund it in almost a kick starter type of approach. A simple vote would make more sense IMO, but if we are to pay for it with tax dollars and the government refuses to run a surplus, tax payers (should) have to kick in more money to pay for it.
- gen220 3y ago
  Acknowledging the complexity inherent in how the U.S. gov't finances initiatives. However, eventually, the buck stops at the taxpayer. Yes, the federal gov't issues bonds to finance their activities (i.e. deficit spending), but the creditworthiness of the U.S. is intrinsically supported by the federal government's capacity to collect taxes from its citizens. Eventually, "we the people" foots the bill. It might be amortized over decades and deferred more years still, but it's still a debit to "we the people" of $8.5B in the ledger.
  - _heimdall 3y ago
    I'm honestly not sure if that is the case anymore. With a purely fiat system we really can't afford to pay off the debt, doing so would remove money from the money supply and could lead to an economic contraction. I'm no sure what would happen economically if we paid off federal debt in any meaningful amount. I'd be really curious if you have any insights into what that would look like.