Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(USA Today)   Senate passes bipartisan US Innovation and Competition Act 68-32. It re-invests money into tech research and development to stay competitive AND sticks it to China for anti-competitive practices. A little of something for both sides   (usatoday.com) divider line
    More: Interesting, Democratic Party, Nancy Pelosi, 111th United States Congress, United States Senate, United States Congress, Joe Biden, Technology, Innovation  
•       •       •

383 clicks; posted to Politics » on 08 Jun 2021 at 11:46 PM (2 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



26 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2021-06-08 8:51:20 PM  
 
2021-06-08 8:55:34 PM  
Oh, yeah, this is the one that gives Bezos a crapton of money.
 
2021-06-08 9:14:50 PM  
I'll just go ahead and assume it gives a large amount of tax money to some megacorp that has plenty of cash but pretends like incentives will motivate it to take action.
 
2021-06-08 10:17:51 PM  
We'll pay for the R & D, a politician makes the profit.
 
2021-06-08 10:26:17 PM  

weddingsinger: I'll just go ahead and assume it gives a large amount of tax money to some megacorp that has plenty of cash but pretends like incentives will motivate it to take action.


Well, that's what's "bipartisan." Sorry, but when half the country is obsessed with playing friendly and scared of poor-people socialism, this is all that will ever happen. Anything that will help the poors noticably will be rejected with ferocity to prevent them from ever thinking it's a good idea.

They fear an imagined snowball effect and will literally overthrow the country to prevent it happening.
 
2021-06-08 11:05:19 PM  
Now about voting rights
 
2021-06-08 11:49:06 PM  
I always get concerned when more than a handful of Republicans cross the line to vote for something.  Either it's toothless enough to not be worth fighting against to earn credit for being "bipartisan" or corrupt enough to line their and their owners pockets.

Or both.  It could always be both.
 
2021-06-08 11:49:28 PM  
I'm curious which "side" subby thinks favors what.
 
2021-06-08 11:50:12 PM  
Nice I hope
 
2021-06-08 11:51:59 PM  

dv-ous: Oh, yeah, this is the one that gives Bezos a crapton of money.


If it gets the US back into space on it's own so we can tell CNSA & Roscosmos to GFY, I'm OK with this.
 
2021-06-08 11:59:55 PM  
No doubt Republicans insisted the bill spell out where every penny will come from, go to and insist we don't increase the debt or raise taxes like the infrastructure bill, right? Right?
 
2021-06-09 12:00:03 AM  
A little of something for both sides

Liberals and Democrats?
 
2021-06-09 12:00:24 AM  

Unbridled Apathy: Who voted what:
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS​/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cf​m?congress=117&session=1&vote=00226


Wierd to see a bunch of Republicans and Bernie Sanders be on the same side of something.
 
2021-06-09 12:03:06 AM  
FTA: " President Joe Biden praised passage of the bill making generational investments in American workers. "This legislation addresses key elements that were included in my American Jobs Plan, and I am encouraged by this bipartisan effort to advance those elements separately through this bill," Biden said in a statement. "It is long past time that we invest in American workers and American innovation." "

Biden should use the word "infrastructure" here.
 
2021-06-09 12:05:06 AM  

Senseless_drivel: No doubt Republicans insisted the bill spell out where every penny will come from, go to and insist we don't increase the debt or raise taxes like the infrastructure bill, right? Right?


They, in fact, held a special vote to break Senate spending rules to do this. It even had a wider margin
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI​S​/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cf​m?congress=117&session=1&vote=00224

Rand Paul tried to kill the bill at every turn since mid may.
 
2021-06-09 12:09:05 AM  

AAAAGGGGHHHH: dv-ous: Oh, yeah, this is the one that gives Bezos a crapton of money.

If it gets the US back into space on it's own so we can tell CNSA & Roscosmos to GFY, I'm OK with this.


It didn't seem like any of this was going to space.

Part of it is a $52b handout going to corporations in the hopes that they'll invest in American production of microchips (but there is no repercussions if they do not).

Part of it is a $100b handout to corporations to fund the research of microchips and A.I. (through the NSF, of course)

Part of it is another $80b handout with no specific goals (through the NSF again).

We can't raise corporate taxes but we can cut them $200b worth of checks while trying to screw China over but ensuring there are not strings and repercussions should the corporations decide to reroute funding from that intent.

Great job all. We can't raise the farking minimum wage, we can't legalize pot, but we sure as shiat can give money to poor corporations.

Thanks, Uncle Joe.
 
2021-06-09 1:18:10 AM  

misanthropicsob: AAAAGGGGHHHH: dv-ous: Oh, yeah, this is the one that gives Bezos a crapton of money.

If it gets the US back into space on it's own so we can tell CNSA & Roscosmos to GFY, I'm OK with this.

It didn't seem like any of this was going to space.

Part of it is a $52b handout going to corporations in the hopes that they'll invest in American production of microchips (but there is no repercussions if they do not).

Part of it is a $100b handout to corporations to fund the research of microchips and A.I. (through the NSF, of course)

Part of it is another $80b handout with no specific goals (through the NSF again).

We can't raise corporate taxes but we can cut them $200b worth of checks while trying to screw China over but ensuring there are not strings and repercussions should the corporations decide to reroute funding from that intent.

Great job all. We can't raise the farking minimum wage, we can't legalize pot, but we sure as shiat can give money to poor corporations.

Thanks, Uncle Joe.


JUST WAIT THEY'LL HELP US IN 2030 I SWEARSIES
 
2021-06-09 1:56:54 AM  

I want that sauce Morty!: Unbridled Apathy: Who voted what:
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS​/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cf​m?congress=117&session=1&vote=00226

Wierd to see a bunch of Republicans and Bernie Sanders be on the same side of something.


Well, you see, this just proves that he's not a Democrat
 
2021-06-09 2:34:14 AM  

misanthropicsob: AAAAGGGGHHHH: dv-ous: Oh, yeah, this is the one that gives Bezos a crapton of money.

If it gets the US back into space on it's own so we can tell CNSA & Roscosmos to GFY, I'm OK with this.

It didn't seem like any of this was going to space.

Part of it is a $52b handout going to corporations in the hopes that they'll invest in American production of microchips (but there is no repercussions if they do not).

Part of it is a $100b handout to corporations to fund the research of microchips and A.I. (through the NSF, of course)

Part of it is another $80b handout with no specific goals (through the NSF again).

We can't raise corporate taxes but we can cut them $200b worth of checks while trying to screw China over but ensuring there are not strings and repercussions should the corporations decide to reroute funding from that intent.

Great job all. We can't raise the farking minimum wage, we can't legalize pot, but we sure as shiat can give money to poor corporations.

Thanks, Uncle Joe.


Don't you mean "Thanks Uncle Sanders?" He voted for it too.

Your argument about chip manufacturers not needing incentives is, ironically enough, echoed by the Libertarian magazine Reason.  It's down-right FARK-like to see you, a disingenuous hate-filled communist with negative credibility, agreeing with Libertarians. (Did you take the wrong set of pills this morning?) Regardless, it's given me pause to think about this some more.

In general, Democrats have an extremely good track record in terms of creating correct economic incentives that actually provide value for the US taxpayer, so for the moment I'm taking Senator Sanders' side on this rather than yours. But I do admit that will look at it more closely going forward.
 
2021-06-09 2:45:33 AM  

Mr.Insightful: misanthropicsob: AAAAGGGGHHHH: dv-ous: Oh, yeah, this is the one that gives Bezos a crapton of money.

If it gets the US back into space on it's own so we can tell CNSA & Roscosmos to GFY, I'm OK with this.

It didn't seem like any of this was going to space.

Part of it is a $52b handout going to corporations in the hopes that they'll invest in American production of microchips (but there is no repercussions if they do not).

Part of it is a $100b handout to corporations to fund the research of microchips and A.I. (through the NSF, of course)

Part of it is another $80b handout with no specific goals (through the NSF again).

We can't raise corporate taxes but we can cut them $200b worth of checks while trying to screw China over but ensuring there are not strings and repercussions should the corporations decide to reroute funding from that intent.

Great job all. We can't raise the farking minimum wage, we can't legalize pot, but we sure as shiat can give money to poor corporations.

Thanks, Uncle Joe.

Don't you mean "Thanks Uncle Sanders?" He voted for it too.

Your argument about chip manufacturers not needing incentives is, ironically enough, echoed by the Libertarian magazine Reason.  It's down-right FARK-like to see you, a disingenuous hate-filled communist with negative credibility, agreeing with Libertarians. (Did you take the wrong set of pills this morning?) Regardless, it's given me pause to think about this some more.

In general, Democrats have an extremely good track record in terms of creating correct economic incentives that actually provide value for the US taxpayer, so for the moment I'm taking Senator Sanders' side on this rather than yours. But I do admit that will look at it more closely going forward.


Er, Sanders was the only non-Republican to vote against this.
 
2021-06-09 2:50:34 AM  

Mr.Insightful: Don't you mean "Thanks Uncle Sanders?" He voted for it too.


He voted Nay.

I'm sure the rest of your post is just as truthful, and so I won't read it.
 
2021-06-09 3:08:59 AM  

LordJiro: Mr.Insightful: misanthropicsob: AAAAGGGGHHHH: dv-ous: Oh, yeah, this is the one that gives Bezos a crapton of money.

If it gets the US back into space on it's own so we can tell CNSA & Roscosmos to GFY, I'm OK with this.

It didn't seem like any of this was going to space.

Part of it is a $52b handout going to corporations in the hopes that they'll invest in American production of microchips (but there is no repercussions if they do not).

Part of it is a $100b handout to corporations to fund the research of microchips and A.I. (through the NSF, of course)

Part of it is another $80b handout with no specific goals (through the NSF again).

We can't raise corporate taxes but we can cut them $200b worth of checks while trying to screw China over but ensuring there are not strings and repercussions should the corporations decide to reroute funding from that intent.

Great job all. We can't raise the farking minimum wage, we can't legalize pot, but we sure as shiat can give money to poor corporations.

Thanks, Uncle Joe.

Don't you mean "Thanks Uncle Sanders?" He voted for it too.

Your argument about chip manufacturers not needing incentives is, ironically enough, echoed by the Libertarian magazine Reason.  It's down-right FARK-like to see you, a disingenuous hate-filled communist with negative credibility, agreeing with Libertarians. (Did you take the wrong set of pills this morning?) Regardless, it's given me pause to think about this some more.

In general, Democrats have an extremely good track record in terms of creating correct economic incentives that actually provide value for the US taxpayer, so for the moment I'm taking Senator Sanders' side on this rather than yours. But I do admit that will look at it more closely going forward.

Er, Sanders was the only non-Republican to vote against this.


Oops. You're right. Read too fast. I'd been tracking this before. He voted Yes on the CLOTURE vote (which is the real vote). For some reason after voting to end debate, he decided to vote against the bill.

My bad.
 
2021-06-09 3:20:17 AM  
It's actually insane that we're giving so much money to companies for 'microchip production' under the lie that it will somehow screw China.

None of the silicon is made in the mainland at all, it comes out of Taiwan. All we're doing is farking over our 'friend' because they managed to outperform a company with more political connections in the US.
 
2021-06-09 5:17:38 AM  
"It is long past time that we invest in American workers and American innovation."

It certainly is. So how will this bill accomplish that? The products will still be manufactured overseas because companies will always seek out the cheapest sources of labor.
 
2021-06-09 8:37:36 AM  
Sanders siding with Republicans. And not just any Republicans, but, specifically, the Big Lie Trumpliqans like Inhofe, Hyde-Smith, Cruz, Scott, Paul, and Tuberville.

Seems like probably a corporatist bill.
 
2021-06-09 2:48:37 PM  

Mr.Insightful: LordJiro: Mr.Insightful: misanthropicsob: AAAAGGGGHHHH: dv-ous: Oh, yeah, this is the one that gives Bezos a crapton of money.

If it gets the US back into space on it's own so we can tell CNSA & Roscosmos to GFY, I'm OK with this.

It didn't seem like any of this was going to space.

Part of it is a $52b handout going to corporations in the hopes that they'll invest in American production of microchips (but there is no repercussions if they do not).

Part of it is a $100b handout to corporations to fund the research of microchips and A.I. (through the NSF, of course)

Part of it is another $80b handout with no specific goals (through the NSF again).

We can't raise corporate taxes but we can cut them $200b worth of checks while trying to screw China over but ensuring there are not strings and repercussions should the corporations decide to reroute funding from that intent.

Great job all. We can't raise the farking minimum wage, we can't legalize pot, but we sure as shiat can give money to poor corporations.

Thanks, Uncle Joe.

Don't you mean "Thanks Uncle Sanders?" He voted for it too.

Your argument about chip manufacturers not needing incentives is, ironically enough, echoed by the Libertarian magazine Reason.  It's down-right FARK-like to see you, a disingenuous hate-filled communist with negative credibility, agreeing with Libertarians. (Did you take the wrong set of pills this morning?) Regardless, it's given me pause to think about this some more.

In general, Democrats have an extremely good track record in terms of creating correct economic incentives that actually provide value for the US taxpayer, so for the moment I'm taking Senator Sanders' side on this rather than yours. But I do admit that will look at it more closely going forward.

Er, Sanders was the only non-Republican to vote against this.

Oops. You're right. Read too fast. I'd been tracking this before. He voted Yes on the CLOTURE vote (which is the real vote). For some reason after voting to end debate, he decided to vote against the bill.

My bad.


That was the cloture vote to begin debate. Lots of people vote for those, but end up not voting on the bill.
For this particular instance, the cloture vote to END debate and procede to the actual vote was by unanimous consent (meaning voice vote with no objections to ending the debate).
 
Displayed 26 of 26 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.