With all this talk about infrastructure, one thing that's been overlooked is US Innovation and Competition Act which aims to invest 250 billion into certain industries and scientific fields over the next 5 years. Fields include, but aren't limited to, the semiconductor industry, AI, and biotechnology. The bill passed overwhelmingly 68-32 with support from both Schumer and McConnell. To me, it's clear that if we are to survive this next century, we must be THE leader in these critical fields.

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=117&session=1&vote=00226
It seems to me that a significant amount of Republicans have teamed up with Bernie Sanders, the least successful Jew of all time, to vote against this bill. It shouldn't surprise us that an avowed socialist would side with China but it's surprising that a number of Republicans voted against the bill.

Some Senators, like Marco Rubio, voted against it because it didn't go far enough:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/06/the-senates-missed-opportunity-to-counter-china/

IMO, every Republican who voted against this must explain their reasons. In Rubio's case, his heart is clearly in the right place and we can count on him to take the China threat seriously. But what of the others?

Imho, the Republicans who voted for this bill in spite of valid concerns raised by a prominent member of their own caucus should explain their reasons too. Were they really convinced by the content of this bill or did they just vote for it to pad their bipartisan credentials with a mild, relatively harmless bill?

There should have been a longer, more thorough discussion instead of just rubber-stamping additional spending - even if this spending is slated for very worthwhile programs.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Jun 12 2021 06:00pm

Still reading up on the bill, but this concerns me:



There's a huge amount in the bill, and a huge amount of random every day stuff the bill would give the federal government direct oversight over. The full text of the bill: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/1260/text

Will continue to read through it over the next few days, hopefully offer a slightly more informed opinion. As things stand for the moment though, I'd say I can neither condemn the Nay votes nor applaud the Aye votes.

This post was edited by InsaneBobb on Jun 12 2021 06:07pm

Free market fundamentalists will angrily raise their fists to the sky, but increased supervision and regulation is absolutely needed in these crucial fields which determine the long-term strategical position of the US (and, in turn, the entire Western world).

I am not a free market fundamentalist. I'm a fair market moderate. My advice to you is the same as I'm taking: read the bill. It has a much larger impact than just chips and biotech.

Edit: *Sigh* I just can't leave it alone. When you increase regulation and supervision requirements, you raise costs, and the need to employ extra lawyers, accountants, etc. This is something that won't particularly impact the Intels and AMDs and Qualcomms of the nation. Unfortunately, it'll have a devastating impact on small business. I'm not guaranteeing the bill will have such an impact. I will say that it's part of where my concern lies though.

This post was edited by InsaneBobb on Jun 12 2021 06:28pm

My assumption is that they believe something is better than nothing. No bill is perfect but it's a big fucking red flag if you ally with Bernie Sanders when it comes to China. Lindsey Graham is one of the most hawkish Senators and he voted for the bill and so did a majority of Republicans on the Intel committee.

I'd start with Rubio, Cotton, and Cotton since they are the only Intel guys who voted against it.

Yes, agreed. It seems to me as if the GOP caucus is quite torn on this bill. Some of the Nays probably came from reflexive anti-spending or anti-Democrat instincts, some others (like Rubio) came from a well-thought "this doesnt go far enough"-position. Similarly, I would assume that some of the GOP Yeas came from thinking that this is a genuinely good use of government spending while others just tried to get bipartisan credentials on something that doesnt hurt conservative priorities (I'm thinking of guys like McConnell and Tillis).

Also, can we question why there seemingly wasn't much of a debate on this sneakily important bill on the Democratic side? Did all the Dem Yeas really think through the strategical and national security implications of the topic at hand, or did they just reflexively vote in favor of more government spending and regulations?

Senate Democrats are much more serious about nation security issues than House Democrats. It's very hard to win a state-wide election as a radical.

While I understand the usage of things like biotech and semiconductors when it comes to national security, can you explain to me how stifling competition and having oversight in private market ventures insures national security?

The problem I'm seeing so far, reading through the bill is that it seems to focus more on regulation, providing additional funding to colleges, requiring tech companies to allow the government to insert public employees into private spaces, and yes, even "diversity initiative funding".

So like, from a purely pragmatic perspective, I fully endorse the idea of the US Federal Government starting it's own tech company. That deals in internet infrastructure, biotech, semiconductors, etc. Except, it can't sell any of it. All it can do is produce it for government and military use. And I think a couple hundred billion might even be enough to make such a thing happen. My question, I guess, would be what does pumping billions more into colleges, billions more into ad campaigns, billions more into K-12 in areas like Chicago/Baltimore do to help tech infrastructure?

Wouldn't giving grants to startups and innovators in new and exciting tech help more? Wouldn't reducing oversight on new tech while clamping down on (big corp) old tech to insure they adhere to proper standards help more? The more I'm reading of this bill, the more concerned I'm becoming.

This post was edited by InsaneBobb on Jun 12 2021 07:31pm

People like Ron Paul probably voted against it because of pork inside. Its probably still a great bill even with the pork.

The intellectual property protections need to be held like a sword over China's neck.