From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy
On Mon, 16 Feb 2026 07:23:12 -0500
Chris Ahlstrom <
OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote:
rbowman wrote this screed in ALL-CAPS (fixed):
On Sun, 15 Feb 2026 07:49:53 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
Heh, just went to Amazon and the prices of mini PC's have
*skrocketed*. Thank you President Pendejo!
Of course it has nothing to do with AI sucking up semiconductor production?
Never said that. But note that President Numbnuts has badgered
Congress to end the CHIPS Act. He's the dumbest son of a bitch to
ever be elected to the office of American President. Hands down.
It was an excellent idea that the Biden administration proposed but so
far it's not done so good.
Over-regulation and liberal based policies doomed it though.
'''The CHIPS and Science Act has not universally "failed," but it has
faced significant criticism and challenges in its implementation.
Project Delays and Bureaucracy: The rollout of funding has been slow,
with bureaucratic hurdles delaying grants. As of early 2024, the
program had only issued a few minor grantsrCosuch as $35 million to BAE
Systems and $162 million to Microchip TechnologyrComostly for mature, not advanced, chip production, raising concerns about its effectiveness in restoring U.S. semiconductor leadership.
Workforce and Social Provisions Criticized: Critics argue the Act's
emphasis on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), childcare access,
and union engagement created unnecessary "red tape," slowing progress.
Some claim these requirements made compliance difficult and politicized
the program, potentially undermining bipartisan support.
Corporate Accountability Gaps: Despite disbursing billions, the Act
lacks strong enforcement mechanisms. For example, Intel received nearly
$8 billion in incentives but cut over 8,000 U.S. jobs after signing the agreement. There are also concerns that companies may use funds for
stock buybacks rather than domestic investment.
Environmental and Labor Concerns: While the Act incentivized over $540
billion in private investment and more than 100 new projects, it did
not mandate strong environmental protections or living wages. Workers
at new facilities, such as TSMC in Arizona, reportedly earn as little
as $14.70/hour, and communities fear pollution without adequate
regulatory oversight.
Insufficient Focus on Competition and Mid-Level Manufacturing: Reports
note the Act does little to challenge monopolistic practices by firms
like TSMC, Nvidia, and Apple, nor does it effectively support mid-sized
U.S. manufacturers. Additionally, the "science" side of the ActrCofunding
for R&D and innovationrCohas been underfunded by billions of dollars.
In summary, while the CHIPS Act succeeded in attracting massive private investment, its failure to enforce labor standards, ensure
environmental safety, prevent corporate misuse of funds, and accelerate advanced chip production has led many to view it as a missed
opportunity. '''
--
Mulligan Stewpot
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2