• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

White House’s Hassett says government likely to continue taking stakes in companies similar to Intel deal

ScrambledEggs

ScrambledEggs

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 5, 2022
Messages
9,481
Reaction score
13,692
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal

The government’s stake in Intel is part of a broader strategy to create a sovereign wealth fund that could include more companies, White House economic advisor Kevin Hassett said Monday.
Click to expand...

“I’m sure that at some point there’ll be more transactions, if not in this industry then other industries,” he said in a CNBC interview.
Click to expand...
No core principles cons going all in on communism!

What other industries will they want government controlling production?
 
What's the difference between goverment handouts in massive stimulus packages such as Biden's chip act or infrastructure bill? The only difference I see is one is pure charity and the other is more like a business deal.
In these giant stimulus bills, we hand out billions, we hope the money is well spent, we grow the company, and America benefits by having a stronger industrial base and more jobs for everyone. The downside is we run up the deficit.
On the other hand when we buy a stake in the company, it's the same thing but we don't run up the deficit (as much) because we have ownership in the company which can generate revenue and/or capital gains.
The real key here is the government need to take a hands-off approach to running the company despite of being the majority shareholder. Other than that there's nothing bad for partial goverment ownership in private sector companies. It's already happened many times. Not sure I want to see that expanded, but it's not socialism, communism nor the end of the capitalism.
 
dmpi said:
What's the difference between goverment handouts in massive stimulus packages such as Biden's chip act or infrastructure bill? The only difference I see is one is pure charity and the other is more like a business deal.
In these giant stimulus bills, we hand out billions, we hope the money is well spent, we grow the company, and America benefits by having a stronger industrial base and more jobs for everyone. The downside is we run up the deficit.
On the other hand when we buy a stake in the company, it's the same thing but we don't run up the deficit (as much) because we have ownership in the company which can generate revenue and/or capital gains.
The real key here is the government need to take a hands-off approach to running the company despite of being the majority shareholder. Other than that there's nothing bad for partial goverment ownership in private sector companies. It's already happened many times. Not sure I want to see that expanded, but it's not socialism, communism nor the end of the capitalism.
Click to expand...

Hahahaha....look at MAGA trying to claim government ownership of means of production is not socialist, when that's the definition.
 
dmpi said:
What's the difference between goverment handouts in massive stimulus packages such as Biden's chip act or infrastructure bill? The only difference I see is one is pure charity and the other is more like a business deal.
In these giant stimulus bills, we hand out billions, we hope the money is well spent, we grow the company, and America benefits by having a stronger industrial base and more jobs for everyone. The downside is we run up the deficit.
On the other hand when we buy a stake in the company, it's the same thing but we don't run up the deficit (as much) because we have ownership in the company which can generate revenue and/or capital gains.
The real key here is the government need to take a hands-off approach to running the company despite of being the majority shareholder. Other than that there's nothing bad for partial goverment ownership in private sector companies. It's already happened many times. Not sure I want to see that expanded, but it's not socialism, communism nor the end of the capitalism.
Click to expand...

Trump has no business taking a stake in Intel​

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/in_focus/3778405/trump-stake-intel-semiconductor-industry/
 
Mycroft said:
You obviously didn't watch the video in your own link. If you had, you would know for a fact that this has nothing to do with "government controlling production".
Click to expand...

Hear that folks? Intel doesn't produce chips!

:ROFLMAO:
 
dmpi said:
What's the difference between goverment handouts in massive stimulus packages such as Biden's chip act or infrastructure bill? The only difference I see is one is pure charity and the other is more like a business deal.
In these giant stimulus bills, we hand out billions, we hope the money is well spent, we grow the company, and America benefits by having a stronger industrial base and more jobs for everyone. The downside is we run up the deficit.
On the other hand when we buy a stake in the company, it's the same thing but we don't run up the deficit (as much) because we have ownership in the company which can generate revenue and/or capital gains.
The real key here is the government need to take a hands-off approach to running the company despite of being the majority shareholder. Other than that there's nothing bad for partial goverment ownership in private sector companies. It's already happened many times. Not sure I want to see that expanded, but it's not socialism, communism nor the end of the capitalism.
Click to expand...
The government does not have the authority to interfere in private business.
 
Mycroft said:
You obviously didn't watch the video in your own link. If you had, you would know for a fact that this has nothing to do with "government controlling production".
Click to expand...
Shareholders dont control their own companies?
 
It’s astonishing to me what sniveling cowards Republican elected officials are. No one is speaking up about this. What a bunch of cowardly fascist ****s.
 
dmpi said:
What's the difference between goverment handouts in massive stimulus packages such as Biden's chip act or infrastructure bill? The only difference I see is one is pure charity and the other is more like a business deal.
In these giant stimulus bills, we hand out billions, we hope the money is well spent, we grow the company, and America benefits by having a stronger industrial base and more jobs for everyone. The downside is we run up the deficit.
On the other hand when we buy a stake in the company, it's the same thing but we don't run up the deficit (as much) because we have ownership in the company which can generate revenue and/or capital gains.
The real key here is the government need to take a hands-off approach to running the company despite of being the majority shareholder. Other than that there's nothing bad for partial goverment ownership in private sector companies. It's already happened many times. Not sure I want to see that expanded, but it's not socialism, communism nor the end of the capitalism.
Click to expand...
The real key here is the government need to take a hands-off approach to running the company despite of being the majority shareholder.

There you have it folks. The open cheering of of the very definition of fascism by a cult member.

A truly scary post by a "small gubbermint" Republican.
 
Cosmik Debris said:
The real key here is the government need to take a hands-off approach to running the company despite of being the majority shareholder.

There you have it folks. The open cheering of of the very definition of fascism by a cult member.

A truly scary post by a "small gubbermint" Republican.
Click to expand...

I like how they casually--and sometimes eagerly--reveal that they had no integrity in the first place.
 
Cosmik Debris said:
The real key here is the government need to take a hands-off approach to running the company despite of being the majority shareholder.

There you have it folks. The open cheering of of the very definition of fascism by a cult member.

A truly scary post by a "small gubbermint" Republican.
Click to expand...
The key is to just trust TRUMP using the gov to buy private business & put military on US streets
 
Absentglare said:
Sovereign wealth fund… these MAGAs have no idea what they have wrought on our country.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that seems to be the key: followers that don't know much and are easily fooled.

Fox News has been mocking higher education for decades.

Now we've got an entire political class that believes that knowing things is stupid.
 
ScrambledEggs said:
Remember when they lost their minds when barrack HUSSEIN obama gave a $500mil loan to solyndra
Click to expand...
I remember.

What did the US taxpayer get out of that deal?
 
dmpi said:
What's the difference between goverment handouts in massive stimulus packages such as Biden's chip act or infrastructure bill? The only difference I see is one is pure charity and the other is more like a business deal.
In these giant stimulus bills, we hand out billions, we hope the money is well spent, we grow the company, and America benefits by having a stronger industrial base and more jobs for everyone. The downside is we run up the deficit.
On the other hand when we buy a stake in the company, it's the same thing but we don't run up the deficit (as much) because we have ownership in the company which can generate revenue and/or capital gains.
The real key here is the government need to take a hands-off approach to running the company despite of being the majority shareholder. Other than that there's nothing bad for partial goverment ownership in private sector companies. It's already happened many times. Not sure I want to see that expanded, but it's not socialism, communism nor the end of the capitalism.
Click to expand...
TlDR

I'm sure it's a spin of some type
 
Mycroft said:
You obviously didn't watch the video in your own link. If you had, you would know for a fact that this has nothing to do with "government controlling production".
Click to expand...

Not yet.

Until Trump decides he wants more then just a simple 10% stake in a company.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom