News Unexpected Intel military chip contract drained $3 billion from CHIPS Act, Senate mulls auction to restore funds

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
CHIPS Act 2.0 already? And Intel will get almost a quarter of that as well? F*** no. How about we figure out how to boost U.S. domestic production including for fabless semiconductor companies like AMD and dozens more (don't just help the top 2 or 3 market leaders).
Always impressive how great the government is at spending taxpayer dollars. How about we get our #2 greatest expense item under control: interest on our nation debt. I mean FFS, Intel, AMD, nVidia, and others will more than survive at the end of the day -- they are the greatest beneficiaries of this AI craze and bubble that we're living in.
 
  • Like
Reactions: helper800
Imagine if the govt hadn't let Intel run amok with illegal practices? AMD would potentially still have Global Foundries. The losses they took and the paltry payouts they DID manage to get in court were scarring.
The Govt loves to take the most longest, backwards path possible it seems.
It wouldn't have solved everything, but really an indicator of who we're dealing with.
Short sighted folks with agendas.
 
JTWrenn said:
No. We should pull it from the military funding. The miltary has its own funding and it shouldn't get to pull from every pot and keep it's own. It's just another way to hide the true cost of war.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

The Pentagon budget is astronomical already, but now they want to spend money from other budgets!
 
"Unexpected Intel military chip contract drained $3 billion from CHIPS Act, Senate mulls auction to restore funds"
What are they planning to auction off to raise $3 billion?
 
hotaru251 said:
as an american this.

Military always wants more funding yet doesnt want to use its funds to pay for its contracts.
Either take it for mtheir funds or just cancel it and make them have to pay any fees.
Click to expand...
It’s really easy to take this stance, until you look at readiness rates and what it would actually take to win a war against China. If anything, the military budget (especially Naval) isn’t nearly large enough to keep up with emergent threats in the Pacific. We need 3 Marine Expeditionary Units (MEUs) at all times (including ships, support craft, landing craft, air support, and armor) to keep our existing security posture in the Pacific. Currently the Navy and Marine Corps are funded for 2. So, it’s a very easy position to take to say “they already get too much money!” The reality is much more complicated. It’s expensive to be an empire.
 
FoxtrotMichael-1 said:
military budget (especially Naval) isn’t nearly large enough
Click to expand...
the 2024 budget for military is $825 billion....if they cant afford 3B for better technology that benefits them then so be it I'd take my chances w/o it.

US's military budget is more than basically 3/4 of the worlds combined. If they cant compete w/ that type of funding then they need to rethink how they are using that $ as they are obviously wasting a huge amount.

3x chinas, nearly 9x russias, 12x indias, 18x japans.
 
hotaru251 said:
the 2024 budget for military is $825 billion....if they cant afford 3B for better technology that benefits them then so be it I'd take my chances w/o it.

US's military budget is more than basically 3/4 of the worlds combined. If they cant compete w/ that type of funding then they need to rethink how they are using that $ as they are obviously wasting a huge amount.

3x chinas, nearly 9x russias, 12x indias, 18x japans.
Click to expand...
Again, tell me you don’t know anything about how global security works without telling me you don’t know anything about how global security works. Here’s a few things to keep in mind:
  1. The US doesn’t just pay for the defense of the continental US. We pay for the defense of multiple countries around the world (of which it’s in our best interest to defend)
  2. The US pays for the freedom of navigation of the global seas. Do you enjoy global trade? If you do, it’s possible due to the US Navy patrolling international shipping channels and ensuring the safety of commercial vessels. This is how global trade has worked since WW2 and the entire global economy is built on top of it.
  3. It’s difficult to be the top global superpower. The US doesn’t just have to be able to defeat the next top military in the world, we have to be able to defeat the next 3 (or at least 2) at the same time. The cost of doing so is more than just spending more than the top next 2-3 countries…it’s more like a multiplication factor.
I say again, anyone who understands how the US military operates understands it is currently underfunded. I am not wrong on this point.
 
FoxtrotMichael-1 said:
It’s really easy to take this stance, until you look at readiness rates and what it would actually take to win a war against China. If anything, the military budget (especially Naval) isn’t nearly large enough to keep up with emergent threats in the Pacific. We need 3 Marine Expeditionary Units (MEUs) at all times (including ships, support craft, landing craft, air support, and armor) to keep our existing security posture in the Pacific. Currently the Navy and Marine Corps are funded for 2. So, it’s a very easy position to take to say “they already get too much money!” The reality is much more complicated. It’s expensive to be an empire.
Click to expand...
They don't need more money, they need massively less waste and corruption in contracting. It's the same issue we have with medical care. The amount we pay is nowhere near the amount we get. We are getting ripped off, and the top brass is complicate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jalyst and hotaru251
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom