- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Hassett says WH likely to continue taking stakes in companies
Posted on 8/25/25 at 8:07 am
Posted on 8/25/25 at 8:07 am
This is a horribly slippery slope for our country. When the Dems get the WH back they are going to take this policy and completely reshape the free market energy agenda of this country. I do have 2 key questions here:
1) Where is the White House even getting these funds to buy up equity as it was not allocated by congress?
2) Is this even constitutional as this is purely the White House picking winners and losers in free markets and who is likely to challenge it in the courts?
If you take it to a more extreme point, what is stopping a administration from buying entire companies that it does not like, and shutting them down with taxpayer funds?
1) Where is the White House even getting these funds to buy up equity as it was not allocated by congress?
2) Is this even constitutional as this is purely the White House picking winners and losers in free markets and who is likely to challenge it in the courts?
If you take it to a more extreme point, what is stopping a administration from buying entire companies that it does not like, and shutting them down with taxpayer funds?
This post was edited on 8/25/25 at 8:11 am
13
Posted on 8/25/25 at 8:14 am to IMSA_Fan
I don’t like this but it’s an interesting situation.
On the one hand these companies get tax breaks and other subsidies from the govt. Also there’s a national security interest in keeping them domestic. Why shouldn’t the taxpayer get some benefit from money invested in these industries?
On the other hand, govt fricks up everything it touches and this puts some companies at a competitive disadvantage…which isn’t the way this should work.
On the one hand these companies get tax breaks and other subsidies from the govt. Also there’s a national security interest in keeping them domestic. Why shouldn’t the taxpayer get some benefit from money invested in these industries?
On the other hand, govt fricks up everything it touches and this puts some companies at a competitive disadvantage…which isn’t the way this should work.
Posted on 8/25/25 at 8:15 am to IMSA_Fan
I def am not a fan of this for the reasons you said. Dems will up this 10x when they get a chance to push their causes
Posted on 8/25/25 at 8:20 am to DawgCountry
Let's see how it plays out before we panic. We allow other nations to own us equities, land and resources. What's the difference?
Posted on 8/25/25 at 8:27 am to IMSA_Fan
quote:
Where is the White House even getting these funds to buy up equity as it was not allocated by congress?
Interested to hear this answer
Posted on 8/25/25 at 8:29 am to DownshiftAndFloorIt
Sounds like Intel just gave it to the Govt. Probably with the intent that the govt buy their chips or supply them with some sort of future tech for them to manufacture on a grand scale
Posted on 8/25/25 at 8:54 am to IMSA_Fan
quote:It was free, bro!
Where is the White House even getting these funds to buy up equity
Posted on 8/25/25 at 9:08 am to IMSA_Fan
I don't like it in the abstract. I certainly don't like it as a long-term policy. I'm willing to let it play out for now with those caveats.
Posted on 8/25/25 at 9:14 am to IMSA_Fan
Acquiring means of production on the government’s behalf is NOT Capitalism. There is another word for that.
Posted on 8/25/25 at 9:15 am to SquatchDawg
quote:
Why shouldn’t the taxpayer get some benefit from money invested in these industries?
We do.
Posted on 8/25/25 at 9:21 am to IMSA_Fan
quote:I'm not a fan.
Hassett says WH likely to continue taking stakes in companies
Posted on 8/25/25 at 9:22 am to IMSA_Fan
Agreed if there is an industry that is required for national security but is not profitable that is the role of the government to fill that need.
In the past the government would step up and be the sole owner and drive the requirements with help from industry. These kept it from being a conflict of interest. Obviously this is expensive, but there is no way around it.
Instead now we are going to take partial ownership of businesses that we deem necessary and probably run them like government organizations using tax payer dollars.
This feels like a lose lose as now they have two owners. The shareholders and the government
In the past the government would step up and be the sole owner and drive the requirements with help from industry. These kept it from being a conflict of interest. Obviously this is expensive, but there is no way around it.
Instead now we are going to take partial ownership of businesses that we deem necessary and probably run them like government organizations using tax payer dollars.
This feels like a lose lose as now they have two owners. The shareholders and the government
Posted on 8/25/25 at 9:52 am to SmackoverHawg
quote:
We allow other nations to own us equities, land and resources. What's the difference?
Our economy is the biggest baddest mother fricker on the planet so let's not go around copying what they do?
Posted on 8/25/25 at 10:31 am to FnTigers
quote:
It was free, bro!
Maybe I’m not following :
Intel was previously allocated about $11 billion in grants to build out manufacturing in the U.S. under the CHIPS and Science Act passed by Congress during the Biden administration.
Posted on 8/25/25 at 11:26 am to UltimaParadox
quote:
Makino, who believes that Intel can ultimately produce chips at optimal yields, views the deal as a net negative for Intel compared with just receiving the funding under the CHIPS Act as originally promised under the Biden Administration.
"This isn't free money," he said.
The federal government will not take a seat on Intel's board and has agreed to vote with the company's board on matters that need shareholder approval, Intel said. But this voting agreement comes with "limited exceptions" and the government is getting Intel's shares at a 17.5% discount to their closing price on Friday.
The stake will make the U.S. government Intel's biggest shareholder, though neither Trump nor Intel disclosed when the transaction would happen.
It's not free. This is a snippet from an article I posted on the other INTC thread.
I understand the theory here but, what happens with a Democrat in power and they decide to invest based on ESG scores or DEI? Just a real slippery sloppe.
Posted on 8/25/25 at 11:54 am to IMSA_Fan
Imagine how this plays out with democrats in office….
Posted on 8/25/25 at 12:08 pm to IMSA_Fan
quote:
When the Dems get the WH back they are going to take this policy and completely reshape the free market energy agenda of this country
So, exactly what Trump is doing right now? If it's not a problem now, it shouldn't be a problem in the future, right?
To be clear, I'm of the opinion it's a problem regardless of who is in control. Sadly, people are already cheering this on because it's Trump doing it.
Trump has to be a psyop. This MFer has people cheering on tariffs and now has people cheering on the government taking over companies. If this was any other administration, people here would be melting down over this type of stuff.
This post was edited on 8/25/25 at 12:13 pm
Posted on 8/25/25 at 12:29 pm to saint tiger225
quote:
Sadly, people are already cheering this on because it's Trump doing it.
The blind loyalty to his idiocy is remarkable.
Posted on 8/25/25 at 1:14 pm to IMSA_Fan
Terrible idea. Last thing we need is government influencing companies more than they do now.
Posted on 8/25/25 at 1:17 pm to saint tiger225
quote:
This MFer has people cheering on tariffs and now has people cheering on the government taking over companies.
Two separate things. Why shouldn't we charge countries to sell into the USA, the greatest market ever? Especially when we regulate companies out of the USA into those countries. If we are going to have regulations only to allow countries with little to no regulations do it, it makes no sense.
Government owning the production? This is batshite crazy.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News