Wait, if I reading the original article (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45830380) correctly, this is not a bailout? It's more that the US government acts as a guarantor for loans from other parties, and only steps in if the debt is defaulted on.

Also this is not a loan for what has already been done so far, this is what will be built out in the future, so the US is getting something in return: huge amounts of infrastructure, most of which would be datacenters, chips, and power. (In an alternate timeline this would be clean power, or at least be built out in Australia, cf https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45836104 -- but sadly this is not that timeline.)

Worst case, when the bubble pops, we get a glut of power and compute which (ideally) should reduce overall electricity and the obscenely bloated cloud bills. However, at the rates that demand is growing, this seems unlikely.

So to rephrase: The real problem is that the infra needed to support the forecasted growth is very expensive, and requires trillions in funding, which gets very expensive to borrow. And so the US government is being asked to provide loan guarantees, because who better to appreciate what interest payments on trillions of debt look like?

> Worst case, when the bubble pops, we get a glut of power and compute which (ideally) should reduce overall electricity and the obscenely bloated cloud bills. However, at the rates that demand is growing, this seems unlikely.

You are making it sound like there is no opportunity cost to using money for this instead of, I don't know, welfare and social issues; or even other kinds of infrastructure projects altogether.