A few quotes from the article: At the time Solyndra received its grant, Vice President Biden said that the Solyndra investment is "exactly what the Recovery Act is all about." Now that events have proven Biden right -- that is, now that Solyndra is a demonstrated failure like the stimulus package as a whole -- the Obama administration is wholly unrepentant and plans to continue the waste. "The project that we supported succeeded," Energy Department spokesman Damien LaVera said Wednesday. So a bankrupt firm lays off all of its workers after blowing through half a billion in private venture capital, then consuming half-a-billion in taxpayer-subsidized loans, and this is a "success?" What would failure look like? and... A similar leap of ideological faith caused Obama's longtime friend and fellow Democrat, Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, to waste $58 million in taxpayers funds on grants to another solar company that filed for bankruptcy two weeks ago. finally... If Obama and his friends want to invest their own money in a clean energy company based on their faith that the technology's moment is now, we wish them well. But we'd appreciate if they would stop gambling public money away on politically correct, pie-in-the-sky ventures.
People don't having their hypocrisies pointed out, and this response (not liking that the other side is pointing out that their side did it, and in some cases, did it more) is one of the consequences of it.
Did Bush campaign on "Change we can believe in"? How often did Bush bash big business and corporations to the extent that any reasonable voter should conclude that a Bush Administration would crack down on them? So, while it is true that "Bush did it too", he never claimed he was going to fix that issue, while Obama did.
It seems to me Obama campaigned on investing in new energy technology, and that's what he did in this case. I'm not sure what the beef is here, really. Some of you are insinuating that there was something underhanded, but what exactly was it? Where's the beef? Surely all of you understand that any investment in a company includes the risk of failure. barfo
Follow the money ... first in line to get $69 million back is George Kaiser, who was the primary private funder of this failed business. Hell of a deal. Bundle millions for Obama, and you get to invest in a company with the government backing it. If it fails, you're first in line to get your money back. If it booms, your investment becomes a windfall. This is a clear-cut case of crony capitalism at its worst.
That's pretty lame analysis, PapaG. Kaiser will get the money he loaned to the company back, as per the terms of that loan. He won't get the money he invested back. And it appears that the assets are enough to cover that loan and completely repay the government loan - so who gives a shit anyway? Again, where's the wrongdoing? Looks to me like a bunch of private investors lost some money. Happens all the time. barfo
Can you link me to where Obama made a campaign promise to evaluate government loans more thoroughly? I missed that one. You and PapaG are acting as if accepting a normal loan risk is so hideously unethical it's like breaking one of the 10 Commandments or something. I used to read some little thing like this at least weekly during the Bush years. Everyone immediately forgot them because of bigger things he was doing wrong.
Follow the money... Solyndra officials, including (George) Kaiser himself, donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to Barack Obama. Kaiser personally donated $53,500 to Obama’s presidential campaign in 2008. Ben Bierman, executive vice president of operations donated $5,500 to Obama, and Karen Alter, senior vice president of marketing gave $23,000, just to name a few. Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/09/08/s...s-to-the-white-house-logs-show/#ixzz1XNTL3YzX
Really? You are going to argue that millions of folks who voted for Obama DID NOT think that an Obama Administration was no longer going to be a corporate bitch. You are rewriting history in your own mind.
Follow the money. I want to know who arranged for the private investors to be first in line to get their money back, but I imagine we'll find that out once the hearings begin.
Some of the Dem House leadership is starting to ask questions and distance themselves from this hand-out. Why was the DoE sitting in on Solyndra board meetings?
Not soon to be seen on your nightly news... Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/soly...ntroversial-federal-loan-2011-9#ixzz1XnqF3lUP No wonder Chrisinpdx wants to shut down political debate on the S2/Blazer/OT board.
Nor should it be. 'Going concern' is a term of art in the audit world, and basically indicates that the company doesn't have the resources (cash, revenue) to continue operating indefinitely. Many startups are in that position and thus fail this test. It's a huge red flag if it happens to an established company; it's not out of the ordinary for a startup. Wake me up when you find some actual wrongdoing. barfo
This is much bigger than Watergate. It's a flat-out scam involving the administration and one of their billionaire bundlers. Hearings begin next week, under oath. http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...nvestigation/2011/09/13/gIQAr3WbQK_story.html
Not only that, it's bigger than 9/11. It's bigger than WWII. It's bigger than the entire universe, and that doesn't even begin to tell the story. barfo
