Nobody bats a thousand. Depends on how much of a globalist you are, I think. If you don't care whether a Chinese company or an American company wins, there's no reason to subsidize an American company. Hey, if the Chinese make a better solar cell, more power (ha ha) to them. Of course, the playing field isn't level, since the Chinese DO subsidize their solar companies... It's the same issue as a state government here offering an incentive to build a plant in Oregon rather than New Mexico. If Oregon gives tax breaks to Intel to build a fab here, is it 'picking winners'? And if so, should it stop doing so, even if New Mexico doesn't stop? Is it better to be ideologically pure, or to have a new fab in Hillsboro? barfo
Now ABC has their teeth in this issue. http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/solyndra-loan-now-treasury-launching-investigation/story?id=14521917 This is a scandal that's going to have a bearing on the election. This is not just about Solyndra, but about crony capitalism practiced by the Democrats and the myth of "green jobs".
You mean they have to pass the bill to find out what's in the plan. Actually, he's never been the type of president who seems to have a plan.
Of course the company was doomed to fail. It's selling a product that isn't very good, and at a price that's less than it costs to make.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/09/solyndra-gets-more-scandalous/245130/ The worst bit is when the Federal Government agreed to suboordinate the public loan to try to save the company. The responsible move would have been to push it into bankruptcy and be first in line, but that looked bad politically. Now the Democratic bundler will get his money before the American taxpayer. This isn't just a scandal; this is borderline criminal.
After what the Obama Administration did to the GM bondholders (by stripping them of their legal rights), do you expect different?
What is most troubling about this, other than the loan that seemed guaranteed to default, is that OMB seemed more concerned about the 2012 elections than they did losing $535 million in taxpayer funds. http://news.yahoo.com/obama-admin-ignored-warnings-solyndra-221851842.html
So, you are in favor of bondholder rights in the case of GM, but against bondholder rights in the case of Solyndra? barfo
What? I am confused. When did I say I was against bondholder rights? And to be clear, I am not "for" bondholders, or "against" workers, or stockholders, or executives, etc. I am for, the rule of law. The GM bailout/bankruptcy was not done according to established law (ie, the existing rules of the game). The losers were bondholders and taxpayers. The winners were the GM employees and unions and the current group of executives.
Probably a wise idea for these execs to lawyer up prior to going under oath. Nothing to see here ... move along now folks... http://dailycaller.com/2011/09/20/solyndra-execs-to-plead-fifth-in-hearing/
Solyndra Execs to Plead the Fifth Before Congress It's reported the executives from Solyndra are going to plead the Fifth before Congress in order to not incriminate themselves. Why hide if you have nothing to hide?
Re: Solyndra Execs to Plead the Fifth Before Congress Yes it is. And I suppose I can see why they might want to not say something that can be spun and even possibly bring lying to Congress charges. But when the collective group is hiding...
Re: Solyndra Execs to Plead the Fifth Before Congress Probably a good move as well considering that there is a half-billions dollars that somehow got spent in under two years, and that doesn't even include the private investors who are first in line to get their money back. The execs can't claim executive privilege regarding all of their trips to the White House, either, so it's best to just say nothing and plead the fifth. It clearly leaves the impression that they're hiding something, but that's better than both a perjury charge and a potential fraud case against them.
what's the line? Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool (liar?) than to open it and remove all doubt.
