Obama praised Solar Cell firm goes bust..costs tax payers $500 million

Whoops haha

 

Hilarious. Too bad for the thread starter.

 

Come on now... the Obama administration is the new ClutchFans Teflon Don, eh? Yep, the Bush admin may have pioneered the loan, but which admin approved the loan guarantee while their own people raised alarm bells? Which admin had their own people saying this venture would fail, well, right about now?

I suppose you'd say it's a win for the Bush admin (the big, bad oil bullies) had this gone through and proven to be a success? I won't hold my breath waiting for people with such partisan hard-ons to come around and see the light of day.

 

You are so full of it. You want to give Bush the praise for the successes but no blame for the failures. You are a complete hypocrite.

Bush is just as liable for Solyndra as anyone. I would go so far as to say that this was an operation years in the making and has the fingerprints of the former and current administration all over it.

http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=6106216&postcount=113

 

Boy, I thought I read that the performance and forecasts had turned south and which Administration plowed ahead blindly?

 

Wow, 3 years in and still going to the Bush's fault card?

 

Excuse me from interrupting a popular right wing talking point with a minor thing called facts... This one being Solyndra was not cooked up by Obama and admin but rather started up under the previous admin. And mind you, I am not even certain there is "fault" here to throw a card... Since I think investigating and investing in alternative energy seems well worth a gamble to me.

 

http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/obama-admin-reworked-solyndra-1182334.html


Nice

 

Seriously people. We can nitpick who is the "to blame" from this, but the fact of the matter is that green energy is something needs to be supported in the country for numerous reasons you already know. Trying to pin the blame on one administration or the other is silly you could argue that both made mistakes in the process.

Having said that remember that this loan comprises just 1.3% of DOE’s overall loan portfolio. To date, Solyndra is the only loan that’s known to be troubled. Even with that, most of the critics of the company complained about their business strategy, not their product designs which were actually some of the most impressive.

In a pure free market strategy, the hope would have been for a much larger energy firm to buy them out a number of years ago and use their money to fund the R&D aspects to make the tech more cost effective. The problem is that in the current economic landscape attempting to "revitilize" or introduce a entirely new structure to the energy grid is entirely not fiscally conceivable without some government assistance that is being held up due to massive spending deficiets in other areas.

The idea was a good gamble, but not did not suceed because of various economic factors from the recession, slowing of R&D due to recession, and government issues. There still should an investigation to see if there was foul play in the party, but just because the company went belly up does not mean someone HAD to have been dirty and crooked.

 

The fact that cap and tax was not passed also hurt it. If the price of energy was raised significantly, the false market created would have helped this company.

 

I think there needs to be a better process for loaning money to key companies. I'd rather it go into research and the patents that come out from it should be "loaned" to companies.

Problem we have now is that companies are so much more powerful since they can give unlimited money to campaigns. Until that money is gone, we'll have more corruption and our democracy is weaker.

 

Investment in alternative energy is a good thing -- but it is something that should be handled by private investors or companies that risk capital based on the merits of a deal. A $500 million loss is very significant to a company and has dramatic consequences -- not so for the government (apparently). Privatizing gains and socializing losses is what everyone complained about during TARP and the auto bailouts... so that standard must be applied here as well. Obviously the financial merits of this deal were terrible and that was proven by the inability of the company to make money. Solar energy is simply not ready for prime time. It's uneconomic. Consumers say no to it every day by purchasing half of their electricity from coal-fired generation and another big chunk from natural gas-fired generation. On top of that, capacity factors for solar and wind are around 20% -- which is obvious because the sun doesn't always shine and the wind doesn't always blow. This is unacceptable for baseload demand, which means solar/wind displace natural gas-fired capacity and not coal or nuclear (baseload providers). In fact, you need MORE coal and nuclear generation to back up solar, which I doubt the solar/wind enthusiasts are even aware of. This was a politically driven move which was ill fated and at odds with basic economic principles.

But the reason this is a scandal isn't because of a failed investment -- it's because of Solyndra's leadership's donations to Obama, the fast-tracking of the project for media purposes, the restructuring of the loan, and the acceleration and then suspension of all the due diligence required to properly analyze the investment. The green energy push will only work and will only create jobs when green energy can compete economically with traditional forms of energy. Don't raise the cost of traditional forms of energy to make that happen, invest in SOUND research and development projects to lower all costs. And let the private sector do it, where investments like this never see the light of day because you have investment professionals risking capital (with consequences) and calling the shots, not David Axelrod, Valerie Jarrett and David Plouffe (the people who run this Administration and don't know chicken ***** from chicken salad when it comes to investing). Style over substance might work for Obama's campaign but it doesn't work in the competitive financial market -- this is an excellent example of that.

 

SOlyndra Pestered Bush Administration Over Delays in Approving Federal Loan, Emails Show

So one administration did their due diligence when spending the taxpayer's money. The other administration didn't because of a press event.

 

If the government had no power to help the companies, the companies wouldn't be lobbying them.

Outlaw all federal subsidies, loans, and bailouts.

 

/facepalm

Without the bailout, our entire economy, currency and country would of collapsed.

without loans, 2/3s of people would not of gone to college, myself included.

Without subsidies, thousands of farmers would no longer be able to work.

I honestly cannot fathom how you can possibly believe the things you write. You literally have zero clue of the consequences of the things you are proposing.

 

Subsidies and loans are not the only problem, and bailouts are sometimes necessary. I find it hard to believe that you'd have let more banks, GM, and the whole SnL industry fail. The consequences of this are so dire. Not only that, the gov't would lose more money actually than bailing them out (SnL since gov't would have to pay everyone's deposits back - FDIC). So really, this is a massive amount of ignorance you are displaying. No politician, Republican or Democrat would have let the banks fail. They may vote against it for political reasons, but that is posturing.

Finally, those are the only 3 means gov't help out companies. They do it with laws and contracts too. The fact that companies can shift laws is down right scary. It means companies, not people, are shaping our system and in truth, we are no longer a democracy.

I always felt that the biggest threat to America is not health care, it's not terrorism, nor is it immigrants or foreign countries.

It's ignorance.

Ignorance allows others to do nasty things to our democracy. Companies get laws pass that are in their interests but not in the interests of citizens or competition. THey do it by duping people like yourself.

The reason I reply to you is that I feel obligated to help educate you so you can have a more informed point of view. It pains me to see yours and others ignorance.

I don't care if you are a Tea Party advocate or a Commie Liberal, learn the facts man. Really, do it for yourself, and for your country. Because it's clear you are not taking the time to understand the other side.

If you can't find holes or criticize your own beliefs and that of those who you identify with - it means you are brainwashed. That's true for anyone, and most people.

I hope you take what I say sincerely.

 

Many of the Republican presidential candidates would of let them fail (Paul, Perry, Bachman, Cain, Gingrich, etc...), or at least they say they would.

If he advocates outlawing government loans, bailouts, and subsidies to private companies and a fair tax code than how could he be getting duped by private companies? That makes no sense. I think you mean to say he is getting duped by politicians or something. He is advocating for less of a relationship between government and private companies.

your post contains no facts except that governments help out private companies in other ways then bailout, loans, and subsidies. That's obvious to everyone and is irrelevant. So you are not 'educating' anyone; you are just trying to call the person you disagree with ignorant. As if that's an argument.

 

I'm sorry, did you just say that you think politicians tell the truth?

No. The "relationship" issue is that corporations run our country through lobbying and campaign donations. You take that away and gov't can function properly

He is ignorant, and frankly so are you. The facts are out there - just not on really biased sites. Geez, why not start with Wikipedia?

I've actually explored and tried embracing conservative ideology for a while, and try to find holes in all thinking. My opinions don't come from left wing blogs or talking points. They have come from years of discussion with many people until I figured out what was most likely to be true.

There are a lot of things that I hear from the right that I AGREE with. A lot of criticism of Dems and Obama I AGREE with. WHy? Because I am actually fiscally conservative. I want less bureaucracy. I want a smaller deficit. I am for reigning in social security and health care costs. I think companies should be allowed to work around unions at times. I support the afgan mission and think leaving is a mistake.

But I am not a lunatic. I know corporations have too much influence in our gov't. And the problem with corporations is they don't care for the long term health of the country but rather short term profit making. As that's how they are measured. That's how executives get their raises and bonuses. By getting results as fast as possible. I work with over 100 brands and know a lot about capitalism buddy.

So I am just calling it as I see it. You two have a history of just spewing questionable information and dismissing great points other people make.

Are you here to discuss and debate, or just spew and spew? Because I have never seen either of you budget and inch or ever concede a point. And that's not a sign of an educated person.

 

Wow dude, really?

There is not a politician in the entire country that would have let the largest financial institutions in the country crumble. First, it would have deepened the recession in ways I am not sure we can fully measure. Secondly, those institutions serviced a good volume of loans held by Fannie and Freddie. Not exactly the type of thing that the mortgage situation needed.

Any politician who actually would have allowed it to happen should not have been in office.