Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Sep 14, 2011, at 11:42 PM:
Did Green Jobs Cheerleader in Chief, President Barrack Hussein Obama push the loans to Solyndra for Political Purposes or to promote Green Jobs?
Replies (152)
Yes, he stepped in it up to his...eyeballs!
-- Posted by voyager on Thu, Sep 15, 2011, at 7:25 AM
Did Dick Cheney falsify facts to invade Iraq so Haliburton could get rich? Cheney's book tour where he attempts to rewrite history makes me sick.
I don't understand how any Republican in federal office during 2000-2008 can criticize Obama for out-of-control spending with a straight face.
-- Posted by nolimitsonthought on Thu, Sep 15, 2011, at 7:32 AM
I don't understand how any Republican in federal office during 2000-2008 can criticize Obama for out-of-control spending with a straight face.
-- Posted by nolimitsonthought on Thu, Sep 15, 2011, at 7:32 AM
Maybe because Obama has deficits in his 2 1/2 years that are larger than Bush's in 8 years. As a matter of fact, Obama's deficits are larger than all presidents in history combined. I have a straight face.
The Bush admin denied the Solyndra loan in Jan '09. Obama admin approved in Sep '09 after an Obama admin person said the company was not a good risk and shouldn't get the loan and it would run out of money by Sep '11- I guess he was right. But hey! Obama got another speech and photo-op in! That's all that matters. This is why Obama doesn't deserve one more cent of ANYONE's money - rich or poor.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Sep 15, 2011, at 7:53 AM
Someone please tell No Limits that Bush is no longer president.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Sep 15, 2011, at 7:58 AM
Bush screwed the USA for many years to come.
-- Posted by Dexterite1 on Thu, Sep 15, 2011, at 8:31 AM
"As a matter of fact, Obama's deficits are larger than all presidents in history combined."
Not true. Corrected - Obama's deficits in 4 years (vs. the current 2 1/2 years) are projected to be larger than all previous presidents combined.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Sep 15, 2011, at 8:38 AM
But hey, the subject here is - Bush admin denied this loan of 1/2 BILLION dollars to a "green" company.
Obama admin energy department denied it and recommended NO to the loan. Obama admin overrode the recommendation, gave the loan, scheduled a trip, got a lot of press and pushed his "green" agenda. Then company goes belly up and WE are on the hook for $550+ million.
And I'm supposed to pay more taxes to support this narcissist? At every turn he looks more incompetent.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Sep 15, 2011, at 8:41 AM
Dug-
Wrong again, The Energy Department questioned it they didn't deny it.
-- Posted by treegal on Thu, Sep 15, 2011, at 9:02 AM
It is getting real old hearing the liberal Democrats blame Bush for all their problems. He blames Republicans for all our woes yet had control of the Legislative, the Judicial and Executive branches of government. He is into his third year of his only term yet we still have the same problems even compounded by his failed policies. His administration approved the Solyndra loan and claimed it was the future of green energy. He was right about that. It failed miserably. How much money does he have to spend on policies he keeps proving they are not working to improve our lives? It seems he is doing it on purpose.
-- Posted by jadip4me on Thu, Sep 15, 2011, at 9:26 AM
Mr. Obama, to date, has rung up $3,373 billion in publicly-held debt, compared to President Bush's $3,361 billion in his eight years in office. That uses March 13, 2009 as the start of Mr. Obama's spending, since that's they day he signed the spending authority for FY 2009, the one that Ms. Pelosi refused to send to Mr. Bush.
This does not include intergovernmental holdings, which were considerably higher during the presidency of Mr. Bush than of Mr. Obama, since Mr. Obama's stimulus bill cut Social Security and Medicare withholdings, cutting the amount of holding available to borrow.
Nearly all of Mr. Obama's debt is publicly-held, whereas about 65% of Mr. Bush's were so.
Total debt under Mr. Bush increased $5,177 billion, whereas under Mr. Obama it has increased $3,734 billion. That being the difference between seven-and-a-half years of spending authority under Mr. Bush vs. two-and-a-half years under Mr. Obama.
Thus, while Mr. Bush was no spendthrift, he was clearly quite frugal compared to the man who followed him.
Again, I'm talking actual spending here, not 'budget deficits', since Mr. Obama has largely had the luxury of operating without a budget most of his term in office, since his party did not seem to think it necessary to pass one.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Sep 15, 2011, at 9:47 AM
The bankruptcy will make the lawyers money, put George Kaiser investment and any union concerns ahead of the tax payers.
Can the government buy out what's left so it can run the company long enough to borrow some money to say it paid back the tax payers?
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Sep 15, 2011, at 10:09 AM
-- Posted by Rick ** on Thu, Sep 15, 2011, at 9:07 AM
Per the CNN.com link:
As I watch the Republican debates, I realize that we are on the brink of a crazy person running our nation. I sit in front of the television and shudder at the thought of one of these creationism-loving, global-warming-denying, immigration-bashing, Social-Security-cutting, clean-air-hating, mortality-fascinated, Wall-Street-protecting Republicans running my country.
Amen
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Sep 15, 2011, at 10:10 AM
Common
Hopefully your prayer ends your off topic rant!
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Sep 15, 2011, at 10:15 AM
Wonder why, after someone mentioned this scandal a week or so ago, did it take the MSM so long to get their teeth into it?
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Sep 15, 2011, at 10:18 AM
treegal - they questioned it but didn't deny it.
And the significance of that is???? From the white house itself:
Emails budget analysts felt rushed by the White House (Obama) to review the loan guarantee in time for an announcement by Vice President Biden in September 2009. The concerns flared in August 2009 when staff with the Energy Department wrote of a "major outstanding issue," relating to the project's solvency. They noted an estimate said the project would run out of cash in September 2011.
Isn't this September 2011??? At least somebody in this administration got something right.
Wheels - I do have to disagree with you on one thing. The title of this thread. It should read:
"Obama pinches another loaf and the taxpayer stepped in it". :-)
-- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Sep 15, 2011, at 10:19 AM
Dug,
We stepped in it in Nov of 2008.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Sep 15, 2011, at 10:24 AM
commonsensematters wrote:
"I realize that we are on the brink of a crazy person running our nation."
On the brink? I take it you haven't looked at the 'we have to keep spending to keep from going broke' mentality of the current occupant...
Our founding fathers loved creationism, even mentioning the creator in the Declaration of Independence.
They only bash illegal immigrants. Methinks bahing illegalality is a plus. The crazy people are the ones who see nothing wrong with breaking the law.
They deny the conclusions drawn from the evidence, not the evidence. They deny the 'anthropogenic' aspect of the theory mostly.
The president's own commissioned report, which you cited as one of his accomplishments in another thread, acknowledges the need to cut entitlement spending. Methinks someone who cuts the payroll taxes that support Social Security, at a time when the programme is running a deficit, and yet gives 'bonuses' to the recipients when COLA's are not justified by the formula, might be a little crazy.
"Clean-air hating"? Methinks only a crazy person believes that nonsense.
"Mortality-fascinated" - lots of people have a fascination with the concept of mortality. Without such fascination, we might never have extended it to the point it exists today.
"Wall-street protecting" - merely an opinion. They protect the investments that drive our economy, as opposed to the crazy people who believe people will continue to invest in America even as we take all incentive for investing from them.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Sep 15, 2011, at 10:49 AM
Dug-
The point is to get your facts straight when you are making a point - else you just look like you're adding in opinion and not making a good argument.
-- Posted by treegal on Thu, Sep 15, 2011, at 11:16 AM
The quote was clearly from the CNN article that was referenced in the previous post. I merely printed the last paragraph in the article.
However...
"Our founding fathers loved creationism, even mentioning the creator in the Declaration of Independence."
The founding fathers had every right to mention the creator. That does not mean they "loved creationism." There is also a significant difference between scientific knowledge in 1776 and what is known today. Everyone has a right to their beliefs, they don't have a right to present them as facts. The earth was not formed 5 or 6000 years ago.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"They only bash illegal immigrants."
The "bashing" spills over. Ask tomato farmers in Alabama who can't find legal immigrants to harvest crops, so they rot in fields. What are we going to do with the 11 million illegal immigrants here now. The "crazies" want each one eliminated by deportation or otherwise. The "non-crazies" recognize we need a rational work permit program without amnesty.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"They deny the 'anthropogenic' aspect of the theory mostly."
How much is "mostly." The point is that there is a human factor, and it is senseless (or crazy) to deny that. No one promotes the elimination of every non-natural carbon source, but improvements can be made, without breaking anyone's bank.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"...someone who cuts the payroll taxes that support Social Security, at a time when the programme is running a deficit..."
Payroll tax cuts are a means to put money in people's pockets immediately to create demand which leads to job creation. I was under the impression that some think that only "crazies" oppose tax cuts. Republicans never met a tax cut they didn't like. Furthermore, since it has been said that all social security income now goes to the general fund, isolating a social security contribution to the deficit is not relevant. The fix to social security is a longer term action that will require changes in eligibility, rates of payment, etc.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"Clean-air hating"? Methinks only a crazy person believes that nonsense.
I agree that "hating" is over the top. But the push to roll back clean air protections to stimulate corporate profits is also over the top. The Republican party does not "hate" clean air but they appear willing to risk known health hazards, in the name of job creation. Obviously if we poison enough people we won't have to create so many jobs (just kidding!!! about the last sentence.)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"Mortality-fascinated"
I would imagine that the reference was to the cheering from the tea party audience when it was mentioned that under Governor Perry's administration, about 250 people were executed.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"Wall-street protecting" - merely an opinion. They protect the investments that drive our economy..."
They also "protect" their own pocket books, bonuses and salaries. One serious issue is that many on Wall Street are more interested in immediate results for personal profit, rather than long term investments that help the economy. No one is removing incentive to invest, only restrictions on investment "games" that enrich Wall Street at the expense of Main Street.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
There certainly are expenses to speed up the recovery, but it's not "spending to keep from going broke" by any means.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Sep 15, 2011, at 1:49 PM
Commonsense,
With 9% unemployment in this country and people who have been drawing unemployment for 99 weeks, we have tomatoes rotting in the fields because we cannot find enough Mexican immigrants to pick them?
What does this say about the work ethic in this country? While this is sometimes backbreaking work, at least it is honest work.
-- Posted by Robert* on Thu, Sep 15, 2011, at 2:55 PM
"The earth was not formed 5 or 6000 years ago."
Are you saying the Republicans supported that contention, or are they being stereotyped because they accept the idea that the world was created. Many who believe in creation and a creator, including myself, believe that creation occurred millions of years ago. There are those who argue otherwise, but they are the minority. Which Republican candidate specifically said the Earth is only 5,000 to 6,000 years old, and how does that matter with respect to their ability to govern?
"What are we going to do with the 11 million illegal immigrants here now. The "crazies" want each one eliminated by deportation or otherwise."
No, the 'crazies' ignore the word 'illegal'. Breaking the law should have consequences. To argue otherwise is to invoke lawlessness, and that is crazy.
"How much is "mostly"."
I say 'mostly' because I do not know the position of every single candidate, some may deny global warming entirely, some may deny on the idea that it is anthropogenic in nature, and some may simply disagree with the proposed remediation. The Democrats, true to form, believe in anything that gives the government more power to tax and spend.
"Republicans never met a tax cut they didn't like."
More stereotyping. Republicans have opposed a number of tax cuts in the past. But, more to the point, you've branded Republicans 'crazy' for favouring tax cuts at a time when the government needs more money, and now you're defending tax cuts at a time when the government needs more money.
"The fix to social security is a longer term action that will require changes in eligibility, rates of payment, etc."
Those are 'cuts', the Democrats just like the dance around the word, so they aren't seen as favouring 'cuts'. Any reduction in payouts, either by delaying them or 'means testing' them, are cuts in any real sense of the word.
"The Republican party does not "hate" clean air but they appear willing to risk known health hazards, in the name of job creation."
No, they just disagree as to what levels are safe and sustainable. You seem to believe that whatever standard the EPA sets is the standard that ought to be. Their argument seems to be that, if we can reach their standard, then they've set that standard too high. A Republican president created the EPA, and no serious Republican President or Presidential candidate has tried to abolich it. But, we can disagree on what levels are economical and satisfactory. It's curious, for instance, that rolling levels back to those that existed during the Clinton administration is considered 'crazy' by some, and indicitave of 'hatred' for clean air by others.
" would imagine that the reference was to the cheering from the tea party audience when it was mentioned that under Governor Perry's administration, about 250 people were executed."
Probably, but the people have long been on record with favouring the death penalty, and given the viewership of such television programmes as CSI, I think 'mortality fascination' probably permeates our society.
"spending to keep from going broke"
That was from a quote by Vice-President Joe Biden.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Sep 15, 2011, at 2:56 PM
stnmsn8 wrote:
"What does this say about the work ethic in this country? While this is sometimes backbreaking work, at least it is honest work."
That's been my point for a long time. We used to believe that having a job was better than not having a job. Now, people turn down work because they 'don't want to mess up their unemployment'.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Sep 15, 2011, at 3:14 PM
"...and how does that matter with respect to their ability to govern?"
As far as I know, none have said this publically. It does matter in that to believe it, requires a disbelief in science and unhealthy skepticism toward technology. Governors today need a realistic appreciation of both science and technology and not ignore the real world.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
"Breaking the law should have consequences. To argue otherwise is to invoke lawlessness, and that is crazy."
Entering the country is illegal. Entering with a work permit will be legal. There was no mention of what is to be done with the 11 million. Chasing them down and deporting every one would cost billions of dollars, not to mention of the billions of dollars of economic loss to those that employ them illegally. Giving them work permits will convert them to a legal status. No amnesty, no citizenship.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"...and some may simply disagree with the proposed remediation."
The problem is real and remediation is possible. I disagree that there any validity to the statement that it is a question of giving "the government more power to tax and spend." That is just goofy, ignoring the problem will not make it go away.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"Republicans have opposed a number of tax cuts in the past."
I don't personally recall any. As for right now, the payroll tax cuts put money in people's pockets to spend and create demand, which leads to more jobs. Tax increases for the wealthy contribute to decreasing the deficit.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"Any reduction in payouts, either by delaying them or 'means testing' them, are cuts in any real sense of the word."
And there is nothing wrong with that. Call it what you will, social security changes will have to take place. I think most people accept that, and the same is true for Medicare.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"Their argument seems to be that, if we can reach their standard, then they've set that standard too high."
Increases in knowledge, science, medicine and technology all go into what standards are. If people are still being killed by mercury levels, the bar is set too low (or allowable levels are too high). As for economic standards, just because people in China are killed by pollution, does not mean that we should.
Why should we go back to standards of 15 years ago? Of course it could be advantageous to return to the tax rates of the Clinton administration.
Now there is an interesting concept.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Sep 15, 2011, at 4:32 PM
Common,
You continue to try and confuse people with your insane postings. The fact is this thread has nothing to do with tax cuts and Clinton and Bush and on and on.
The question was regarding President B. Hussein Obama and his possible illegally throwing away a half billion dollars of hard earned taxpayer dollars.
You need to quit boring the crap out of people with your mumbo jumbo defenses of your Messiah. I think we have pretty much heard them all.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Sep 15, 2011, at 4:47 PM
"There was no mention of what is to be done with the 11 million."
Deny them work permits, they go home. No chasing them down.
So, you are in favour of forgiving both those who come here illegally, and those who hire them illegally. I guess you also support the violations of the minimum wage laws by those who hire them illegally, as well as their usual skirting of the payroll and income taxes when they hire them.
Do you favour any law at all?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Sep 15, 2011, at 5:02 PM
"Tax increases for the wealthy contribute to decreasing the deficit."
And tax increases for the working people also contribute to decreasing the deficit.
There is no evidence that the tax cut has increased spending or created jobs, but it has increased the deficit.
So, I take it you only favour deficit reduction if it can be done on the backs of the wealthy?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Sep 15, 2011, at 5:05 PM
"And there is nothing wrong with that. Call it what you will, social security changes will have to take place. I think most people accept that, and the same is true for Medicare."
But you referred to Republicans as 'crazy' because they favour such tax cuts. You are being duplicitous, just like the Democrats who favour such cuts as long as they aren't called 'cuts', and favour cutting the Social Security tax as long as they don't call it the Social Security tax.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Sep 15, 2011, at 5:08 PM
"Why should we go back to standards of 15 years ago?"
Maybe because we had a vibrant economy 15 years ago, and industrial output was thriving, even as the air was getting cleaner...
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Sep 15, 2011, at 5:09 PM
"Do you favour any law at all?"
I'm sure you are aware that the illegal problem did not spring forth overnight. Work permits will, without citizenship, will solve it. It's better thn doing nothing.
--------------
"...on the backs of the wealthy?"
As someone in the '30's once said about banks. Because that's where the money is.
-----------------------
"...we had a vibrant economy 15 years ago..."
With a slightly higher tax rate.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Sep 15, 2011, at 7:20 PM
"I think we have pretty much heard them all."
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Sep 15, 2011, at 4:47 PM
There's a fairly simple solution. I'll go back to ignoring your babbling, and you can ignore my contributions.
Sorry SH. Guess I'm not supposed to play in this sandbox anymore
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Sep 15, 2011, at 7:26 PM
Look closely at the tactic. The thread post is "Solyndra - did Obama step in it?" and a liberal democrat spins this into
"shudder at the thought of one of these creationism-loving, global-warming-denying, immigration-bashing, Social-Security-cutting, clean-air-hating, mortality-fascinated, Wall-Street-protecting Republicans running my country"
This is the ONLY tactic they have. When someone talks about Obama, hurry up and post irrelevant diatribes about Republicans or bring up Bush or Cheney - it doesn't matter, just do something to deflect the facts about Obama.
Common - you got nothing here. Obama is spending 1/2 billion in taxpayer backed loans for a defunct company. When I posted this *last week* you said we would recover the money and then you were proved wrong this week when the White House itself said we will not get the money back. You have no credibility in this argument.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Sep 15, 2011, at 7:31 PM
Did Dick Cheney falsify facts to invade Iraq so Haliburton could get rich?
-- Posted by nolimitsonthought on Thu, Sep 15, 2011, at 7:32 AM
I have no idea. What facts are you referring to? In what capacity or authority could Cheney falsify facts? Did Haliburton get rich?
"I don't understand how any Republican in federal office during 2000-2008 can criticize Obama for out-of-control spending with a straight face"
I understand your frustration with both parties.
Your passion for simple direct representation of the people is appreciated.
Don't let this thread discourage you from posting.
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Sep 15, 2011, at 10:01 PM
No, Obama did not step in it. The MSM will ignore it, and due to the lackluster and uninspiring republican candidates, Obama will more than likely be re-elected no matter what he does or doesn't do.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Thu, Sep 15, 2011, at 10:10 PM
There certainly are expenses to speed up the recovery, but it's not "spending to keep from going broke" by any means.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Sep 15, 2011, at 1:49 PM
Then what is it? He is not speeding up the recovery. He is causing more long term damage.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Fri, Sep 16, 2011, at 12:19 AM
White House's biggest concern seems to be the political ramifications. Not so much concern for our money.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Sep 16, 2011, at 2:16 AM
Rick,
We do not need another liberal Democrat at this time in history. I see little promise out there, that is electable anyway, but more of the same mistakes are not going to fix America.
I am willing to give anyone that will demonstrate some fiscal and social responsibility a chance to try their hand at it at this point.
Even the beltway Democrats are beginning to show signs of fear for where this loser is leading them.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Sep 16, 2011, at 10:04 AM
Solyndra is not alone.
Evergreen Solar Inc, $5.3m bankrupt.
Spectra Watt $500,000 bankrupt.
Mountain Plaza $2m bankrupt 2nd time since 2003.
Olsn's Mills Aquisition Co. $60m bankrupt.
A couple of these companies have moved to China to take advantage of Chinese government start up money.
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Sep 16, 2011, at 12:02 PM
Here's another one that the taxpayers stepped in:
"Taxpayers will lose about $14 billion in the government's $80 billion bailout of Chrysler and GM, the White House said Wednesday, portraying the outcome as good news since the losses are far lower than originally anticipated."
It was "only" $14 billion.
Do you "raise tax" proponents see why the rest of us are fed up with taxes? The waste, mismanagement and influence buying is unbelievable. Not another dime from me.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Fri, Sep 16, 2011, at 12:51 PM
The Solyndra debacle is $550 million lose of taxpayer money? Where I live $550 is not chump change. Ad $14 billion sure ain't either.
Wasshington has turned into Bedlam and the inmates are running the joint.
-- Posted by voyager on Fri, Sep 16, 2011, at 10:05 PM
The latest excuse from the Obama administration, "It is George Bush's fault!" I am sure that will be a shock to us all. Whooda thunk it?
-- Posted by Robert* on Sat, Sep 17, 2011, at 7:54 AM
When I posted the Solyndra bankruptcy last week I was told we would likely get our money back. Then the WH said "No, we won't" then this is in the news this morning:
"WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration restructured a half-billion dollar federal loan to a troubled solar energy company in such a way that private investors -- including a fundraiser for President Barack Obama -- moved ahead of taxpayers for repayment in case of a default, government records show."
"Newly released emails show that the Obama administration was worried about the financial health of a troubled solar energy company even as officials publicly declared the company in good shape. An email from a White House budget official to a co-worker discussed the likely effect of a default by Solyndra Inc. on President Barack Obama's re-election campaign."
"Administration officials defended the loan restructuring, saying that without an infusion of cash earlier this year, solar panel maker Solyndra Inc. would likely have faced immediate bankruptcy, putting more than 1,000 people out of work."
So they made the loan and then "restructured it" early this year to protect investors FIRST and a huge Obama fundraiser will now get his money back - you and I won't. Is that "Hope and Change" ? With a liberal media I suspect this story will die well before November 2012.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Sat, Sep 17, 2011, at 8:15 AM
With a liberal media I suspect this story will die well before November 2012.
-- Posted by Dug on Sat, Sep 17, 2011, at 8:15 AM
Somewhere last night as I was only half listening and finishing a project that was promised to be complete 3 days ago, I thought I heard someone with credibility say that they did not think this one was going to die out so easily and there could be some people going to jail over it. But I was not listening real closely. Could have been on O'Reiley's show.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sat, Sep 17, 2011, at 8:41 AM
Dug,
I somewhere mentioned the fact that someone had brought this up well ahead of the MSM, but being a bit on the absent minded side could not remember who at the time.
Don't know where you found it, but it seems to me that you had posted the Solyndra Scandal here at least a week before the MSM finally started talking about it.
Good work!
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sat, Sep 17, 2011, at 8:47 AM
Bill O'Reilly? Not to worry for he's "lookin' out for us". Yeah, you bet!
-- Posted by voyager on Sat, Sep 17, 2011, at 11:42 AM
Well, where are all the Obama supporters on this one? This is pretty deep. Restructure a 1/2 billion dollar loan so that a big campaign donater gets his money before the taxpayer gets theres? It's in the emails.
Could one of you please spin this for Obama? Convince me to vote for this crook.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Sat, Sep 17, 2011, at 9:56 PM
I still think that if these solar panels are the greatest thing since sliced bread, tax payer money is not needed and the company would survive and thrive on it's own.
-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Sep 17, 2011, at 10:12 PM
Dug,
One of his staunchest supporters tried to drag a whole school of dead (not red) herring through here to distract everyone, but that is about the best they have I suppose.
Old John,
I think that Solyndra pretty much proved conclusively that their solar collectors were not better than "sliced bread". Not only could they not survive on their own.... they could not do it with better than a half a billion dollars of our money.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sat, Sep 17, 2011, at 10:31 PM
The Chinese government subsidizes the solar panel industry in China. This allows Chinese companies to drive their competition out of business. Predatory pricing tactics make it impossible for the competition to survive. Although I am no fan of protectionism I do believe there is good reason for tariffs to be imposed on imported Chinese solar panels.
This administration's insistence on guaranteeing loans to 'stimulate' job creation in an industry which cannot compete or even survive in the face of these tactics demonstrates ignorance and inexperience in business.
A cynical person might consider it evidence that this President is willing to destroy American wealth under the guise of 'stimulus' in order to 'prove' that capitalism will not work. (see cloward/priven strategy)
-- Posted by Robert* on Sat, Sep 17, 2011, at 11:25 PM
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Sun, Sep 18, 2011, at 7:05 PM
This must be a damaging story. Not a single Obama supporter has stepped forward to defend this catastrophic decision by the Obama admin to make them look good in 2009 - but now look bad with covering for their donor and costing us 1/2 billion.
And Obamas making another teleprompter speech today in the rose garden asking for more money.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Mon, Sep 19, 2011, at 8:02 AM
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Mon, Sep 19, 2011, at 7:51 PM
Is MSM ignoring this story? Solyndra officials, given plenty of time to prepare, have decided they have nothing to say to the investigators.
The bottem line is that the government dumped a bunch of money in the name of jobs to drive jobs overseas.
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Sep 23, 2011, at 9:55 PM
Is it a coincidence?
The Chinese government subsidizes its 'green energy' companies, thus allowing them to undercut the competition and drive them out of business. China is also restricting the export of rare earth metals which are essential for the manufacture of high tech electronics. At the same time, China is the source of much of the borrowed capital which our government is using to 'stimulate' green jobs.
President Obama's administration provides funding to create 'green jobs'. Those companies which receive government funding are unable to compete with subsidized Chinese companies. They declare bankruptcy, costing US jobs which are sent overseas to India and China. The money has vanished (poured down a rat hole as my dad would put it). The taxpayers still have to repay the loans to the Chinese who now have eliminated their competition. Sounds like a win/win situation for the Chinese!
-- Posted by Robert* on Fri, Sep 23, 2011, at 10:55 PM
Wheels: This is about the same situation as the Haliburton fiasco during the Bush/Cheney years regarding the construction contracts in Iraq. Again, one side is as bad as the other.
-- Posted by swampeastmissouri on Sat, Sep 24, 2011, at 7:40 AM
I am with Rick on this!
-- Posted by Robert* on Sat, Sep 24, 2011, at 8:03 AM
swamp - "the same situation as the Haliburton fiasco during the Bush/Cheney years"
so you are just as upset about Obama, right? He's crooked, evil, devious and a corporate supporter with tax money, right? Just like evil Bush/Cheney, right? He should be impeached, right?
-- Posted by not_sorry on Sat, Sep 24, 2011, at 8:46 AM
The Congressional committee investigating the gunrunning scandal provided private attorneys for the whistleblowers in order to bypass White House influence and gain their testimony. Solyndra executives until very recently voiced their intention of cooperating with the committee........perhaps this committee should follow the lead of that committee, or is it already too late?
-- Posted by Robert* on Sat, Sep 24, 2011, at 9:11 AM
obama and his top dogs will walk scot free on Solyndra just as they will walk on Fast and Furious. Some low level minions will be punished. obama supporters will claim obama's innocence. obama opponents will claim justice was not served. Same ol', same ol'.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Sat, Sep 24, 2011, at 9:13 AM
Dug: I'm up-set with the whole bunch (Both parties) so is millions of other americans.
-- Posted by swampeastmissouri on Sat, Sep 24, 2011, at 9:41 AM
The plot is thickening. It appears that the Obama Administration found out Solyndra was failing so they dumpted some more of our money into the sinkhole to try and hide their incompetency.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Sep 29, 2011, at 12:29 AM
Wheels, I look for this to go back a ways when it all comes out, it's surely George Bush's fault. ;)
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Sep 29, 2011, at 12:51 AM
Wheels, I look for this to go back a ways when it all comes out, it's surely George Bush's fault. ;)
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Sep 29, 2011, at 12:51 AM
Old John,
You know, you're right.... why wasn't I smart enough to figure that out? Real decent of the Obama Administration to try and cover it up for him wasn't it?
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Sep 29, 2011, at 5:55 AM
OJ, and Wheels,
# 1
-- Posted by Robert* on Thu, Sep 29, 2011, at 2:01 PM
Where's Common on this?
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Thu, Sep 29, 2011, at 4:21 PM
It would be difficult for common to put a positive spin on this one for the Obama administration.
-- Posted by Robert* on Thu, Sep 29, 2011, at 4:54 PM
The Obama jobs bill will cost $23 million per job.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Thu, Sep 29, 2011, at 6:10 PM
The Department of Energy is set on Thursday to announce whether nine federal loan guarantees amounting to $6.5 billion for green energy projects will get final approval. Now isnt that nice?
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Thu, Sep 29, 2011, at 6:11 PM
I'm waiting for someone to say it's all because of republican deregulation.
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Sep 29, 2011, at 9:30 PM
Does this make any sense? Our government subsidizes an industry which cannot seem to create any jobs while at the same time it creates barriers for successful, traditional energy companies that are creating thousands of jobs.
Double Your Salary in the Middle of Nowhere, North Dakota
-- Posted by Robert* on Sat, Oct 1, 2011, at 9:32 PM
stnmns8, Sounds like the new gold rush could be North Dakota. My first thought was that I might clean up well enough to wait tables for $25/hr.
If I remember my history right, it might be a good time to send up a bunch of long johns and gloves, or maybe some tents and heaters. I guess Walmart already thought of that. :)
-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Oct 1, 2011, at 10:03 PM
-- Posted by Robert* on Sat, Oct 1, 2011, at 10:06 PM
Rick, Gov has been involved in a lot of product developement. NASA had a lot of by-products [memory foam comes to mind]. I think the gov partnered with the big three auto makers in developing a 6 speed automatic transmission and emmision control technology aimed at mpg.
In the case of the automotive accompishments, I think I understand that they have been surpassed by private efforts but are still used due to gov incentives. Case in point, the variable transmission used in the Ford Freestyle for one year. It's been quite a while, but I read several articles addressing the results of what you mention.
Yeah, I could clean up and be good at waiting tables if people liked waiting for me to wait on them. You still got that Rambler; could I live in it behind the cafe maybe? :)
-- Posted by Old John on Sun, Oct 2, 2011, at 9:30 AM
It just gets better. We have "Fast and *Infuriating* and now we have the latest on Solyndra today:
"Energy Department officials were warned that their plan to help a failing solar company by restructuring its $535 million federal loan could violate the law and should be cleared with the Justice Department, according to newly obtained e-mails from within the Obama administration.
The e-mails show that Energy Department officials moved ahead anyway with a new deal that would REPAY COMPANY INVESTORS BEFORE TAXPAYERS if the company defaulted. The e-mails show for the first time concerns within the administration about the legality of the Energy Department's extraordinary efforts to help Solyndra, the California solar company that went bankrupt Aug. 31."
=======================================
And Obama and the democrats want about $450 billion more? This "need" for more money is all because of the rich? Vote this clown out in 2012. They restructured this loan right before the company failed to cover the investors and soak the taxpayers.
Hello, Jimmy Carter, are you out there? Can't you run for 1 more term?
-- Posted by not_sorry on Sat, Oct 8, 2011, at 3:05 PM
Things get curiouser and curiouser at Solyndra
"The FBI is now investigating Solyndra, which made a revolutionary type of solar panel, for fraud."
The above indicates they had developed a new technology. There must be patents.... who gets these? Hopefully they are considered a part of the assets so that some scoundrel does not get to profit in the future for this disaster to the American Taxpayers.
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Oct 21, 2011, at 10:01 AM
Rut Ro.... Obama Biden Change you can believe in.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Fri, Oct 21, 2011, at 10:15 AM
Stuff, Still don't pass the smell test, has a gorey odor.
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Oct 21, 2011, at 10:39 AM
Notice how the JOBS, JOBS, JOBS, JOBS, JOBS, JOBS, JOBS, JOBS, JOBS, JOBS, JOBS, JOBS, BS from Obama and Biden have caused the Solyndra fiasco to be shoved to the back burner by the media.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Oct 21, 2011, at 10:46 AM
Stuff,
Tolerance is a word carelessly tossed around when one group desires that another allow it's rights to be infringed upon. Some groups seem to be seen as more 'equal' than others and are asked to stand aside quietly as their customs and beliefs are trashed.
-- Posted by Robert* on Fri, Oct 21, 2011, at 8:01 PM
I see the Obama administration doesn't want to comply with the supeno seeking information about Solyndra.
-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Nov 5, 2011, at 12:23 PM
Like everything else this guy fails at, the MSM will give him a pass. Or Obama will start a new crisis somewhere else to distract.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Sat, Nov 5, 2011, at 1:28 PM
Wag the doggy?
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Sat, Nov 5, 2011, at 5:34 PM
Wish we could get some of that "Transparency" out of the White House that is being howled for on one of the other threads....
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sat, Nov 5, 2011, at 6:10 PM
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Sat, Nov 5, 2011, at 8:25 PM
"Is it safety to come back yet ?"
I think so Rick. "Stuff" happens you know.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sat, Nov 5, 2011, at 8:38 PM
Rick,
The man himself is transparent... he is an empty suit. I saw through him in 2007. The transparency we need is on the dealings he and his henchment pull off in the White House.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sat, Nov 5, 2011, at 8:41 PM
This is a thread about whether the president stepped in it regarding Solyndra.
We all know Wheels, you dislike Mr. Obama. Please respect the thread or move on, just saying.
-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Nov 5, 2011, at 11:29 PM
Old John,
Now you are being "Pedantic".
Bartender, I'll have what Old John is drinking!
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sat, Nov 5, 2011, at 11:39 PM
Wheels, I was just checking to see if you had taken off the old man pull-ups and retired for the night. :)
-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Nov 5, 2011, at 11:42 PM
Old John,
I had almost forgotten than comment. Believe that came from Sue Lynn.
No I haven't shed the old man pull-ups for the evening yet. Just sitting here sifting through information from the dead folks.
Are old man pull-ups boxers or briefs.... or are they the ones with the trap door?
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sun, Nov 6, 2011, at 12:03 AM
Wheels, Not sure, I think you went south on us about that time, mine were of the insulated variety. Anyway they weren't transparent.
Regret, The video of Obama telling folks there would be a press conference later for questions made me think he left off "when I have my telepromter"
-- Posted by Old John on Sun, Nov 6, 2011, at 12:35 AM
Old John posting on another thread just reminded me..... we are not hearing much in the media about Solyndra these days.
Has the Obama crew been able to quietly sweep this scandal under the rug??
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Jan 18, 2012, at 9:42 AM
The Obama Media at work.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Wed, Jan 18, 2012, at 9:53 AM
Another failed Obama loan for a "green" company in the news last week. I'm sure there's another campaign donor involved in this one as well. It is criminal.
"A Massachusetts company that received a $43 million Energy Department loan guarantee last year filed for bankruptcy Sunday, a step certain to fuel criticism of federal green energy financing in the wake of the solar company Solyndra's collapse."
There are more out there. $600 million in failed Obama loans. And he wants to blame greedy loaners for failure? He and his socialist minions are incompetent.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Wed, Jan 18, 2012, at 10:09 AM
If we had an unbiased media they would be looking at all of Obama's corporate connected contributors to see how they are being paid back by our tax dollars.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Jan 18, 2012, at 10:13 AM
Dug,
The Beacon Power Corp. article linked is from October of last year, not last week.
But, yes, they are listed as Democrat donors. Granted, 'green energy' has been a bid Democrat push, so I would suspect that any 'green energy' company that donates to politicians, probably focuses on Democrat politicians.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jan 18, 2012, at 10:14 AM
Shapely - thanks for the correction.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Wed, Jan 18, 2012, at 10:22 AM
Smart investing in hard times...... Beacon Power.
"It's, it is a junk bond," Morici said. "But it's not even a good junk bond. It's well below investment grade."
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Wed, Jan 18, 2012, at 10:31 AM
Will people remember this in November? That is the stuff that drives me nuts. The only thing that will "save" the economy in the US and EU this year is the strong resistance by liberals (the media, european banks, soros, et al) to limp it through November and make it look like things are slightly better. Then the crash in 2013 will come.
ABO.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Wed, Jan 18, 2012, at 10:33 AM
What puzzeles me is if history is an indicater republicans will likely also continue to be silent on all this as election nears.
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Jan 18, 2012, at 10:48 AM
Voters have shown in the past that they have an incredibly short and poor memory. Don't know why this year will be any different.
If the voters of this country elect Obama again, they deserve what they get. If you think the past three years have been a disaster, you are going to see Obama on steroids if he gets elected for a 2nd term. Just remember he will be beholden to no one except those who are trying to buy the office for him with a billion dollars worth of contributions.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Jan 18, 2012, at 10:48 AM
It's been my observation that Democrats are more forgiving of corruption by Democrats than Republicans are of corruption by Republicans, once it is proven. This explains why convicted, impeached, or admonished Democrats manage to get re-elected to office (Marion Barry, Alcee Hastings, Barney Frank, Edward Kennedy, John Murtha, et. al.)
I believe this is because Democrats send lawmakers to Washington in the hopes that they will steal more from other districts and states, collectively, than those districts and states will steal from their own. Thus, given that they send them to Washington to steal, they are willing to turn a blind eye if they pocket a little along the way.
Republicans, on the other hand, send lawmakers to Washington in the hopes that they will minimize the theft from their own district and state, which is to say from their own pockets. Thus, given that they are sending them to Washington to minimize theft, they are less forgiving when they are caught with their hand in the till.
Granted, there are exceptions, both on the personnal (individual voter) side and as collectives (districts and states), both involving unforgiven Democrats and forgiven Republicans.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jan 18, 2012, at 11:33 AM
I feel a common response coming.
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Jan 18, 2012, at 12:06 PM
I feel a common response coming.
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Jan 18, 2012, at 12:06 PM
I don't know what he could say. Last time he said taxpayers would not lose money on Solyndra and now we know taxpayers will eat the entire $500+ million loss.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Wed, Jan 18, 2012, at 12:24 PM
Likely. However, I don't know how else you can describe it. The Democrats encourage people who aren't rich to vote to raise taxes on people who are (theft by government). They also promote federal funding for local projects (stealing from other states and districts to fund themselves).
The concept of subsidiarity, which is generally accepted by Republicans (with exceptions), upholds the idea that local projects should be funded with local taxes and local funding, minimizing theft from other districts and states. The promotion of flatter, fairer taxes supports the idea that we do not steal from the rich and give to the poor as a matter of public policy.
I'm sure there'll be an effort to spin it as something other than theft, but I don't see how it can logically be called something else. Robin Hood may be viewed as virtuous because he stole from one group to support a less fortunate group, but at least they admit he was a thief.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jan 18, 2012, at 12:26 PM
For every misuse of power, there is a someone somewhere to downplay it.
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Jan 18, 2012, at 2:35 PM
The gun walking or whatever it was dubbed faded from the media. Not much was reported about the health care waivers being most popular in Nevada and California, especially among friends and districts of Reid and Pelosi.
The primary voting scandal that got Obama on the ticket is something one has to dig for to know about. The list goes on.
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Jan 18, 2012, at 2:52 PM
""The rushed and arbitrary deadline insisted on by Congressional Republicans ..."
"If you don't set deadlines in this town, things don't happen. The default position is inertia." - Barack Obama -
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jan 18, 2012, at 3:32 PM
~~Rick wrote:
"Sometimes I see the Democrats as wanting to spread the money around as if to even out the pile."
That's what the fictional character Robin Hood did. As I've said, they at least acknowledged that he was a thief.
If 9 people gang up on 1 and take his money, that is called robbery. If 90% of the people gang up on 10% and tax their money, that is called 'democracy in action'. This, of course, is why tax rates should be uniform. It is too easy, as the Democrats are doing, to persuade those who have no skin in the game to vote for increases upon those who do. Uniform rates mean that everytime people vote for a tax increase, they are voting to hit their own pocketbooks, not just those they outnumber.
Democrats talk a lot about 'fairness' but there's nothing fair about robbery.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jan 18, 2012, at 3:38 PM
The President since being in office for over three years has a 5 trillion dollar debt on his watch if the 1.2 trillion request is awarded to him his total debt since being in office will go over six trillion dollars the most of any President in history. This guy can spend the money like it grows on trees.
-- Posted by swampeastmissouri on Wed, Jan 18, 2012, at 4:31 PM
The irony. Wasted energy on the same daily drival.
-- Posted by CSIP2016 on Wed, Jan 18, 2012, at 4:37 PM
No gettiup, it is not wasted drival. We need to see to it that the voter does not forget that we have a dirty politician who needs defeating in 2012.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Jan 18, 2012, at 6:59 PM
Long live the sock puppets!
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Jan 19, 2012, at 11:25 AM
Voters tend to have short memories. Those of us who understand what is going on in this administration must work to educate those who do not. If we fail in this regard we will be guaranteed four more years of this 'green' apologizer-in-chief.
-- Posted by Robert* on Thu, Jan 19, 2012, at 7:46 PM
President Obama states that he is 'focused like a lazer on jobs'. I only wish he would take the bullseye off the petroleum and coal industries and get his finger off the trigger. He's killing us!
-- Posted by Robert* on Thu, Jan 19, 2012, at 7:48 PM
stnmsn8, I have'nt been following the rhetoric of the republican candidates that closely yet. Are any promising to get government out of the way of jobs or are they all promising to create jobs?
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Jan 19, 2012, at 7:56 PM
Stnmsn8,
You been missing.... good hearing from you again.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Jan 19, 2012, at 8:02 PM
stnmsn8, I have'nt been following the rhetoric of the republican candidates that closely yet. Are any promising to get government out of the way of jobs or are they all promising to create jobs?
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Jan 19, 2012, at 7:56 PM
With the exception of Ron Paul, they're all feeding us the same crap obama fed us during his first campaign, i.e. "I'll be the country's salvation, vote for me." More and bigger gov't will ensue.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Thu, Jan 19, 2012, at 10:38 PM
Live &Let.., You are probably on to something there. We at least know Obama was fibbing but hindsight is a telling thing.
It's time to move on the next fibber and hope he's not fibbing as much.
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Jan 19, 2012, at 10:47 PM
I've said it before: It's a sad reflection on that which passes for leadership these days that, as the country heads to Hell in a handbasket, the best any of them can promise is a slower handbasket.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Jan 20, 2012, at 8:30 AM
I've said it before: It's a sad reflection on that which passes for leadership these days that, as the country heads to Hell in a handbasket, the best any of them can promise is a slower handbasket.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Jan 20, 2012, at 8:30 AM
The real leaders don't want to get in the gutter with pro politicians and have their families drug through the dirt. Almost everyone has some skeletons or some member of the family that will be for less than desirable. We all have them. Why do you think Obama keeps so many things unavailable?
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Fri, Jan 20, 2012, at 10:22 AM
Why do you think Obama keeps so many things unavailable?
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Fri, Jan 20, 2012, at 10:22 AM
Speaking of that.... whatever happened to that aunt of his that we have been supporting in the past, is she still living on the taxpayer's dime.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Jan 20, 2012, at 10:25 AM
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Jan 20, 2012, at 12:19 PM
I wonder if the bankruptcy lawyers are from.. say Chicago maybe?
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Jan 20, 2012, at 1:18 PM
Another. How many buddy and donor loan skeletons does Obama have in his closet? This electric car company pimped by Obama/Biden received $118 million in GRANTS from the administration. They bragged about the company last year. It went bankrupt this week and 1,000 lost their jobs. And we will lose our taxpayer money. But hey - gotta get more taxes from the rich!
Ener1--a company that manufactures batteries for electric cars, and that received $118.5 million in federal stimulus money, and that Vice President Joe Biden visited last year the day after President Obama's State of the Union Address--announced today that it has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
In last year' State of the Union, delivered Jan. 25, 2011, President Obama set a national goal of having a million electric vehicles on the road in the United States by 2015--a goal that would be achieved, Obama said, by taking money out of the oil industry and "investing" it in new technology.
The next day, Biden visited the Ener1 plant in Greenfield, Ind.--which the White House said at the time had received a $118.5 million grant from the Department of Energy and was the type of investment the president was talking about in his State of the Union.
Here's the link to the whole story. You've got to read it - sick!
-- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Jan 26, 2012, at 4:46 PM
Common - Solyndra, GlobalWatt, Evergreen Solar, SV Solar, Solasta, Wakonda, OptiSloar, SpectraWatt, BP Solar, Stirling Energy, Senergen, Solon, Solar Millennium, Off-Grid Solar, and Soliant have all gone out of business. ECD and Hoku Solar appear to be about to do the same.
Can you add all of these up so we can see how much your presidents "green" initiative are costing us? And don't forget the $27BILLION we lost in the auto bailout that has turned them around - laughable.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Jan 26, 2012, at 4:50 PM
There will be no repercussions for Obama or his administration. His heart was/is in the right place. As such, success or failure is irrevalent to his supporters, or for that matter anyone in gov't from either party. Look forward to 5 more years of the same.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Thu, Jan 26, 2012, at 7:25 PM
His heart was/is in the right place.
-- Posted by Live & Let Live on Thu, Jan 26, 2012, at 7:25 PM
Tell me you're not serious!
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Jan 26, 2012, at 7:48 PM
Dug, Also Mountain Plaza $2m bankrupt 2nd time since 2003.
Olsn's Mills Aquisition Co. $60m bankrupt.
How many privately well financed companies have went overseas because of red tape of all the alphabet soup agencies of the federal government and the hoops jumping required to start up here?
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Jan 26, 2012, at 7:53 PM
His heart was/is in the right place.
-- Posted by Live & Let Live on Thu, Jan 26, 2012, at 7:25 PM
Tell me you're not serious!
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Jan 26, 2012, at 7:48 PM
Yes, I'm serious. Any Obama supporter will tell you that what's important is what's in your heart, and that results, or lack thereof, is irrelevant. Liberals, i.e. Dems and Repubs, believe that it's the thought that counts.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Thu, Jan 26, 2012, at 8:20 PM
Live,
I think I'm going to be ill.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Jan 26, 2012, at 8:29 PM
Join the club. Politicians and their worshippers make me ill also.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Thu, Jan 26, 2012, at 8:33 PM
The latest "green" solar bankruptcy with $2.1 BILLION in loan guarantees from the Obama administration. Still unclear how much federal money has been lost.
"The chief of the General Services Administration resigned, two of her top deputies were fired and four managers were placed on leave Monday amid reports of lavish spending at a conference off the Las Vegas Strip that featured a clown, a mind reader and a $31,208 reception.
Administrator Martha N. Johnson, in her resignation letter, acknowledged a "significant misstep" at the agency that manages real estate for the federal government. "Taxpayer dollars were squandered," she wrote. At the start of her tenure in February 2010 she called ethics "a big issue for me."
Public Buildings Service chief Robert A. Peck, a fixture in the Washington area real estate community on his second stint running the department, was forced out, along with Johnson's top adviser, Stephen Leeds. Four GSA managers who organized the four-day conference in October 2010 have been placed on adminstrative leave, officials said.
The leadership collapse came hours before GSA Inspector General Brian D. Miller released a scathing report on the $823,000 training conference, held for 300 West Coast employees at the M Resort and Casino, an opulent hotel in Henderson, Nev., just south of Las Vegas. From $130,000 in travel expenses for six scouting trips to a $2,000 party in Peck's loft suite, event planners violated federal limits on conference spending.
The episode is an embarrassment for the Obama administration at a time when the role and size of government have taken center stage in the presidential campaign. How much government should spend, and on what, will be at the heart of the election-year battles between Democrats and Republicans.
The White House, which has led a campaign against government waste, was alerted in March to the year-long investigation. It moved swiftly to get in front of the scandal. Chief of Staff Jacob J. Lew briefed President Obama before last week's trip to South Korea.
Obama "was outraged by the excessive spending, questionable dealings with contractors, and disregard for taxpayer dollars," Lew said in a statement to The Washington Post, calling for "all those responsible to be held fully accountable."
But Capitol Hill lawmakers were quick to criticize the scandal as fresh evidence that the White House is tolerating wasteful spending.
Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) called the episode "a stupid and infuriating waste of taxpayer dollars." House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) said it reflects the "waste that exists in a bloated federal government."
Johnson will be replaced by Dan Tangherlini, the Treasury Department's assistant secretary for management, a widely respected manager who was city administrator for the District and acting director of Metro.
Johnson, through a spokesman, declined to comment. Peck, reached while traveling in Ohio, also declined to comment.
The GSA, with 12,600 employees in 11 regional offices and the Washington headquarters, also handles much of the government's procurement and holds a "Western Regions" conference every other year for employees assigned to West Coast offices. The focus is on training in job skills and "an exchange of ideas between 'higher-ups,' '' the inspector general said."
___________
Money is no object, if it ain't your money.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Apr 3, 2012, at 12:31 PM
Now, he is trying to dictate to the Supreme Court on how to rule on the Obamacare Health Law. I have never heard a President go after the Supreme Court like he did yesterday that was a first.
-- Posted by swampeastmissouri on Tue, Apr 3, 2012, at 1:42 PM
Not a first, Franklin Roosevelt threatened to increase the size of the court, permitting him to instantly pack it with a majority of his own appointees. The threat apparently worked, since the court, which was ruling on his Social Security programme, capitulated and let the unconstitutional programme survive.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Apr 3, 2012, at 1:57 PM
Wasn't it Obama that scolded companies for having conventions in Vegas?
Swamp, Roosevelt tried to add more justices to the court that endorsed his big government thinking.
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Apr 3, 2012, at 2:04 PM
And weren't the Obama girls recently on an expensive Vegas trip?
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Apr 3, 2012, at 2:06 PM
"Obama "was outraged by the excessive spending, questionable dealings with contractors, and disregard for taxpayer dollars," Lew said in a statement to The Washington Post, calling for "all those responsible to be held fully accountable.""
Yes.... I bet he was outraged that they got caught. Old John just said what I was going to say, only he said it nicer than me. I think you are an incompetent a**h*** when you do not demand of your own people what you criticise others for. And he is indirectly responsible for the government waste... as Harry Truman said, "The Buck Stops Here", Obama seems to have taken it to mean... pass the buck.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Apr 3, 2012, at 2:11 PM
From what I can gather, the bucks never stop with Mr. Obama, they just keep going and going and going...
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Apr 3, 2012, at 2:20 PM
I am amused at the way he takes a stand when caught.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Tue, Apr 3, 2012, at 2:51 PM
Obama outraged over spending I find that hard to believe. I don't know who can spend the most him or Nancy Pelosi.
-- Posted by swampeastmissouri on Tue, Apr 3, 2012, at 3:03 PM
Money is no object, if it ain't your money. -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Apr 3, 2012, at 12:31 PM
-- Posted by fxpwt on Tue, Apr 3, 2012, at 7:40 PM
"The Cape Girardeau City Manager says overhauling Broadway from Southeast Missouri State University to the riverfront is worth the extra money it will cost to get the job done."
The first of how many millions the casino will cost. I noticed when they first published the map that it just happened to coincide with the likely approaches to the casino. How long before they decide they need a four-lane approach from the bridge?
Now, where did they put that traffic study they promised?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Apr 3, 2012, at 8:00 PM
In the news today - another Obama "green" failure at a cost of $20 million in federal grants and tax credits - more of our taxpayer money.
This company was located in Nevada and went bankrupt and will not be paying back the money. $20 million. It goes on and on with Obama picking losers with his "investments" (our hard earned money). ALL he really knows or understands comes from a world of government handouts and taxes. The man has never worked a day in his life. He just doesn't get the "American Way".
-- Posted by not_sorry on Wed, Jul 18, 2012, at 8:51 PM
Dug
Obama has proven he doesn't know how business works but "When you rob Peter to pay Paul, you can always count on the support of Paul".
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Wed, Jul 18, 2012, at 9:01 PM
Yeah Regrets, and it makes for a sore Peter.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Jul 18, 2012, at 9:21 PM
:-)
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Wed, Jul 18, 2012, at 10:02 PM
Obama has proven he doesn't know how business works but "When you rob Peter to pay Paul, you can always count on the support of Paul".
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Wed, Jul 18, 2012, at 9:01 PM
Yeah Regrets, and it makes for a sore Peter.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Jul 18, 2012, at 9:21 PM
Oh my gawd. I am so glad that you boys cleared up somethin that has been stickin in my craw for a long time.
One day I come home earlie from my 12 hour shift at the sawmill and I heerd Cletus talking on the phone when I knowed he didn't see me. He kept talkin the words sore and peter ,sore and peter over and over agin. I hadn't heard Cletus that mad since the Dukes of Hazzard got cancelled.
i knowed he was a talkin to my sister Hazel cause he always calls her Easy. Thats the name she picked up workin down at the pool hall. Heck all the guys down there call her Easy.I ain't ever figured why that is though.
Now I ain't the smartest girl that ever graduated 8th grade but I learned enough watchin one of the smartest men on t.v. who ever lived, Jerry springer.Jerry had lots of shows using the words sore and peter and i just new Cletus was up to no good agin. I said cletus I told you not to be messin around Hazel with out me a being their. And cletus said Rose honey it ain't what you thank it is. You no I caint work to hard cause of my bad back,and Hazel just comes over to help me clean up the house. She didn't want to tell you that cause she didn't want you to fill bad about being a bad housewife keepin a dirty house an all.
I want to thank you boys agin. I am so sorry that I ever mistrusted Cletus. I'm gonna work lots of overtime down at the sawmill so I can by cletus that new fishing rod he's been a wantin just to prove I'm sorry I didn't trust him.
-- Posted by Rose Petal on Wed, Jul 18, 2012, at 11:32 PM
"Oh my gawd. I am so glad that you boys cleared up somethin that has been stickin in my craw for a long time."
Rose Petal,
I wouldn't touch that statement with a 10 foot pole.... ;-)
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Jul 19, 2012, at 8:42 AM
Today is the anniversary of the Solyndra debacle and guess how we are celebrating it.
We are going to fund another potential looser for a couple of hundred million. This would be Solo Power.
And guess what... the President of Solo Power helped to fund Obama's 2008 run for the White House, to the tune of $30,000.00
Is there no shame in the brassy way politicians are stealing our money.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Sep 27, 2012, at 7:01 PM
Menu
Did Green Jobs Cheerleader in Chief, President Barrack Hussein Obama push the loans to Solyndra for Political Purposes or to promote Green Jobs?
Replies (152)