Solyndra Execs and Shareholders made Huge Donations to the Obama Campaign The Local Dish, posted by Hank Lawrence, a resident of the Menlo Park: Sharon Heights neighborhood, on Sep 11, 2011 at 8:20 am
Solyndra executives and shareholders made hundreds of thousands of dollars to Obama's 2008 campaign for the White House and in an apparent quid pro quo was given over 1/2 Billion Dollars in Federal loan guarantees. On top of that Department of Energy officials regulary attended Solyndra Board Meetings as the Board steered the company over a cliff into a financial abyss.
You don't hardly hear a peep from the press over Solyndra while they chanted the Halliburton Mantra every chance they got during the Bush Administration. The press can widely be seen as a cheering section for Obama; turning a blind eye to his numerous contretemps while excoriating more responsible candidates for the 2012 presidential campaign. Obama was the press' guy because his advocated European style Socialism and being the idiots that they are they actually believe Socialism is good for the United States. In a pig's eye.
For more information on the Obama Titanic please refer to this web link
Posted by Solar subsidies worldwide, a resident of another community, on Sep 11, 2011 at 9:05 am
"Instead of subsidizing the purchase and use of solar power, China has focused on building the competitiveness of the country’s manufacturers."
"Europe, which attracted more than $65 billion in solar plant investment in 2010, is providing lessons for China. Germany, the largest panel market, together with Spain and France carried out four unscheduled subsidy cuts in 2010, trying to slow a torrent of projects by developers and speculators.
(slow down the rapid growth initiated by subsidies)
China is first focusing STATE support on its own equipment manufacturers. That helps them gain market share and cut prices, lowering the eventual cost of a nationwide solar construction program China plans for itself.
“China is definitely playing a longer game in solar,” Daniel Guttmann, head of renewable energy strategy at the consulting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP in London, said by telephone. “It has done a lot to subsidize its manufacturers.”
Wiki - Germany is one of the world's top photovoltaics (PV) installers, with a solar PV capacity as of 2010 of almost 17,000 megawatts (MW). The German solar PV industry installed 7,400 MW from nearly one-quarter million individual systems in 2010, and solar PV provided 12 TWh (billion kilowatt-hours) of electricity in 2010, about 2% of total electricity. Some market analysts expect this could reach 25 percent by 2050.
Posted by Michael G. Stogner, a resident of another community, on Sep 11, 2011 at 9:31 am
Hank, Thank You for this post and links.
Another example of why government should stay out of business.
"Indeed, President Obama’s assertion that companies "like Solyndra are leading the way toward a brighter and more prosperous future" should be a big disappointment for his administration. After all, Solyndra’s "future" has not only turned to bankruptcy, but also an FBI investigation that could prove company executives and financiers swindled the U.S. government – and in the end, possibly American taxpayers – for hundreds of millions of dollars."
Posted by Solar subsidies worldwide, a resident of another community, on Sep 11, 2011 at 9:44 am
With all due respect, Hank's rant wasn't about government staying out of business.
It dealt exclusively with businesses (and their executives) interfering with government (with a minor rant about corporate owned media somehow being socialists.)
Ken Lay and Dick Cheney. Solyndra's political contributions.
We need to keep corporations and corporate money out of government. See GOP presidential candidate Buddy Roemer. Web Link
China and Germany built and protected their solar manufacturing industries to be the top two worldwide through subsidies. The biggest new industry since biotech and they are making it impossible for America to compete.
Posted by Menlo Voter, a resident of the Menlo Park: other neighborhood, on Sep 11, 2011 at 10:07 am
Until we start putting teriffs on Chinese manufactured products our corporations will continue to ship jobs off shore and we will end up a country with zero manufacturing. In regards to solar we should be charging tariffs in line with the amount of subsidies the foreign companies recieve for manufacturing. Those subsidies are a large part of why we cannot compete.
Posted by POGO, a resident of the Woodside: other neighborhood, on Sep 12, 2011 at 12:31 pm
Solar subsidies worldwide -
I have long advocated NO subsidies to any one or any company.
No subsidies for oil companies, farmers or banks - not to any private businesses.
And, while we're at it, I'm against subsidies to people who have children (which discriminates against people who choose not to and, ironically SAVE society money), I'm against subsidies to people who buy homes (which discriminates against renters and only subsidizes real estate companies and mortgage banks) and to people who donate to charities. By the way, those last three subsidies dwarf any of the subsidies that are provided to business by a wide margin.
If government wants to pick winners, why not Haagen Dazs or tattoo parlors? It makes just as much sense.
Posted by Ethan, a resident of the Menlo Park: University Heights neighborhood, on Sep 12, 2011 at 2:22 pm
You left out the largest federal "tax expenditure" in the budget: the exclusion of employer-paid health insurance, a tax break that will total more than $1 trillion over the next five years. This is really a government subsidy to the for-profit heath insurance industry, since the tax money "saved" essentially goes into higher premiums. The five largest insurers, along with some competitors, posted a 250% return over the past decade, earning more than $15 billion in 2010. That amounts to 22% growth over their combined $12.2 billion earnings in 2009. In a bad economy, profits soared in part because recession-strapped policyholders are skipping doctor visits and other billable care because they can't afford the deductibles and co-pays. Since there's no public option in the ACA reforms, these companies have the market to themselves. And they're starting to buy up hospitals and medical practices to extend their monopoly.
When it comes to feeding at the public trough, the solar industry is a mouse in an elephant stockade.
Posted by POGO, a resident of the Woodside: other neighborhood, on Sep 12, 2011 at 8:32 pm
You are absolutely correct and I thank you for pointing this out. I had forgotten.
Yes, company-paid health insurance IS income. There's no reason why an employee should get this compensation tax free yet a self-employed person (or someone who pays their own insurance) has to pay for it after tax.
No subsidies, period. I'm willing to give up all of mine. Are you willing to give up yours?
By the way, what I am proposing is consistent with the recommendations from President Obama's Debt Commission's co-chairs. Everyone, including President Obama, ignored them.
Posted by Renee Batti, news editor of The Almanac, on Sep 13, 2011 at 1:13 pm Renee Batti is a member (registered user) of Almanac Online
Wotinga, Look more closely at the post that began this thread with the headline you seem to be criticizing -- it is an opinion, and it's not masquerading as news. It was written by one of Town Square's regular, and very opinionated, posters. Town Square is a forum for people to voice their opinions.
The headline on a Town Square thread is generated by an editor only if the first poster is commenting on an Almanac article. In such a case, the article link, with the original headline, is at the top of the thread, with comments following.
Posted by Ethan, a resident of the Menlo Park: University Heights neighborhood, on Sep 13, 2011 at 1:52 pm
More perspective on money in politics:
In 2009 health insurance companies gave the U.S. Chamber of Commerce $86.2 million to be used to oppose healthcare reform, according to Bloomberg News. That sum, described as “breathtaking” by one Washington insider, represented 40 percent of the chamber's spending that year. The money went for "advertisements, polling, and grass roots events." That's in addition to millions in addition funding that goes to insurance industry front groups like the Council for Affordable Health Insurance. The Center for Public Integrity estimates that the 4,500 healthcare lobbyists who descended on Washington in 2009 were paid about $1.2 billion in all. The largest insurers, hospitals, and medical groups hired more than 350 former government staff members and retired members of Congress to influence their old bosses and colleagues, according to the Washington Post.
And let's not even get started on the multitrillion-dollar military-industrial complex, in which retired military officers routinely sign on as executives and lobbyists for defense contractors. The entire solar industry is a kid's lemonade stand in comparison.
Posted by POGO, a resident of the Woodside: other neighborhood, on Sep 13, 2011 at 5:09 pm
I've never accepted waste, fraud and abuse because others do it. Your Mom didn't buy it and neither do I.
A half a billion here and a half a billion there - pretty soon you're talking real money.
In this case, Solyndra squandered $500 million of TAXPAYER money. What companies or individuals do with THEIR OWN money - including lobbying - is up to them.
You noted how much insurance companies spent opposing healthcare reform. Yet, healthcare reform PASSED - a near party-line vote - and those insurance companies appear to be the principal beneficiaries. If it didn't pay off, they wouldn't have done it.
Posted by Hank Lawrence, a resident of the Menlo Park: Sharon Heights neighborhood, on Sep 14, 2011 at 7:17 am
Michelle Malkin hits the nail on the head with her New York Post exposé on the incompetence and fecklessness of the Obama Administration. She says
"buried in the details of his latest “jobs” bill are yet more big green boondoggles that will reward cronies, waste taxpayer dollars and make no dent in the jobless rate."
"The Washington Examiner’s Tim Carney, a vigilant chronicler of green subsidies, notes that time and again, it’s Obama insiders and Democratic operatives pocketing all the green while the unemployment hovers at double-digits."
To further be enlightened on the Obama Administration's complete bungling of green jobs please refer to this link
31-60 billion dollars thrown away to contractors, or simply UNACCOUNTED FOR, rather than have qualified government do the job right the first time. Web Link
"The Commission’s finding that at least one out of every six taxpayer dollars spent in Iraq and Afghanistan was lost to waste and fraud is not surprising—but it is absurd. In other words, for the past 10 years, the government has thrown $12 million a day out the window and received nothing in return. "
31 to 60 billion dollars
so much money wasted, even auditors can't figure it all out yet
Posted by Nobama, a resident of the Atherton: other neighborhood, on Sep 14, 2011 at 10:51 pm
My thanks to the usual contributers. I'm a much younger observer, and I just think it's an absolute shame that our government is filled with politicians who can be repeatedly bought. This isn't anything new, of course. This sadly is on both sides of the political spectrum. Maybe it's because our system is inherently flawed.
I'm glad to say I never drank the Obama Koolaid, or the promises of anyone who claims to deliver great results for all without explaining how. Hope and change was genius marketing based upon ideal states of mind and a naivete that one guy was going to change everything for the better. Long after POGO, Michael Stogner, and all you great contributers are dead, I am going to be left with my generation to wade through the crap that you all left us with.
Solyndra was a flawed company from the start. Their business plan never would have worked. Anyone who knows the economics of solar knows what I'm talking about. Can't throw money at dreams and stupid change without the economics to back it up. Only the government can do it! ...A perfect example of a shovel-ready boondoggle. Shovels are ready, however, to shovel the BS.
Posted by Alfred E Newman, a resident of the Atherton: Lindenwood neighborhood, on Sep 15, 2011 at 9:51 am
Hey boys, good to see ya!
Buried in this mess:
- the Solyndra deal was started in 2006, under Bush
- was part of a bi-partisan effort to cut foreign oil imports
- was expedited under Obama's DOE
- was started by our government to try to capitalize on one of the fastest growing industries in the world, to balance trade, to rebuild our manufacturing base, etc..
- was a fraction of what China subsidized their solar industry - $40 Billion
- Solyndra also took down over a billion in private investment
Ugly all around. China's laughing all the way to the bank (full of US dollars.) When they underwrite a fledgling industry, they don't do it halfway - $40 Billion.
from the morning fishwrap:
""I can't imagine we would be willing to cede what is undoubtedly one of the largest, if not the largest, industries in the world for the next several decades," Jonathan Silver, executive director of the Department of Energy's Loan Programs Office"
"Silver said private investors who loaned $1.1 billion for the Fremont facility were also taken by surprise. He pinned blame for the bankruptcy on more than $20 billion in direct investment by the Chinese government in solar manufacturers that now dominate the industry."
"U.S. market share in solar energy has plunged from 40 percent in 1995 to 6 percent today, Silver said. In the past six years, China's market share has soared from 6 percent to 54 percent.... Plummeting prices of solar panels from China and weakening demand from financially stressed European governments forced two other bankruptcies of U.S. solar manufacturers last month... With Solyndra, the companies represent a fifth of U.S. solar panel manufacturing capacity."
"Committee Democrat Ed Markey of Massachusetts acknowledged that the loan was "expedited" as part of a broad effort to get stimulus money out the door as fast as possible, but he was "unconvinced" that there was any wrongdoing, citing three years of due diligence, much of it conducted by civil servants during the Bush administration."
"Republican Brian Bilbray of Carlsbad (San Diego County) also said he did not believe there was "an intentional misdeed," ... Bilbray said the Solyndra failure could tarnish more-viable solar projects elsewhere."
"Solyndra first applied for a loan in 2006 after bipartisan passage of the 2005 Energy Policy Act, intended to wean the country from foreign oil."
Posted by POGO, a resident of the Woodside: other neighborhood, on Sep 15, 2011 at 3:02 pm
1. Yes, the application was taken during the Bush Administration. And your point would be?
From today's WSJ and NY Times:
2. The loan guarantee to Solyndra was REJECTED by the Bush Administration in January 2009.
3. The Obama Administration approved the loan guarantee just a few months later under pressure from the White House who was eager to make their first "green jobs" loan guarantees.
4. Over $500 million of taxpayer money was lent to Solyndra. Do you recall how much taxpayer money was lost on Enron? (Hint: It's a trick question.)
5. The Obama Administration had a representative sitting on the board of directors of Solyndra. This implies a far greater level of fiduciary responsibility than anything we have seen in government to date. What was that person thinking or doing?
I love how you excuse one administration's scandal by citing another that did worse. Did that ever work for you as a child? If so, it doesn't explain a lot, it explains everything.
Solyndra only proves that the Halliburtons of the world are not limited to a single political party.
Posted by Alfred E Newman, a resident of the Atherton: Lindenwood neighborhood, on Sep 15, 2011 at 3:24 pm
"Do you recall how much taxpayer money was lost on Enron? (Hint: It's a trick question.)"
It is a trick question. The trick is to substitute "Californians" for "taxpayer"
Google "Enron costs to Californians" and the first hit contains:
"The financial crisis was possible because of partial deregulation legislation instituted in 1996 by Governor Pete Wilson. Enron took advantage of this deregulation and was involved in economic withholding and inflated price bidding in California's spot markets. The crisis cost $40 to $45 billion."
Even Halliburton probably only had fraudulent claims of hopefully well under ten billion (see the POGO report.) Their subsidiaries only killed a few US soldiers by electrocuting them in their shower stall.
Posted by POGO, a resident of the Woodside: other neighborhood, on Sep 15, 2011 at 7:07 pm
I'm disappointed, Albie. That was your most transparent, ham-handed misdirection yet. Not a single question answered. I'll give you consistency.
Answer: No tax dollars were lost on Enron. NONE.
So, in addition to about 70% of Americans, you are now at odds with such conservative tools as the Washington Post and New York Times who are in full-throat angst about the Solyndra scandal. Maybe you can ride it out. Personally, I'm liking my chances in November 2012 more and more.
I only hope that the people in this administration that were responsible for losing $525 million of YOUR tax dollars and MY tax dollars - go to jail... they deserve it just as much as those Enron people who DID go to jail. Bonus question: Which administration put those Enron crooks in jail? (No, I'm not expecting an answer, much less a straight one!)
Posted by POGO, a resident of the Woodside: other neighborhood, on Sep 15, 2011 at 8:28 pm
I'm decidedly (small L) libertarian.
With regard to Planned Parenthood, what they do is legal and they should have the freedom to lease space wherever they'd like. Of course, that means that protesters are free to protest wherever they'd like also.
Location, location, location. In this case, perhaps Planned Parenthood should lease space where protesters, as a practical matter, cannot get very close to their facility or interfere with patients. I'm not going to make specific suggestions, but they won't be the first businesses that wants to avoid the public.
How am I at odds against 70% of Americans. Pointing out more facts to round out the story that we are still learning isn't anti-American. I said this is ugly. I read the news every day to find out more. Like many that are paying attention, I am most curious about the results of the FBI's involvement. With regards to the billion plus in private investment lost, I haven't yet spent any time looking to see who lost out. We all know green-tech vc folks in the area - will be curious to ask around and find out more.
Have a great weekend, boys and girls. Sorry I'm going to miss out on the "most transparent, ham-handed misdirection" to Planned Parenthood.
also: "Personally, I'm liking my chances in November 2012..." I forgot, the last time you were asked, if memory serves, you stated "your guy" wasn't in yet. In yet? Who's your favorite guy or gal for 2012?
Posted by Interested, a resident of another community, on Sep 16, 2011 at 4:42 pm
Usually I agree with most of your opinions, however apparently unlike you I paid for my energy use during the "Enron Era". How you can state that the Enron debacle did not cost taxpayers is way beyond me......
It seems to me that no matter what party is in office the usual shennanigans continue.
Obama's problem is that he promised us all a "change"......Has not happened yet.........
Posted by Ethan, a resident of the Menlo Park: University Heights neighborhood, on Sep 16, 2011 at 7:09 pm
Pogo "In this case, Solyndra squandered $500 million of TAXPAYER money. What companies or individuals do with THEIR OWN money - including lobbying - is up to them."
The employer insurance tax subsidies that eventually end up in the pockets of the insurance companies represent lost taxpayer money. That's why they're called "tax expenditures." Also, bear in mind that all that lobbying money is really policyholder premium money that did not go toward any sort of actual healthcare. That's one reason healthcare is twice as expensive in the U.S. compared to any other country.
Pogo: "You noted how much insurance companies spent opposing healthcare reform. Yet, healthcare reform PASSED - a near party-line vote - and those insurance companies appear to be the principal beneficiaries. If it didn't pay off, they wouldn't have done it."
The insurance companies worked both ends. They opposed the reforms behind the scenes (their first preference was defeating the bill) while making sure that if ACA did pass it would contain the individual mandate but NOT contain a public option. It was a win-win situation for them. Now watch as they maximize the payoff by working to weaken or cancel out the ACA's preexisting condition provision and the medical-loss-ratio rebate provision over the next couple of years.
Posted by Ethan, a resident of the Menlo Park: University Heights neighborhood, on Sep 16, 2011 at 7:19 pm
Re. Enron and tax money, from the Portland Oregonian, 2/03/02:
"Portland General Electric collected more than $357 million from ratepayers during the last four years to cover its federal income tax bills. The money ended up in the coffers of its parent company, Enron, which reportedly paid no federal income taxes in the last three years. Enron paid just $17 million in federal income taxes for 1997, the year it bought PGE, and no federal income taxes in the three following years, according to Citizens for Tax Justice, a public interest group that advocates tighter tax laws. In the years it owned PGE, Enron reported more than $2.68 billion in profits. With big losses elsewhere in its organization and tax-shelter subsidiaries in the Cayman Islands and other tax havens, Enron was able largely to avoid federal income taxes."
Sidelight: George W. Bush was the #1 recipient of Enron's political contributions in Texas, right before the company went under. Rick Perry was #2.
Posted by POGO, a resident of the Woodside: other neighborhood, on Sep 16, 2011 at 8:17 pm
Okay, one more time with feeling. As Judge Judy would say, "put on your listening ears."
First, there was no misdirection to Planned Parenthood. I was responding to a direct question and I did so with a direct answer.
Second, TAXPAYERS are different from RATEPAYERS. Our government, who we charge with the responsibility for spending our money responsibly - was irresponsible and gave away $524 million of our dollars to a crappy company. While I am not a fan of Bush Jr., I also made the point that the Bush Administration REJECTED that very same loan in January 2009, just a few months before the current administration approved it. And the current administration had a person sitting on Solyndra's board of directors.
In the case of Enron, it wasn't our government that squandered TAX DOLLARS... it was egregious, criminal theft by a bunch of scoundrels in private industry. I also pointed out that the Bush Administration, again, not a group I particularly like, prosecuted those thieves and put them in jail. Enron was not a case of our government being irresponsible with our tax dollars. Solyndra IS and this administration made that call.
Finally - and, again, I'm responding to a direct question - Chris Christie is the person I'd prefer. When I say I like my chances more and more, it's because I want to see Mr. Obama out of the White House before more damage can result. (Listening ears, please: That doesn't mean I like Republicans. It means I favor Christie over the current field in both parties. If Hillary was running I might have a different answer.)
Posted by Interested, a resident of another community, on Sep 17, 2011 at 1:47 am
Second, TAXPAYERS are different from RATEPAYERS
Pogo......Really, then how come the RATES for such things a sewer service, Mosquito Abatement and such appear on the TAX BILL.........
California Rate Payers, Tax Payers, whatever you want to call them got royally screwed by deregulation no matter how you call it. And you are smart enougth to know that Enron and its brethren did NOT deregulate itself.....Come on, your argument sucks, and you know it......
Posted by Hank Lawrence, a resident of the Menlo Park: Sharon Heights neighborhood, on Sep 17, 2011 at 7:26 am
Solargate is getting into high gear. Now the Los Angeles Times is exposing the sleazy corruption of the Obama Administration. When Liberal newspapers excoriate Obama it is game over.
For the LA times exposé please refer to this link entitled "Obama fundraiser linked to loan program that aided Solyndra". The title of the article should have been either "It was the Worst of Times and the Worst of Times" or "The Bundlers and the Bunglers"
At this point the only way the Dems have a chance of retaining the presidency is to have a draft Hillary movement. Obama will of course resist until Key Democrat Leaders from the House and Senate go to the White House and tell Obama it is over and that he must not run for another term.
I am willing to bet anyone that come January 21, 2013 there will be a new president sitting in the oval office.
One forgets how bad Enron was to this state and others, including the Portland utility they bankrupted. How many went to jail? A dozen, with maybe a couple still in? Probably not. Think Lay took his billions and faked his death - remember that conspiracy?
Hank: Why not Hillary? 2 reasons: polls and candidates
- polls: Obama is close in all polls. Only the chattering class beltway elites are talking about a primary challenge. Them, and moderates who want a "lighter" candidate.
- opposition candidates: Pogo above highlights the republican's problems with his Christie choice. "Even as the party’s nominating contest seems to be narrowing to a two-man race between Mitt Romney and Gov. Rick Perry of Texas, a majority of their respective supporters say they have reservations about their candidate. Half of Republicans who plan to vote in a primary say they would like more choices." Web Link
Solindra and the decade long Great Recession will depress Obama's numbers. Not as much as Bachmann nailing Perry on his chief of staff's Merck forced vaccination for contributions executive order will depress Perry's numbers. And half the republicans hate Romney. If the republicans keep violating the 11th commandment, it will be interesting.
Hank - Pogo declared he might vote for Hillary. Would you, in the general? If not, who will you vote for in the primary.
Posted by POGO, a resident of the Woodside: other neighborhood, on Sep 17, 2011 at 9:14 pm
Sorry - I've been away. A bit of a family emergency.
First, my position is not an academic argument. I think there is a big difference when our taxes have been misappropriated, especially when they were given to a private company for no good reason.
Let me present an example to illustrate my point. If a group of gypsies (apologies if I'm offending anyone) comes to your home and does some shoddy roof work and bilks you out of money, it's not the government's fault. They are crooks, plain and simple. And even though their work is supposed to be regulated by the government, these gypsies are crooks and they ignore those regulations. Moreover, just because you happen to be a taxpayer doesn't mean that it's the government's fault. Taxpayers get ripped off every day and politicians are not always at fault.
On the other hand, if my government gives those gypsies my tax money, then I have a big problem with my elected official. I am very libertarian and I don't like the idea of my government investing in any private business. Since when did that become a government function?
I believe the Solyndra scandal - the subject of this thread - is VERY different from Enron. With Solyndra, our government decided to invest our money in the company. How would you feel if your financial advisor lost $500 or $600 million of your money in a high risk venture? I suspect you'd be even more upset if you found they sat on the board of that company and changed the terms of their investment to put other investors ahead of yours!
No, it's different when crooks do something bad (as with Enron) and when the government invests in a crooked enterprise. In the latter, like anyone charged with making good decisions about investments, I hold my elected officials directly responsible.
This is what happens when government tries to pick winners and losers. You get Fannie and Freddie, Lehman, GM, AIG, Chrysler and now Solyndra. Why can't Washington just stand back and let these companies thrive, reorganize or die. Believe it or not, it happens to companies every single day and somehow we manage to move on.
Posted by Solar subsidies worldwide, a resident of another community, on Sep 18, 2011 at 10:35 am
"This is what happens when government tries to pick winners and losers."
In the Libertarian fantasy world, you are correct, sir.
In the real world, China "picked" that they would be the winners in solar, investing $40 Billion. Germany decides they want the largest installed base per capita and strong manufacturing, so they invest and "pick" to be a winner.
Posted by Thomas, a resident of the Menlo Park: Sharon Heights neighborhood, on Sep 18, 2011 at 9:04 pm
One can only wonder how circumstances might have been different had JFK agreed with Eisenhower that government should not be involved in exploring space. Eisenhower felt space exploration should be vested through the scientific community and private enterprise rather than government. Fast forward to 2011 and the current administration is now criticized for DOE loans to Solyndra but at the same time also criticized for ending the multi billion dollar space program while Republicans complain his administration continues to overspend.
It's easy to find fault with Republican and Democratic administrations for not always conducting due diligence in the pursuit of advancing technology but the view that government should completely bow to private industry can also be a mistake. The Manhattan Project saved countless American lives and brought an immediate end to WWII and the space race brought incalculable technology that provided the foundation for Silicon Valley. Pointing the finger at the Obama administration now for the Solyndra bankruptcy because there is a connection to some campaign contributions is similar to trying to blame the Bush administration for no bid Halliburton contracts and the excuse to go to war in Iraq.
While no fan of Bush, he did not cow to Cheney's pressure to pardon Scooter Libbey (although he did commute the sentence) and I'm confident that Obama would also not bow to the same pressure should there be a trial for Solyndra executives and they are found guilty.
It's my belief that whoever may be in office has the best intentions and events such as Halliburton and Solyndra have more to do with partisan politics than any real reflection about our current president.
That said, while Mr. Lawrence always posts some interesting topics, he consistently dodges questions that are asked of him regarding his position. It's my opinion that Mr. Lawrence would be happy with any candidate from Palin to Perry as long as they were a card carrying Republican. This is a reflection, in my opinion, of the few conservatives that post op-ed links on this blog but offer no insight or opinion of their own as to why it should be relevant to readers.
Posted by Doubting Thomas, a resident of the Menlo Park: Stanford Hills neighborhood, on Sep 19, 2011 at 6:53 am
To compare the Space Race and the Manhattan Project to Solyndra is ridiculous. There has been a vibrant commercial market for solar energy going back to the sixties. Obama was interfering with the free market at the taxpayers' expense. The Space race was for science and there was no ready free market to support that endeavour. Likewise the Manhattan Project was done to end a protracted war with Japan which would have inevitably caused far more deaths than those incurred at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Again, there was no private investmentfor that endevour either.
Government should invest in areas that are beneficial to our country when there is not a viable commercial market available. What it should not do is interfere with free markets, especially when it does not know what it is doing.
If the Obama Administration knew what it was doing that could be grudgingly overlook but it did not have a clue. The Obama Administration has a far left ideology coupled with an inability to execute.
To read about the $41 Billion Loan gurantees for renewable energy go to this web page
Posted by Menlo Voter, a resident of the Menlo Park: other neighborhood, on Sep 19, 2011 at 7:05 am
no one is asking Mr. Lawrence to be a research assistant. They are asking him to back up his claims. Just as if I claimed the moon was made of cheese you would demand I provide some proof. Until he provides some documentation of his claims, those claims are just the rantings of a cranky conservative and can be dismissed as such.
Posted by Doubting Thomas, a resident of the Menlo Park: Stanford Hills neighborhood, on Sep 19, 2011 at 8:10 am
In a Washington Post Article by Carol D. Leonnig and Steven Mufson, published on September 14 it said "A $38.6 billion loan guarantee program that the Obama administration promised would create or save 65,000 jobs has created just a few thousand jobs two years after it began, government records show.
So apparently Mr. Lawrence was correct in his assertion. Thomas attempts to discredit Mr. Lawrence simply bacause he did not comply with his demands for proof. The proof was there. Thomas just felt that if Mr. Lawrence did not present the truth then he must not be telling the truth.
Posted by POGO, a resident of the Woodside: other neighborhood, on Sep 19, 2011 at 8:32 am
I agree that the Manhattan Project is hardly akin to Solyndra.
In our country, government should do things that citizens and private industry cannot. Of all places, people in Menlo Park (read: Sand Hill Road) should know that investing in high-risk green tech ventures hardly qualifies.
Posted by Solar subsidies worldwide, a resident of another community, on Sep 19, 2011 at 9:12 am
Hank should read deeper - the $38 billion figure linked to the DOE site represents 3 programs:
- 1703: Section 1703 of Title XVII of the Energy Policy Act of 2005
- 1705: The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 amended the Loan Guarantee Program’s authorizing legislation by adding Section 1705 to EPAct. Section 1705 is a temporary program designed to address the current economic conditions of the nation.
- ATVM: Section 136 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 established an incentive program – the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing (ATVM) Loan Program
Look at the dates, Hank and Hank-link-provider DT. Two of three were Bush programs, the third was the ARRA (the stimulus), half of which was middle class tax cuts.
re: Manhattan and Apollo projects
One can't help but wonder if, post 9/11, instead of invading countries that had more to do with oil, or oil pipelines, in a bid for endless wars, America had instead used a fraction of those coasts to launch an Apollo project for renewables.
Imagine where we would be with panels on top of 10+ million homes and office parks.
re: "There has been a vibrant commercial market for solar energy going back to the sixties. "
Much of that has been spurred by government funded research, government investment or subsidies, or tax breaks for consumers to install (initial wind farms tax shelters, tax breaks for insulating homes in the 70's, etc...)
Posted by POGO, a resident of the Woodside: other neighborhood, on Sep 19, 2011 at 9:54 am
The many attempts to distract are revealing.
This isn't about the Manhattan Project or our various wars or Enron.
The government played VC - a role many if us question - and invested a bunch of money in a high risk venture. They sat on the company's board, restructured the debt in a way that disadvantaged their own investment, created zero jobs and lost $525 million in a year. And it's just a coincidence that Solyndra's CEO was a big contributor to the Obama campaign. If this were a Republican administration, this story would be in the headlines for months.
Now ignore these indefensible points and try to change the subject to Guantanamo or North Korea.
Posted by Solar subsidies worldwide, a resident of another community, on Sep 19, 2011 at 10:56 am
1703, 1705 and ATVM are part of the discussion, they are in fact the programs directly involved. You just don't seem happy they date back before the current administration.
Hank brought them up, and Hank's assistant provided the link, as hank is a bit of a "hit n run" poster.
re: "Solyndra's CEO was a big contributor to the Obama campaign" and other board members and investors are huge GOP contributors. Want links? or is that a "distraction" away from Hank's narrative of all Obama, all the time?
re: Enron? The first post that "attempts to distract", that first that used the word Enron?
"Posted by POGO, a resident of the Woodside: other neighborhood, on Sep 15, 2011 at 3:02 pm"
Posted by Winnie, a resident of another community, on Sep 19, 2011 at 11:56 am
I made a large donation to the Obama campaign.
I also expected miracles.
I am now looking at a large group of candidates for the Republican Party who are rather unappealing and do not look like they are capable of giving jobs and a lot of them may like America, but, I just think any of them who do not think there is global warming and are Creationists, are rather silly and it is just politics and a lot of useless money being spent.
Obama will be reelected and everyone knows it deep down.
Are those who find him totally incapable of performing his job putting your money into the GOP just because of financial reasons? If so, that is a bad idea as well.
I am looking forward to telling the President when he calls me, that he is making a smart trip to Woodside again today, because I do think that it makes people who do not want to help the country heal and are just worried about their own loot and taxes, do not have a thing to offer the people who don't even work or have jobs and that is disgraceful. Who wants to employ the indolent? Or even talk to them? Only people who are making money are important.Why should we help them? We need our ball parks, and new schools for the richer kids who intend to go to college. Not wastlings.
Posted by Doubting Thomas, a resident of the Menlo Park: Stanford Hills neighborhood, on Sep 19, 2011 at 12:44 pm
Don't be a Pandora. When she opened the chest everything flew out except hope. Clinging to hope, in this case is like people on the Titanic clinging to hope that the World's Greatest ship will not sink. Obama is steering the USS United States and the ship is taking on water, is listing dangerously to the port side, and will sink unless someone else takes the helm and stters the ship to a safe harbour.
Right now it seems the draft Hillary Movement is gaining momentum.
Obama is a good speaker. But that is all he can do. He has a vision but has no idea how to implement the vision and is like a Las Vegas gambler on a terrible losing streak who believes if he doubles down he will win. Of course he gets our country deeper and deeper in debt, and leaves the tab to the next generation of Americans to pay.
Today the Chicago Tribune ran a column why Obama should step down to give the Democrats a chance or retaining the White House.
Posted by POGO, a resident of the Woodside: other neighborhood, on Sep 19, 2011 at 1:42 pm
Why do you continue to assert that because some of us fault the current administration that we approved of the previous one?
That makes as much sense as saying if you don't like vanilla ice cream, then you obviously like chocolate.
Try dealing with this issue FOR ONCE and without pointing to other administrations who were equally (or even more - happy?) crooked. This administration - the smartest guys in the room - stupidly played VC in a space that is already occupied by many professional firms right here in River City. They - WE - got taken to the tune of $525 million.
No, it's not DOD style money, but it is enough to fund several schools in San Mateo County.
Posted by Doubting Thomas, a resident of the Menlo Park: Stanford Hills neighborhood, on Sep 20, 2011 at 6:45 am
The Web site Poltico has an inteesting commentary on the viability of Hillary Clinton getting the nomination for President.
Two Washington Post editors, John Harris and Jim VandeHei started Politico. So the Menlo Park Liberals have no reason to start caterwauling about the unfairness of the article. It is reasoned and ubiased and clearly states that since Obama has mucked up his presidency so much that the best chance the Democratic Party has to retain the presidency is to make a change at the top.
For the Politco commentary please refer to this web site
Posted by POGO, a resident of the Woodside: other neighborhood, on Sep 20, 2011 at 10:20 am
There's a big difference between a "draft Hillary movement" and some of us expressing our preference for her over the current President.
What a completely dishonest comment by Solar subsidies worldwide who suggests that it was me who first noted the magnitude of Enron to distract from the magnitude of Solyndra. SSW stated: QUOTE re: Enron? The first post that "attempts to distract", that first that used the word Enron? "Posted by POGO, a resident of the Woodside: other neighborhood, on Sep 15, 2011 at 3:02 pm" CLOSED QUOTE.
FOUR DAYS EARLIER, in response to our outrage over Solyndra, this comment was made: QUOTE "Ken Lay and Dick Cheney." CLOSED QUOTE.
And who made that snide little comment? "Posted by Solar subsidies worldwide, a resident of another community, on Sep 11, 2011 at 9:44 am"
Posted by Thomas, a resident of the Menlo Park: Sharon Heights neighborhood, on Sep 20, 2011 at 10:58 pm
Love Doubting Thomas' comparison to the Obama administration and people on the Titanic clinging to hope that the world's greatest ship will not sink and that the USS United States is taking on water. Why is it conservatives have to put their thoughts in the most simplistic of narratives? A rhetorical question so please no response to my question is needed.
The Manhattan Project was not funded through private enterprise nor was the space program. My comment was meant to illustrate that government participation in areas of technology goes back over 60 years, whether through full funding or government subsidies. In all cases through the examples I cited, the funds were provided by taxpayers, not venture capital or private industry. While perhaps the DOE did not conduct due diligence in granting subsidies to Solyndra, their intentions were right and it would be a mistake to lay blame solely on the current administration since initial funding requests by Solyndra were actually filed while "W" was in office. The fact that the company went bankrupt while Obama was president is not a smoking gun as Solyndra was contributing to Republican causes as well and looking for federal funding wherever they could get it.
Some pretty great results in technology have come about through government funding...whether through taxpayer funding on government programs or government subsidies. Solyndra did not work out but it's not enough of a reason for me to squash my tax dollars in investing in future technolgy.
Posted by POGO, a resident of the Woodside: other neighborhood, on Sep 21, 2011 at 5:13 am
So Solyndra's application for federal funds happened during the Bush Administration. And that would be significant because...
Perhaps a more significant point would be that the Bush Administration DENIED that application in January 2009. That little troublesome tidbit came to light last week.
Sponsoring the Manhattan Project or the space program is just a little different than the government investing in a small, private, high risk company whose principal goal is to sell their company for a 10x capital gain. You may have missed it, but there are these people called venture capitalists who have billions of dollars to invest and do this sort of thing all the time. And no, they don't typically invest in developing new bombs to end world wars.
Government should do what people and private industry cannot do for themselves. But even if YOU don't see the difference, fortunately a lot of taxpayers and politicians do.
Posted by Doubting Thomas, a resident of the Menlo Park: Stanford Hills neighborhood, on Sep 21, 2011 at 7:14 am
According to Senator Orin Hatch the Solyndra loan guarantee was more than the Obama stimulus funding for roads and bridges in 35 states. That is what I call a good use of the stimulus funding. Only 15 states had more stimulus funding than Solyndra.
The Solyndra funding amounted to $480,000 for each job created. Obama is spending money like a drunken Sailor (My apologies to drunken sailors ererywhere. You did not deserve that).
Also, when the Bush Administration denied the Solyndra loan it was actually the Energy Department's Credit Committee that voted against the loan guarantee. The vote was 10 to 0 against. This was a unanimous decision!
Now you have the Obama White House stacked with extreme environmentalist political hacks who will fund any pipe dream as long as it has green or renewable energy on the business plan no matter how reckless and irresponsible the business plan is. After all it is only our taxpayer dollars.
So the Obama White House exerts pressure on the same Energy Department Credit Committee and they voted for it. Remember Bush was Against the Solyndra loan guarantee because Solyndra's business plan was crap! Obama was for Solyndra loan guarantee because it advanced his renewable energy theme. He knew he was throwing money down the toilet(but it was a 1.28 gpf toilet so that's OK) but he did not care. After all it was only the taxpayers's money.
So now he is coming to Woodside to get some more chumps to prop up his failed presidency. PT Barnum had a saying for this coming Sunday's Suckers Soirée
Posted by Alfred E Newman, a resident of the Atherton: Lindenwood neighborhood, on Sep 21, 2011 at 9:55 am
Hey, ladies and gents, it's good to be back and catching up on this thre.... geez, you've been busy!!!
Folks should stick to the "it's all a bunch of politics" meme or the "picking winners and losers" meme.
For example, at the congressional hearing, one side wants Solyndra's investors (those "VC" guys) to testify, one side doesn't. The top investor supported Obama, so one would think that the GOP wants to rip him a new one. Alas, the 2nd biggest investor supports GOP causes, so the GOP led committees declined to have investors testify.
The leaders of the two committees, Stearns and Upton, who have rallied around the "government shouldn't be picking winners and losers" talking point have a little "picking" history, too, with the energy dept guarantees.
Now: ""It is not the role of government to pick winners and losers in the market," Upton said in a joint statement on Sept. 13 with Representative Cliff Stearns, a Florida Republican and chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee's investigations panel."
Then? Look really really really hard and see if you can spot the hypocrisy.
Or just take a casual scan and you'll see it anyway.
"In an Oct. 30, 2009, letter Upton and other Michigan Republicans wrote Chu to recommend an application from EcoMotors International to build a manufacturing plant in Livonia, Mich. The letter said the project had by then been reviewed by the Energy Department for eight months and would lead to 3,500 jobs in the state.
"We encourage DOE to approve this manufacturing application," Upton and fellow Republicans Thaddeus McCotter, and Mike Rogers said, referring to the Energy Department. Web Link
"On March 16, 2009, Stearns and other members from Florida wrote to Chu promoting the state as "well-positioned" to produce renewable energy."
"Stearns backed a battery manufacturing plant in Jacksonville that received a $95.5 million grant from the Energy Department through the stimulus law..."
"Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who has also criticized Obama's support for clean energy to create jobs, wrote a July 31, 2009, letter to Chu that said a loan guarantee to Zap Motor Manufacturing of Kentucky Inc. to build a new manufacturing plant to produce electric vehicles could create 4,000 full-time jobs in Kentucky." Web Link
"Other Republicans, including Louisiana Sen. David Vitter and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, also have sent letters to the Energy Department seeking assistance for projects in their home states."
Unrelated: P from Woodside - allow me to echo the sentiment expressed above about family issues - hope all turned out well....
Posted by Alfred E Newman, a resident of the Atherton: Lindenwood neighborhood, on Sep 21, 2011 at 10:42 am
Here's another one "against" picking winners and losers: Darrel Issa
Unless he gets to do the picking.
"“There’s been this attitude that somehow the government can weigh-in with loan guarantees and money and pick specific company winners and losers,” Issa said... “We see that as a backdoor, easy way to end up with corruption in government.”
Again, look really really really really hard to spot the hypocrisy. Or just read the following.
"Issa, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, wrote Energy Secretary Steven Chu to support an Energy Department loan for Aptera Motors Inc., a Carlsbad, California, electric-car maker, according to a letter received by the department Jan. 14, 2010.
“Awarding this opportunity to Aptera Motors will greatly assist a leading developer of electric vehicles in my district,” Issa wrote in letters obtained yesterday. " Web Link
"Issa also signed a June 22, 2009, letter to Chu promoting battery maker Quallion LLC, based in Sylmar, California. An Energy Department clean-energy grant might create more than 2,300 jobs nationwide, according to the letter, which was signed by Issa and 16 members of California’s delegation. "
Another one "against" picking winners and losers, unless he gets to do the picking.
Issa also supported the Arnold when Arnold pushed for the Solyndra loan guarantee.
Posted by Doubting Thomas, a resident of the Menlo Park: Stanford Hills neighborhood, on Sep 21, 2011 at 11:10 am
Obama owns Solyndra. It is an albatross around his neck. Yes there are Congressional Representatives from both parties wanting to get subsidies at the public trough but Obama takes the cake. No president in the history of the Untied States has been so irresponsible with the public tax dollars as Obama and he will pay the price for his reckless spending by being a one term president. This socialist dilettante will get the boot from his own party and Hillary will most likely get the nomination.
Posted by Alfred E Newman, a resident of the Atherton: Lindenwood neighborhood, on Sep 21, 2011 at 11:26 am
"This socialist dilettante will get the boot from his own party and Hillary will most likely get the nomination."
The sheer number of opinions expressed in one sentence is admirable. I happen to disagree with them.
At it's core, the sentence assumes Obama's a socialist (!) and there's a big difference between Hillary and the President.
There isn't, other than the two obvious physical features. They're both moderates. Or as many referred to them in the 2008 election: corporate centrists. As far as progressives were concerned (look it up) the only real difference was Hillary's vote on the war, which Obama didn't have to take, of course.
Look up the definition of Socialism. It appears your definition revolves around his desire to raise the top tax rate back to what it was before this economic debacle started (back to Clinton's rates in the 90's.)
Clinton. you remmeber that guy. Related to that Hillary gal you rant about.
If your definition of socialism revolves around federal loan guarantees, subsidies, tax breaks or other corporate welfare for corporations, well, there's been a LOT of socialists in our government for the last few decades.
Resurrect Tail Gunner Joe!! Git them durn commies out of our guvmint!!
Posted by POGO, a resident of the Woodside: other neighborhood, on Sep 21, 2011 at 11:47 am
You know, Albie, it's not exactly a newsflash and I don't feel a bit better knowing that Republicans are as hypocritical as Democrats. As I've said before, did your Mom ever excuse your bad behavior when you told her that "all the kids do it?" No. Well, it doesn't work for me either. I'd just assume throw all the bums out and start over.
And thank you for your comment. Everything's fine on the homefront and I appreciate the kind thought!
Posted by Doubting Thomas, a resident of the Menlo Park: Stanford Hills neighborhood, on Sep 21, 2011 at 11:57 am
Obama's a moderate? Surely you jest. Compared to Kim Jong-il he's a moderate. Compared to just about any other contender for president (with the possible exception of Dennis Kucnich) he's a died in wool socialist. He fooled people with his slicck and disinenuous speeches but he is nothing more than a foil for the socialists.
"Obama’s socialist backing goes back at least to 1996, when he received the endorsement of the Chicago branch of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) for an Illinois state senate seat. Later, the Chicago DSA newsletter reported that Obama, as a state senator, showed up to eulogize Saul Mendelson, one of the “champions” of “Chicago’s democratic left” and a long-time socialist activist. Obama’s stint as a “community organizer” in Chicago has gotten some attention, but his relationship with the DSA socialists, who groomed and backed him, has been generally ignored." Source: Cliff Kincaid, Accuracy in the Media "In its broadest sense, democratic socialism could refer to any attempts to bring about socialism through democratic means as opposed to violent insurrection."
Posted by Alfred E Newman, a resident of the Atherton: Lindenwood neighborhood, on Sep 21, 2011 at 1:42 pm
Thanks for the mention of the DSA. Their top item?
"July 30, 2011 Obama’s Politics of Austerity"
So much for Obama being a socialist, even in the Socialists' minds!
This is NOT a definition of socialism: "In its broadest sense, democratic socialism could refer to any attempts to bring about socialism through democratic means as opposed to violent insurrection." Try again.
Again: in the 2008 primaries, there was no candidate (significantly) to the right of either Hillary or Obama.
Posted by Doubting Thomas, a resident of the Menlo Park: Stanford Hills neighborhood, on Sep 21, 2011 at 1:45 pm
How about Democrat Governors Orville Faubus (Arkansas), Ross Barnett (Mississippi), Groerge Wallace (Alabama) and Lester Maddox (Georgia) all trying to prevent desegregation of the schools. How about Democrat Mayor of Birmingham Bull Connor turning fire hoses and attack dogs on African Americans in Birmingham. How about the Ku Klux Klan was started by Democrats. How about when Lyndon Johnson was looking for a backer for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 he could not get a single Democrat to lead the charge. Instead he got Senator Everett Dirksen (R IL) to led the charge. But there were 3 Democrat Senators who lead a strong opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. They were William Fullbright (Bill Clinton's mentor) Al Gore Sr. and Harry KKK Byrd a former member of the Ku Klu Klan. Have you noticed that the only senators who were members of the KKK were Democrats.
The Republican party was the party of the Abolitionists. The Democratic Party was the party of the slave holders.
Posted by Alfred E Newman, a resident of the Atherton: Lindenwood neighborhood, on Sep 21, 2011 at 2:17 pm
That's pretty far afield.
But I'll bite.... ;-)
Racists in the South left the Democratic Party after the civil rights act. Why else did Strom ("did I ever tell ya about my girlfriend on the side") Thurmond switch?
They became Republicans.
Any of the racists that stayed active in politics after the Civil Rights act eventually left the Democratic Party, most within a few years.
As mentioned above: "the Southern Strategy"
"In American politics, the Southern strategy refers to the late-20th century Republican Party strategy of winning elections in Southern states by exploiting anti-African American racism among Southern white voters and appealing to states' rights. Though the "Solid South" had been a longtime Democratic Party stronghold due to the Democratic Party's defense of slavery prior to the American Civil War and segregation for a century thereafter, many white Southern Democrats left the party following the African-American Civil Rights Movement, the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965, and desegregation.
The strategy was first adopted under future Republican President Richard Nixon in the late 1960s and continued through the latter decades of the 20th century under presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush. The strategy was successful in achieving its goals; it led to the electoral realignment of Southern states to the Republican Party, but at the expense of losing more than 90 percent of black voters to the Democratic Party."
Posted by Doubting Thomas, a resident of the Menlo Park: Stanford Hills neighborhood, on Sep 22, 2011 at 6:51 am
Alfred E. Newman's rewriting history is bull feathers. Another vain attempt to discredit Republicans when it was the Democrats all along who were and are the racists. When Harry KKK Byrd ran for the Senate Democrats embraced him and enthusiastically supported his campaign.
Another virulent racist Tom Metzger ran for Congress in the Democratic primary in a conservative San Diego district. He shocked San Diego when he won with more than 33,000 votes, or 37% of the total. He was then was trounced by the Republican incumbent in the general election. But the election made Metzger into a formidable figure in the racist wing of the Democratic Party.
When David Duke ran for Congress the Republican Party openly repudiated him and recommended that people vote for the democratic rival.
As for the Southern strategy "when Richard Nixon took office in 1969, 68 percent of black Southern students attended segregated schools. Within five years, that number had been cut to 9 percent. As Tom Wicker wrote in his biography, One of Us, “The Nixon administration did more in 1970 to desegregate Southern school systems than had been done in the sixteen previous years, or probably since.”
To ready more on the legacy of racism within the Democratic Party please read this article
Posted by Alfred E Newman, a resident of the Atherton: Lindenwood neighborhood, on Sep 22, 2011 at 11:01 am
Another repub that is against picking winners and losers unless he's doing the picking!
"...other harsh critics seeking funding are Reps. Dan Burton (R-Ind.), Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) and Raul Labrador (R-Idaho).
Burton, the second-ranking Republican on the committee, slammed the Obama effort on Fox News, saying the Solyndra mess looks just like part of a Democratic pattern, and arguing that "the green thing is a scam in the first place."
But he signed SEVEN letters seeking green projects -- often with the rest of the Indiana delegation -- including for Abound Solar, which, like Solyndra, is aiming to manufacture solar panels.
"Abound Solar plans to create almost a thousand full-time jobs that the company and state officials estimate will generate several hundred million dollars in revenue," Burton and other Hoosier-state lawmakers wrote, employing similar language as the White House to justifiy such projects.
Abound secured a $400 million guaranteed loan from the same program as Solyndra. "
Posted by Doubting Thomas, a resident of the Menlo Park: Stanford Hills neighborhood, on Sep 22, 2011 at 12:01 pm
President Barack Obama and Vice President Joseph Biden each personally showcased Solyndra as an example of how stimulus dollars were at work creating jobs, during appearances at the company over the course of the following year.
Biden personally announced the closure of Solyndra’s $535 million loan guarantee in a Sept. 9, 2009 speech, delivered via closed-circuit television, on the occasion of the groundbreaking of the plant.
The vice president justified the federal government’s investment in Solyndra in front of employees and other dignitaries, including Secretary Chu and former Calif. Gov. Arnold Schwartzenegger, saying the jobs the company intended to create would “serve as a foundation for a stronger American economy.”
“These jobs are the jobs that are going to define the 21st century that will allow America to compete and to lead like we did in the 20th century,” Biden said.
According to Biden’s speech, the $535 million loan guarantee was a smaller part of the $30 billion of stimulus money the administration planned to spend as part of its Green Jobs Initiative.
Posted by Alfred E Newman, a resident of the Atherton: Lindenwood neighborhood, on Sep 22, 2011 at 12:24 pm
doubting thomas "Are you denying Nixon's, and the Republicans, Southern Strategy? Really? Muddying up the issue of Nixon's electoral Southern Strategy with desegregation of schools is clearly a weak attempt at denial."
Suddenly back on the thread topic, eh? Can't back up your silly "Democrats are racists" claims, could you? Good choice to back off.
So, back to the thread: how about those hypocrites listed above?
Reps. Dan Burton (R-Ind.), Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) and Raul Labrador (R-Idaho).
CA republican rep Darryl Issa; Stearns, Upton, even GOP presidential candidate Thaddeus McCotter.
Pleading for loans from the bush program, with Arnuld standing with the Callllleeeeefornuuns to get Solyndra and other outfits loans.
Posted by Doubting Thomas, a resident of the Menlo Park: Stanford Hills neighborhood, on Sep 22, 2011 at 12:40 pm
"The true engine of economic growth will always be companies like
Solyndra" - President Obama, 2010
Solyndra is "exactly what the Recovery Act is all about"
- Vice President Joe Biden, 2009
President Obama wasted more than half a billion of OUR taxpayer dollars on a politically motivated handout to a now bankrupt company.
And this isn't the first time!
Evergreen Solar, Inc., received $5.3 million thanks to the first stimulus and went bankrupt just a few weeks before Solyndra. And SpectraWatt received $500,000, and also went bankrupt.
Notice a pattern?
Alternative energy is not a viable business at this time, especially in America. But President Obama has declared "green" jobs the jobs of the future, and refuses to back down from his belief that these are the only jobs worth creating.
He's lost a total of $540.8 MILLION of our HARD EARNED CASH, yet he's about to double down!
The Department of Energy has allowed a new, $1.2 BILLION, loan for a massive new solar panel project in California. The loan is more than double those three previous failed loans combined. When will this administration learn that they're not picking winners and losers, they're just picking losers. Winning companies don't need the government to prop them up.
The FBI raided Solyndra, believing that the company misled the government in order to receive their loan.
How many more Solyndras are out there?
The loan to Solyndra was put on a fast-track approval process. One of Solyndras largest investor was a huge donor to President Obama. How many of the other solar loans have been given to President Obama's donors?
How can we feel safe as taxpayers if we know that our President is giving our money away to companies just because they donated to him?
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) repeatedly warned the administration that the Solyndra loan was too risky.
Price Waterhouse Coopers said there was "substantial doubt" about Solyndra's viability. Yet our government gave them money anyway.
The loan was supposed to create over 1,000 new jobs in a new facility, but according to employees at Solyndra, "everyone knew that the plant wouldn't work."
The business model for Solyndra was a belief that they could make a product for $6 and sell it for $3 (obviously not that cheap, but you get the idea.)
I'm not an economist but that doesn't sound like a winning strategy to me, how about you?
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) says the Obama Administration didn't do their due diligence in researching Solyndra before the loan went out.
They clearly didn't properly research Evergreen Solar or SpectraWatt either.
That's because President Obama has hinged his entire Presidency on the viability of "green" jobs. It's all he proposes; it's why he wants to raise your taxes. He believes that the only jobs in the future are "green" jobs.
His first stimulus gave handouts to companies involved in "green" energy industries. All that construction money that was given out? It was mostly to make towns and buildings more energy-efficient or "green."
His second stimulus is also all about "green" jobs. If you listened to his speech, you'd noticed that he never once said the word "green." Why would he? With Solyndra collapsing and demand for solar panels steadily low, it's not a great confidence booster.
But that is what his jobs plan is all about.
Most of the money in his new stimulus will again go to construction and "modernization" aka "green" jobs. Specifically his plan to renovate schools with energy-efficient upgrades.
Why should taxpayers be throwing even more money at an industry that is clearly not a winner?
The "green" industry is not worthy of taxpayer dollars. There's no demand. Solar panels are expensive and take decades to pay for themselves. There's no point in the government being involved. Things like this happen.
Thanks to President Obama's "green" jobs loans, one new permanent job has been created for every $5.5 million spent. Is that money well spent?
Now he has a plan out to tax you and your family, actual job creators and the wealthy even more to pay for what? More "green" loans?
Americans can't afford that. The industry is a bust and continuing to give handouts to companies that can't survive without them is a waste of taxpayer dollars and an insult to every American who pays taxes.
Our money is being squandered and President Obama has no plans to stop.
We cannot let this man continue to give failing companies handouts while American spirals towards bankruptcy. We need to stop these loans since apparently President Obama will not.
Posted by Doubting Thomas, a resident of the Menlo Park: Stanford Hills neighborhood, on Sep 22, 2011 at 1:28 pm
Not all Republicans agree on everything because they encourage independent thinking unlike most of the Democrats (Blue Dogs excepted) who drink the Obama Kool Aid and like lemings march off the cliff into an abyss of financial ruin.
We need to encourage natural gas automobiles. We need to develop more nuclear energy like France and Brazil. We need to drill for oil in Anwar. We need to wean our dependence off foreign oil. We need to develop clean coal energy plants that capture the particulates. Neither the Democrat or Republican party has developed an Energy Independence plan. Both are remiss in their duties.
Posted by Solar subsidies worldwide, a resident of another community, on Sep 22, 2011 at 3:37 pm
Alfred - you missed this - here's why Issa won't call investors:
"It turns out that a financial backer of Aptera, the company Issa assisted with a loan request, is a major Republican donor and a contributor to Issa.
According to GreenVC, one of the investors backing Aptera is the Beall Family Trust. The Beall Family Trust is controlled by Don Beall, the former CEO of Rockwell. Beall, now a board member of Aptera, happens to be a Republican donor in California. A political action committee he helped found and fund, the New Majority PAC, has contributed at least $15,000 to Issa over the years."
Darryl wants to not just pick winners and losers, he wants to shake them down for contributions.
Be interesting just how vocal Issa gets tomorrow. Glass houses, with contribution checks sitting in plain view, make for muted hyperbole from hypocrites.
Posted by Doubting Thomas, a resident of the Menlo Park: Stanford Hills neighborhood, on Sep 23, 2011 at 6:29 am
The Topic is about Solyndra. If you won to do a blog on evil Republicans you should start your own thread. But attempting to divert attention away from Obama's feckless handling of the Solyndra debacle only reveals that you can not defend Obama. But no one can defend the indefensable. He was caught. Sacré bleu!
Now the darling of the left, the disciple of Socialism, the daily bible of Liberals, the New York Times has published an article yesterday excoriating their Eminence Lord and Master Obama. OMG what is this country coming to. Isn't anything sacred anymore.
Posted by Doubting Thomas, a resident of the Menlo Park: Stanford Hills neighborhood, on Sep 23, 2011 at 11:35 am
You know all those rusting bridges that President Obama wants to spend billions more dollars repairing to allegedly stimulate the economy?
He headed out to one yesterday which he’s described as a “bridge that needs repair between Ohio and Kentucky that’s on one of the busiest trucking routes in North America.” It is on a busy trucking route, spanning the Ohio River between Covington, Ky., and Cincinnati.
It’s the Brent Spence Bridge. It doesn’t really need repairs. It’s got decades of good life left in its steel spans. It’s just overloaded. The bridge was built to handle 85,000 cars and trucks a day, which seemed like a lot back during construction in the Nixon era.
But here’s the problem the president’s jobs bill is designed for “immediate” highway spending.
And the new $2.3 billion Cincy bridge is not scheduled to even start construction for probably four years, long after Republicans have scheduled the Obama presidency for completion.
And without delays, it wouldn’t be finished until 2022, when no one will be counting Obama’s rounds of golf.
Posted by Michael G. Stogner, a resident of another community, on Sep 23, 2011 at 11:42 am
I'm not a lawyer, and I didn't say anything was wrong with the executives taking the 5th.
I prefer them taking the 5th vs. lying under oath.
Google was being questioned the other day and it was refreshing to hear quick responses to the questions. I don't recall if Google has ever borrowed any money from our government. They are Very successful and our government wants to look into their business.
Also almost every gov. rep. wanted Googles high speed program in their district.
Posted by Solar subsidies worldwide, a resident of another community, on Sep 23, 2011 at 12:57 pm
doubting thomas is just a front for pasting right wing talking points without facts.
google "It doesn’t really need repairs. It’s got decades of good life left in its steel spans." and you'll see the identical post all over. So creative. So original. So lacking in facts and documentation.
The local Cincy paper called it, in July, "Obsolete and overcrowded, the 48-year-old Brent Spence Bridge is due for replacement."
"Meanwhile, the bridge remains "functionally obsolete."" Web Link
thomas can nit-pick or look at the bigger picture for American infrastructure, a requirement for a prospering economy:
"According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, of the 600,905 bridges across the country as of December 2008, 72,868 (12.1%) were categorized as structurally deficient and 89,024 (14.8%) were categorized as functionally obsolete. " Web Link
Time to rebuild America, not whine because someone doesn't like a president.
Posted by POGO, a resident of the Woodside: other neighborhood, on Sep 23, 2011 at 3:00 pm
I think the point is that the aptly named BS Bridge is just another one of those jobs that isn't shovel ready. Even some White House flack admitted on tv that their transportation department has yet to acquire the right of way for the new bridge. Construction is YEARS away.
When the initial stimulus was approved, I heard President Obama talk about putting solar panels and new insulation on every school and post office. Those kinds of retrofits ARE shovel-ready and I supported them. I thought what a great idea!
Unfortunately, only 8% (if my memory is correct) of that stimulus went to infrastructure spending which is criminal. Most of the money went to states to pay police, fire and teachers and delay their inevitable cash crisis for another year. There's nothing wrong with that, but that's not how it was sold to me.
Now, I simply don't trust or believe this government when they promise me that a second stimulus will go to build roads and bridges. And, until they start keeping promises and get control of their waste, fraud and abuse - bending the healthcare cost curve, lowering unemployment, closing down Guantanamo, getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan, staying out of new conflicts, etc., I won't support tax increases either.
And before you rush to tell me how George Bush and Republicans were worse, I know. I could write it myself. Newsflash - Bush left Washington almost three years ago...
Posted by Doubting Thomas, a resident of the Menlo Park: Stanford Hills neighborhood, on Sep 24, 2011 at 7:42 am
As expected, Solyndra’s top executives refused to answer questions during a House Energy and Commerce oversight inquiry yesterday, invoking their Fifth Amendment right over 20 times:
Repeatedly, Solyndra CEO Brian Harrison and chief financial officer W.G. Stover answered questions with some variation of the following statement: “On the advice of my counsel, I invoke the privilege afforded to me by the Fifth Amendment of the U.S Constitution. I respectfully decline to answer questions.”
All of the questions came from Republicans on the committee, who pressed the executives on topics from whether their financial statements were accurate to whether they met with Obama officials.
They’re worried about incriminating themselves in the current FBI investigation into Solyndra, which is fine. But as much as the executives have the right to remain silent, everyone else has the right to point out doing so makes them look like they have a lot to hide. Republicans tried to hit this point home by repeatedly peppering the executives with questions they refused to answer. This soon wore out the nerves of top Democrat on the committee the unctuous Henry Waxman:
The repeated questions drew objections from Waxman (D-CA), who slammed Republicans for persisting even after knowing that the executives would invoke their right to remain silent.
“I just want to take this moment to assert the fact that I think it’s unseemly and inappropriate for members to be asking questions that you know they will not answer,” Waxman said, saying the GOP questions were “sound bites” for the press.
It seems strange for Waxman to jump to Solyndra’s defense like this. Taking the Fifth during a Senate inquiry seems more “unseemly” than what the Republicans were doing, which was simply asking questions. And it’s not like they were without precedent on this. When Kenneth Lay invoked the Fifth Amendment during his Senate testimony on Enron, members of both parties spent hours raking him over the coals. I’d like to hear Waxman explain why that was appropriate, but the Republicans’ actions yesterday weren’t.
But what is more troublesome is that the Democrats don't even want to get to the bottom of this egregious misappropriation of our tax dollars; thus bolstering the premise of the sleazy corruption of the Democratic Party
Posted by Pearl, a resident of the Menlo Park: Allied Arts/Stanford Park neighborhood, on Sep 24, 2011 at 9:43 am
Those wishing to make political hay from this failure also highlight the investor who made political donation, why didn't the committee chairs call them to testify?
The committee you refer to, who was the chair? Was it any of these guys discussed above? Oh, yeah, it WAS, no need to answer (you wouldn't anyway, partisan flacks never do)
"It turns out that a financial backer of Aptera, the company Issa assisted with a loan request, is a major Republican donor and a contributor to Issa.... A political action committee he helped found and fund, the New Majority PAC, has contributed at least $15,000 to Issa over the years."
"Reps. Dan Burton (R-Ind.), Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) and Raul Labrador (R-Idaho). CA republican rep Darryl Issa; Stearns, Upton, even GOP presidential candidate Thaddeus McCotter."
McCotter quit since the guy above posted his name, but you get the picture.
They whine about the government picking winners and losers, although they have shown that it is they that want to pick winners and losers.
As long as they get their bribes, er, "contributions."
Their "contributions" stashed in their greedy pockets, they come out and make a scene, trying to get themselves some footage for their next campaign commercial, paid for by the very bribes, er, "contributions" they got for lobbying for Solyndra type loans for their own lobbyists and pals.
Remember the Mickey Mouse theme song? to that tune:
"H-Y-P, O-C C ya real soon, R-I-T-E, Easy as apple pie!
Taking money like a rat, and selling myself to sheeeeeep!
HYP-PO-CRITES (Donald Duck!)
doubting: you were half right -
"thus bolstering the premise of the sleazy corruption of <BOTH> Party<s>"
Posted by Doubting Thomas, a resident of the Menlo Park: Stanford Hills neighborhood, on Sep 24, 2011 at 11:40 am
There is only one thing wrong with your logic. Aptera never got any federal loan guarantees. So you have a case of a congressman asking for loan guarantee for a company in his district. I wonder how many congressmen do that? Like almost all of them.
There is nothing wrong with asking. Then you have to examine the merits of the request. The Energy Department turned down the less risky request of Aptera (for far less money by the way- $75 Million) and approved the far nore risky loan guarantee for Solyndra to the tune of $528 Million.
Aptera is building a plant in the midwest, has private investors, and is an onging business. Solyndra is cold and buried in the ground.
The only hypocrisy I see here is on the part of the liberals.
Posted by Pearl, a resident of the Menlo Park: Allied Arts/Stanford Park neighborhood, on Sep 24, 2011 at 3:23 pm
"I wonder how many congressmen do that? Like almost all of them. "
Thus, the hypocrisy song, about picking winners and losers.
But then you smear just liberal, don't you? "The only hypocrisy I see here is on the part of the liberals."
Yet here is ol' Darryl Issa, trying to pick winners and losers with Aptera and Quallion, which you readily admit were not even good enough to get loan guarantees ("Aptera never got any federal loan guarantees")
"“There’s been this attitude that somehow the government can weigh-in with loan guarantees and money and pick specific company winners and losers,” Issa said yesterday on C-SPAN"
Issa now claims he doesn't want to pick winners, yet he backed two who happened to be losers.
Posted by Doubting Thomas, a resident of the Menlo Park: Stanford Hills neighborhood, on Sep 24, 2011 at 8:01 pm
I have to admire Mr Issa's longevity. He was around before the battle of Hastings. Perhaps he was a Norman.
Liberals are bereft of logic. Daryll Issa was not involved in any corruption. As a Congressman he does not have the power to grant loans. He can only request fair consideration on behalf of his constituents- which is what he is supposed to do. If you have a problem with that I can give you about 50 pages of blogs where Democrat Congressman are doing the same thing.
Whereas Obama was involved in a "Pay to Play" scandal. But don't worry no one is asking for impeachment given that his chances for reelection are somewhat dim. Thank God! I don't know how much more Socialism this country can tolerate.
Posted by Thomas, a resident of the Menlo Park: Sharon Heights neighborhood, on Sep 24, 2011 at 11:59 pm
Getting back on topic, government investment in technology is not about trying to pick winners or losers or rewarding campaign contributors with federal grants. Anyone that thinks George Kaiser needed a federal influx of cash to Solyndra to support one of his investments is not able to see the big picture.
POGO states: "Sponsoring the Manhattan Project or the space program is just a little different different than the government investing in a small, private, high risk company whose principal (sic) goal is to sell their company for a 10X capital gain." He goes on to state: "And no, they don't typically invest in new bombs to end world wars."
While V.C. companies were not around back when "the bomb" was developed, I'm sure they would have been glad to participate in the project as nuclear energy is not just about bombs. I also am wondering if POGO may be against low cost government subsidies because his projects may have been denied government subsidies and he knows to he can only rely on V.C. funding. POGO...I'm just suggesting.
Perhaps I should have been more thoughtful and picked a more current topic of government subsidy such as stem cell research which "W" shut down but Obama reinstated. While Ronald Reagan was no fan of government subsidies, Nancy seemed to have a change of heart (and possibly party) when "W" shut it down as her husband could possibly have benefited from the research.
Doubting Thomas...Also fact check your post about the "Nixon era" Brent Spence Bridge... the bridge opened in 1963...According to my records, Johnson was president.
Posted by Doubtring Thomas, a resident of the Menlo Park: Stanford Hills neighborhood, on Sep 25, 2011 at 7:52 am
You are the one who should get back on topic.
"We know that in July 2010 the Government Accountability Office issued a report concluding that the Obama Energy Department was administering the loan program in a way that "makes the agency more susceptible to outside pressures."
"We also know that in March 2009, Oklahoma billionaire and Solyndra investor George Kaiser, who raised more than $50,000 for President Obama's campaign, visited the White House four times. We know that on March 29, 2009, Energy Secretary Steven Chu announced Solyndra had been awarded a $535 million loan guarantee".
"We know that after the company laid off 180 employees in November 2010, George Kaiser successfully raised $75 million to keep the company running, but only after the Obama Energy Department agreed -- in direct contravention of federal law -- to give private investors like Kaiser priority over taxpayers, should the firm go bankrupt. We know that during all of this time Solyndra spent nearly $1.8 million on Washington lobbyists".
THIS IS PAY TO PLAY. Now that the sleazy corruption of the Obama Administration has been exposed, there will be hell to pay come election day- whereupon the people of the United States, fed up with the corruption of the Obama Administration will give Obama the boot!
Posted by Pearl, a resident of the Menlo Park: Allied Arts/Stanford Park neighborhood, on Sep 25, 2011 at 10:05 am
"Pay to play": see "Issa, Darryl"; also "hypocrite"
"It turns out that a financial backer of Aptera, the company Issa assisted with a loan request, is a major Republican donor and a contributor to Issa.... A political action committee he helped found and fund, the New Majority PAC, has contributed at least $15,000 to Issa over the years."
Here is ol' Darryl Issa, trying to pick winners and losers with Aptera (pay to play) and Quallion, which you readily admit were not even good enough to get loan guarantees ("Aptera never got any federal loan guarantees")
"“There’s been this attitude that somehow the government can weigh-in with loan guarantees and money and pick specific company winners and losers,” Issa said yesterday on C-SPAN"
Issa now claims he doesn't want to pick winners, yet he backed two who happened to be losers. Because they PAID him to PLAY.
Issa, Republicans = hypocrites
Doubting Thomas admires Issa: "I have to admire Mr Issa's longevity."
Posted by Doubting Thomas, a resident of the Menlo Park: Stanford Hills neighborhood, on Sep 25, 2011 at 10:24 am
Liberals seem to be obtuse. All congressmen look out for the best interests in their districts. Issa asked to consider a loan guarantee for a company worthy of it. Issa does not make the loan guarantees. So there is no Pay for Play. The Obama Administration turned down the loan guarantee for a far better qualified company because it was in a Republican District and then approved the loan guarantee for a very risky company in a Democratic District for a bundler who delivered heavy donations to him. Then Obama violated Federal Law by putting private investors in front of the Federal Government for recovery in Bankruptcy.
And a far as picking winners and losers Issa picked a winner in a company that is viable, has private backing, with plans to open manufacturing facilities. Obama picked a loser in Solyndra. So if the question is who has the better judgment with regard to renewable Energy the answer is clearly Issa. Issa judged his loan guarantee request based on Aptera's merits. Obama based the Solyndra loan guarantee based on his bundler.
If it weren't so close to election people would be demanding impeachment. But we prefer the humiliation of a crushing defeat next November
Posted by Pearl, a resident of the Menlo Park: Allied Arts/Stanford Park neighborhood, on Sep 25, 2011 at 10:40 am
Let's take it apart:
DT is lost, obviously, as he starts with insults: "Liberals seem to be obtuse."
He makes absurd claims, with no documentation to prove his points.
and factless claims: "The Obama Administration turned down the loan guarantee for a far better qualified company because it was in a Republican District..." Proof? Links that show it was a far better company? if it was Mr Darryl"pay to play" would have been ALL over it!
"for a bundler who delivered heavy donations to him." and of course the republican donor who was also a huge investor.
"violated Federal Law" No. If he did, Mr "pay to play: Issa would be holding hearings.
"And a far as picking winners and losers Issa picked a winner in a company that is viable, has private backing, with plans to open manufacturing facilities." Great - we agree Issa picks winners and losers - despite his hypocritical claim that governmental shouldn't do that!
Solyndra had the same criteria - both dem and GOP investors/private backers, plans to open manufacturing facilities, etc.., so your point is ridiculous. EVERYONE who applied for loans had those claims!
"So if the question is who has the better judgment with regard to renewable Energy the answer is clearly Issa. " Based on what. The SEC investigations into Issa in the past? Issa tried to pick a winner, but he picked a loser. Aptera didn't even get picked by Bush's energy dept. But Issa's companies DID PAY to play with Issa!!
"If it weren't so close to election people would be demanding impeachment. " Bull. Flaming partisans like you would be screaming for it if any laws were actually broken. Issa would be all over it, even with his "pay to play" fingerprints all over his companies.
There are no impeachment hearings because the Energy Dept didn't break any laws.
Posted by POGO, a resident of the Woodside: other neighborhood, on Sep 25, 2011 at 1:58 pm
You conveniently twist things to the point of absurdity. The Manhattan Project isn't remotely like the government's recent private equity investment in Solyndra, a small, venture-backed private company. Point of fact: the Manhattan Project wasn't about nuclear energy. It was about developing "extremely powerful bombs" that would end World War II. If there's a VC that would invest in that sort of project, I'm not aware of them.
Second point of fact: I've never applied for or been turned down for government loans. I finance or arrange for financing for my own companies and take the wins and losses for myself. And my companies have produced more jobs than Solyndra. Of course, today, someone who runs a lemonade stand can make that same claim.
Hey, the Administration screwed up big time with Solyndra. Saying others do it too doesn't make it better or justifiable. That attitude isn't PART of the problem, it IS the problem.
Posted by Doubting Thomas, a resident of the Menlo Park: Stanford Hills neighborhood, on Sep 26, 2011 at 8:13 am
Soylyndra gets loan guarantees from Obama then proceeds to make a $7500 donation to the California Democratic Party. Now it appears that Solyndra has stiffed the California Democrat Party.
“Out of the hundreds of out-of-work employees, vendors, investors and other creditors in the bankruptcy of government-backed solar-panel maker Solyndra LLC, one name stands out: the California Democratic Party.
Why California Democrats would be creditor to a company that received more than a half-billion dollars in federal loans to build a solar-panel plant isn’t clear. Even party officials say they’re not sure.
The California Democratic Party’s communications director, Tenoch Flores, said the organization was not owed “any funds in any form” by the California-based company. He said he was unclear why the party would be listed as a creditor in Solyndra’s bankruptcy filing.
According to campaign-finance records, Solyndra donated $7,500 to the California Democratic Party in October 2010. It’s legal in California for corporations to make donations. But that doesn’t explain why the company would identify the Democratic Party as a creditor in its bankruptcy filing a year later.”
Of course Arnold SchwarzenKennedy gave money to a major Democrat donor–what would you expect from a man married into the Kennedy family?
Looks like the Democrats are hiding something–we will learn what Solyndra bought for its donation to the California Democrat party.
One has to wonder if Soyndra donated to several other State Democrat Parties? That would be the story. Did they donate to the Democratic National Committee. How corrupt are they?
Posted by Pearl, a resident of the Menlo Park: Allied Arts/Stanford Park neighborhood, on Sep 26, 2011 at 11:32 am
More ranting from dt. His p[revious post was deconstructed and proved false, line by line. So he ignores how his factless claims were busted apart and moves on to the next useless rant. "How corrupt are they?" The FBI will find out and tell us. At this point, dt is throwing mud on the wall to see if it sticks, as he has no evidence of any note.
Exxon donates to the RGA. Chamber of Commerce donates to campaigns with money it gets from corporations.
Kock Energy gives massive, unlimited donations to super PAC's like Karl Rove's hit group.
Posted by Doubting Thomas, a resident of the Menlo Park: Stanford Hills neighborhood, on Sep 26, 2011 at 12:06 pm
The only deconstruction going on is the deconstruction of the Obama presidency. Right now it is limping along and will finally breathe its last breath on January 20, 2013 when a new president will start the challenging task of rebuilding our country after four years of destructive socialism.
So much for your "Pearls of Wisdom". My prediction 300 to 238. Game over for Obama
Posted by POGO, a resident of the Woodside: other neighborhood, on Sep 26, 2011 at 3:42 pm
You didn't ask me, but I'll weigh in.
The Republicans will hold the House and will do so easily.
The Republicans will also win control of the Senate though not the 60 votes they need for full control (unless they choose to change the filibuster rule). It's not so much policy as math - though policy doesn't help - Democrats will have to defend 23 seats; Republicans just 10.
For the Presidency, if Mitt Romney or Chris Christie is the Republican nominee, the Republicans will win in a very tight contest. President Obama will beat any other Republican candidate that is now in the race.
Posted by Pearl, a resident of the Menlo Park: Allied Arts/Stanford Park neighborhood, on Sep 27, 2011 at 12:37 pm
I don't think Christie beats Obama; Rubio may be the best VP candidate the GOP has. He has kept quiet and doesn't have a record of the insane remarks so many others have. His only choice is whether to wait until '16.
What socialism? Keeping your kid on your plan until he's 26? Preventing insurance companies from excluding pre-existing conditions like, let's say, pregnancy? Lilly Ledbetter fair pay for women? (a personal fav!) Getting rid of the Medicare Plus public tax payer money boondoogle to private insurance companies? The stimulus which gave America the largest middle class tax cut in history ($350 billion)?
The socialistic big governmental program (called "Seals") that got OBL?
Keeping 3 million manufacturing jobs in the auto sector going, in the middle of the recovery from Bush's record job losses?
Cutting government jobs? Or should he add government jobs like Bush and Perry?
doubting thomas: asked about your 300 number, since you didn't answer, I assume you just pulled that one out of your (hat.)
Posted by Pearl, a resident of the Menlo Park: Allied Arts/Stanford Park neighborhood, on Sep 27, 2011 at 12:41 pm
The hypocritical PICKERS of winners and losers are showing their side again, from USA Today:
"And in 2007, Upton backed legislation that created the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing (ATVM) Loan Program, targeting manufacturers and suppliers looking to retool U.S. factories to build high-fuel economy vehicles.
The ATVM Loan Program has proved to be a boon for Michigan. In July, a Michigan steel manufacturer, Severstal Dearborn, won a $730 million loan guarantee from the Energy Department. One year earlier, Upton was among Michigan lawmakers who wrote to Chu calling for "prompt completion and consideration of loan applications" from Michigan companies. [...] Upton also was among four GOP lawmakers from Michigan who wrote to Chu on Oct. 30, 2010, urging him to back a $207 million ATVM loan guarantee for EcoMotors International, which was looking to develop a manufacturing site in Livonia, Mich."
Stearns, from his hometown paper: www.gainsville.com
"U.S. Rep. Cliff Stearns and his fellow Republicans have seized on the recent bankruptcy of Solyndra Inc. to discredit the Obama administration's efforts to stimulate renewable energy development and green job growth.
"I see no reason for the taxpayers to have any confidence that these funds could be spent wisely, and it should be returned to the Treasury to reduce our debt," Stearns said, calling the Obama administration's use of stimulus funds to encourage alternative energy development "suspect."
Funny, that's not what Stearns said last year, when the Energy Department provided $95.5 million to help Saft America Inc. open a lithium-ion battery plant in his district, at Cecil Commerce Center, in Jacksonville.
"I am honored to join in welcoming Saft's Li-ion battery manufacturing facility to the Cecil Commerce Center, which underscores that this is a good place to do business," Stearns said at the plant's ground-breaking.
"In addition, as a member of the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Caucus, I recognize the contributions of these advanced rechargeable batteries in meeting our energy needs."
Did it really take the bankruptcy of just one stimulus-supported solar energy manufacturer to turn Rep. Stearns sour on green energy development?
If so, that's too bad. Because America's competitors in China, Europe and elsewhere have no such reluctance about subsidizing the cutting edge technologies and alternative energy development that will be so crucial to economic success and job growth in the coming years.