View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently April 17th, 2014, 11:40 am



Reply to topic  [ 97 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
 Report: White House tried to rush Solyndra loan 
Author Message
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: Report: White House tried to rush Solyndra loan
Sly, you know that is a dumb question and just like saying who has made money at all without gov't assistance since 2000. The gov't dips their hands in everything so automatically everything gets an asterisk attache to it. I can't name it, and you knew, because the gov't decided to get involved giving no one any choice whether or not to take the help because it is a customer tax credit. You've asked a question you know is irrelevant because unlike the bailout of the auto industry where Ford could choose to take money or not, the meddling of the gov't has come on the consumer side where they get no choice and as a consumer there ain't no way I'm not taking that money.

You know better than this Sly... but we both know you are trying to get a "gotcha." Post all you want, but your question is no better than WJB's because the gov't has made zero room for someone to profit WITHOUT any gov't assistance. They are given no choice. I can tell you that none of these profitable companies needed gov't money to start up or need a zero interest gov't loan to keep them floating. So if that means cars aren't profitable and require gov't assistance to make it then at least wind and solar can say they never had to stoop that low! Epic fail for automotive! Cars aren't profitable!

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


September 21st, 2011, 9:16 am
Profile
Online
QB Coach
User avatar

Joined: August 21st, 2005, 3:36 am
Posts: 3055
Location: London, UK
Post Re: Report: White House tried to rush Solyndra loan
steensn wrote:
Sly, you know that is a dumb question and just like saying who has made money at all without gov't assistance since 2000. The gov't dips their hands in everything so automatically everything gets an asterisk attache to it. I can't name it, and you knew, because the gov't decided to get involved giving no one any choice whether or not to take the help because it is a customer tax credit. You've asked a question you know is irrelevant because unlike the bailout of the auto industry where Ford could choose to take money or not, the meddling of the gov't has come on the consumer side where they get no choice and as a consumer there ain't no way I'm not taking that money.

You know better than this Sly... but we both know you are trying to get a "gotcha." Post all you want, but your question is no better than WJB's because the gov't has made zero room for someone to profit WITHOUT any gov't assistance. They are given no choice. I can tell you that none of these profitable companies needed gov't money to start up or need a zero interest gov't loan to keep them floating. So if that means cars aren't profitable and require gov't assistance to make it then at least wind and solar can say they never had to stoop that low! Epic fail for automotive! Cars aren't profitable!

I will preface my comment by saying that I'm interpreting what you're saying to mean that you don't think any company can be profitable without gov't assistance. If that's not what you meant, then I retract my comment. That said, here goes:

Wow you couldn't be more wrong. You can't name any company that has made money without government assistance since 2000? Really?

How about this one: Apple. Most valuable company in the world. Makes products people want. Doesn't get help from the government.

Or another one you mentioned: Ford. They did not take the bailout because they didn't need to. Now they stand on their own and are (I believe) the only profitable American car company.

There are many, many companies that don't receive subsidies from the government and do just fine.

_________________
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams

http://www.11points.com/Books/11_Things ... _Do_Anyway

LET'S GO DUKE!

If you don't like gay marriage, don't get one.


September 21st, 2011, 10:14 am
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: Report: White House tried to rush Solyndra loan
You can retract it... I was being a jerk to Sly for asking a stupid question. You caught on to how stupid the logic behind Sly's question was, being is inferes what you just posted about. He intended to insinuate that if they had any assistance from the gov't in any form, then they are not profitable on their without it. My point was that no company is clear of gov't assistance currently and Bush/Obama can claim any success as part of their bailout and stimulus money. No one is free from that... because the company's didn't get a chance to say no to it.

Just like the alternative energy companies. The gov't offered their customers insentives and our customers gladly took them. We profited from that clearly so Sly's comment hints that we if we didn't have that then we wouldn't be profitable and I should now show him one solar or wind company that has been profitabl without it. He KNOWS I can't because our customers were offered a benefit and absolutaly would never say no to that.

What I was pointing out, and you caught, was how rediculous the statement is that if you've ever benefitted from gov't money that somehow you are not profitable without it is nonsense. Even though Ford get's money for developing more fuel efficient cars from the gov't doesn't mean it isn't profitable on it's own without it. It just means they were offered an option and clearly they thought it was beneficial for them so they took it. They didn't however take the bailout money, which is great, but GM did. Is GM no longer a viable company? Even though they paid it all back?

Because of what Obama and Bush pulled, no one is free from gov't impact. They pumped trillions of dollars back into the economy (by morgaging our future) and whether you were going to be profitable or not without it... per Sly's logic... is irrelevant.

The line of thinking Sly is going down is dumb and I think you agree.

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


September 21st, 2011, 10:33 am
Profile
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 11822
Post Re: Report: White House tried to rush Solyndra loan
Politico wrote:
Solyndra execs to take the Fifth
By DARREN SAMUELSOHN | 9/20/11 4:40 PM EDT

Solyndra's top executives will take the safe route on Friday by invoking their Fifth Amendment rights not to answer questions from a House panel investigating the California solar company's demise.

Attorneys for CEO Brian Harrison and CFO W.G. Stover told the House Energy and Commerce’s Investigations and Oversight Subcommittee in separate letters sent Tuesday that they have advised their clients to decline all lawmaker questions because of the ongoing Justice Department criminal investigation.

"This is not a decision arrived at lightly, but it is a decision dictated by current circumstances," wrote Harrison's attorney, Walter Brown.

"Mr. Stover respects the important role this subcommittee plays in performing its constitutional oversight function in service to the American people," wrote Stover's lawyer, Jan Little. "He looks forward to a time when he can assist the Subcommittee's efforts, and make known his perspective about events at Solyndra. Unfortunately, the current circumstances do not permit it."

The Solyndra officials will still appear at Friday's hearing, which promises to be a public spectacle as both Republicans and Democrats make opening statements railing against the executives for their upbeat public assessments on the company's prospects earlier this year even as the company was edging closer to bankruptcy.

But just like Enron founder Ken Lay did in 2002 before the Senate Commerce Committee, the Solyndra executives will not try to defend themselves.

Several legal experts on Tuesday said the Solyndra officials would probably do themselves more harm than good by giving government prosecutors information that can then be used in a potential criminal case.

"I'd tell them to shut up," said Peter Henning, a white collar criminal expert at Wayne State University Law School. "The optics look ugly, but being in a federal criminal institution would be even worse."

FBI agents searched Solyndra's Fremont headquarters earlier this month as part of a joint investigation with the Energy Department's inspector general. Exactly what the federal officials are up to, however, remains an open question.

The affidavit remains under seal and Justice Department officials have declined comment.

Another risk involves lying to Congress while under oath. Federal perjury charges usually can come with penalties of around five years in prison

Legal experts said the Solyndra officials probably studied a number of other high-profile cases involving the Fifth Amendment.

"I'd imagine the lawyers are probably naming all kinds of people: Remember what happened to Martha Stewart. Remember what happened to Jeffrey Skilling," said Ellen Podgor, a Stetson University College of Law professor.

"On the other hand, the client really wants to tell their story. They may not have done anything wrong. There's a real desire to tell that," she added.

Stewart spent five months in prison for lying to federal investigators on a stock sale, while federal prosecutors used Jeffrey Skilling’s testimony to Congress against him in its criminal case against the Enron CEO.

BP CEO Tony Hayward could still find himself in trouble for remarks he gave to Congress about the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, which federal officials continue to investigate for possible criminal charges.

This article first appeared on POLITICO Pro at 4:23 p.m. on September 20, 2011.



Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/09 ... z1Ybufp4Ro

_________________
Go Lions!!! headbang.gif

Joe Fauria, MVP!


September 21st, 2011, 1:50 pm
Profile
Commissioner of the NFL – Roger Goodell
User avatar

Joined: August 7th, 2004, 4:47 am
Posts: 10943
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Post Re: Report: White House tried to rush Solyndra loan
Steensn, I openly admit that it was a GOTCHA question because that company does not exist. I was just hoping that you would name one or several, so I could post just how much government assistance they received. Unfortunately, you didn't take the bait and don't want to play the game. :(

_________________
Image


September 21st, 2011, 2:48 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: Report: White House tried to rush Solyndra loan
How much did the top two companies in each market get just for fun?

Solar:
First Solar
Suntech

Wind:
Vestas
Sinovel

I'm not going to fall for gotcha questions... I knew you know better.

And just for fun and good comparison, what are the numbers for:

GM
Oil and Gas
Petroleum
Medical Community


What you WILL find is a almost blip on the screen in the grand scheme of things for renewables and a rediculous amount of direct and indirect for most everything else.

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


September 21st, 2011, 4:48 pm
Profile
Commissioner of the NFL – Roger Goodell
User avatar

Joined: August 7th, 2004, 4:47 am
Posts: 10943
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Post Re: Report: White House tried to rush Solyndra loan
I'll look into the four companies you listed later, but I found something interesting from a Department of Energy July 2011 report. It lists the total subsidies given to energy for FY 2010 as $37.160B. These include $1.358B for coal, $2.820B for oil/gas, $2.399B for nuclear, $1.134 for solar, $4.986B for wind, and $6.644B for biofuels.

I tried to post the table, but it ended up a mess, so just click on the link and scroll down to page xiii to see it.
http://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/pdf/subsidy.pdf

So basically, the US government is stating that it gave more subsidies to wind energy last year than to coal, gas, and oil combined. Imagine that. :lol:

_________________
Image


September 21st, 2011, 7:06 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: Report: White House tried to rush Solyndra loan
Yeah, if they choose to do that how does that say anything negative about wind? All it shows is the gov't's opinion of what the next big technology is in that they should invest in for our county to prosper. Notice biofuels, which could directly replace gasoline and our interest overseas is the highest. What this data shows is NOT a dependency but rather an investement scheme in domestic technology.

You're logic is flawed ad you know it...

"Do not answer a fool according to his folly, Or you will also be like him." Proverbs

Yours and wjb's arguments are just that... folly.

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


September 21st, 2011, 7:58 pm
Profile
Commissioner of the NFL – Roger Goodell
User avatar

Joined: August 7th, 2004, 4:47 am
Posts: 10943
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Post Re: Report: White House tried to rush Solyndra loan
Steensn, I like how you're attempting to spin like a wind turbine. :lol:

My point is that solar and wind is over-subsidized and those industries would fail without government assistance. So far, you have yet to prove otherwise.

How come only one of the companies you listed above are American? Suntech and Sinovel are from China, while Vestas is based in Denmark. Therefore, I don't give a crap about them, but Suntech still got a $4.5B loan guarantee from the US and another $7.3B from China.

Since First Solar is a US based company, I will address them. Did you know that most of their manufacturing is done in Malaysia, where they don't have to pay taxes for 16-1/2 years? Their only US plant is in Ohio, but they're building a new one in Mesa, Arizona with $51M worth of subsidies from the city, county, and state. They received a $1B loan guarantee from the US in January with another $4.5B promised in July. Canada even gave them another $450M. They also get a 30% investment tax credit for installations. That's all I've got so far, but you get the idea.

_________________
Image


September 21st, 2011, 8:43 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: Report: White House tried to rush Solyndra loan
I'm actually not spinning anything. You are taking the data point that they get subsidies, just like everyone else, and saying they cannot live without it. So the FACT is that everyone get's subsidies and no one lately has proven they can survive without them with YOUR logic. No spin needed, you have no data to show that wind or solar is any different. Now you are saying that if someone puts plants overseas they are now bad business... ummm... you've been out of the real working world for a LONG time...

You are spinning good business practice as special dings for wind and solar? Really? You are going to be that fake now?

You haven't told me one thing so far I didn't know. The US isn't the world leader in everything... welcome to reality.

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


September 21st, 2011, 9:30 pm
Profile
Commissioner of the NFL – Roger Goodell
User avatar

Joined: August 7th, 2004, 4:47 am
Posts: 10943
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Post Re: Report: White House tried to rush Solyndra loan
This is how I picture you when you advocate for wind power:
Image

Relax, it's only a joke, but the mini wind turbine up top seems so apropos. :lol:

_________________
Image


September 22nd, 2011, 12:32 pm
Profile
Commissioner of the NFL – Roger Goodell
User avatar

Joined: August 7th, 2004, 4:47 am
Posts: 10943
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Post Re: Report: White House tried to rush Solyndra loan
This is getting worse for Obama:
Townhall wrote:
Bob Beauprez
Fraud Charges Floating for Obama Administration

Since we first write about the collapse of Solyndra, the solar energy company favored by the White House with a $535 million taxpayer funded loan, the stench has only gotten worse.

Rather than restate the facts, here are links to our four previously published posts:

September 10, 2011 – September 13, 2011 – September 16, 2011 – Fox, September 19, 2011

For those of you following this evolving scandal, here are a few more important developments and relevant details:

At least five high level investigations have been initiated including the FBI, the Inspector General of the Department of Energy, the Inspector General of the U.S. Treasury, the House Energy & Commerce Committee, and the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee.

Lamar Smith, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, has called on the Justice Department to appoint an "Independent Investigator" to look into the growing scandal.

Attorneys for Solyndra CEO Brian Harrison and CFO W.G. Stover, originally scheduled to testify to Congress this Friday, notified the House that the executives will invoke the Fifth Amendment and not answer questions.

Rep. Fred Upton, Chairman of the House Energy & Commerce Committee, cited an "apparent violation of the law" during opening statements in a House hearing last week; a reference to the Energy Policy Act of 2005 that authorized the loan program to the benefit of Solyndra, but importantly contained a prohibition against subordination of the taxpayers secured position.

Former Assistant U.S. District Attorney, Andrew McCarthy ratcheted up the allegations further by alleging the actions of the Obama Administration are "criminal fraud." McCarthy says any competent prosecutor will pursue that line of investigation and points out that, "Fraud against the United States is one of the most serious felony offenses in the federal penal code."

Disregarding the exploding scandal, the DOE announced another half billion in loan guarantees to solar energy companies since the Solyndra collapse and reports suggest a dozen or more are being rushed through the pipeline prior to the programs expiration on September 30.

http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/bobbeauprez/2011/09/22/fraud_charges_floating_for_obama_administration/page/full/

_________________
Image


September 22nd, 2011, 12:35 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: Report: White House tried to rush Solyndra loan
That is a funny pick, but that is what I see you as when you make your stupid arguments lacking any logic. ;)

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


September 22nd, 2011, 12:40 pm
Profile
Commissioner of the NFL – Roger Goodell
User avatar

Joined: August 7th, 2004, 4:47 am
Posts: 10943
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Post Re: Report: White House tried to rush Solyndra loan
Machinac.org wrote:
It's Not Easy Subsidizing GreenBy Jarrett Skorup | 9/16/2011 4:59 PM
The bankruptcy of “green jobs” darling Solyndra is in the news because it could potentially cost U.S. taxpayers $535 million due to a federal “stimulus” program loan guarantee. The Silicon Valley solar-panel maker’s failure comes on the heels of another “green” corporate welfare beneficiary also going under, Evergreen Solar (with a factory located in Midland, Mich.). These deals were big losers for Americans.

Both businesses repudiated claims that company management or the current market for “green” energy products were the cause of their failure. Instead, company officials cited intense competition from lower-cost Chinese manufacturers: “The solar power market is intensely competitive and rapidly evolving,” wrote Evergreen Solar’s chief executive officer, Michael El-Hillow. “In particular, solar manufacturers in China continue to receive considerable government and financial support and, together with China’s low manufacturing costs, have become price leaders within the industry.”

“Prices of silicon came down as the Chinese volume increased; they were able to get to very low costs and become competitive,” said former Solyndra CEO Brian Harrison.

U.S. Department of Energy Department officials are promoting the same party line, saying that “less expensive solar panels made by government-subsidized companies in China undercut Solyndra’s products.”

"Chinese companies have flooded the market with inexpensive panels, and Europe — currently the largest customer base for solar panels — has suffered from an economic crisis that has significantly reduced demand and forced cuts in subsidies for solar deployment that were important to Solyndra's business model," Jonathan Silver, who heads the Department of Energy's loan-guarantee program, is expected to tell the House Energy and Commerce Committee, according to The Wall Street Journal.

Proponents of costly government “green jobs” subsidies, without which these firms would probably never have existed on such a scale, claim that select “clean” energy (wind, hydro and solar but not nuclear or natural gas) is the wave of the future, and worth risking taxpayer dollars to support.

If so, why wouldn’t they welcome lower-cost Chinese versions of these products, which presumably would bring about our economy’s transition from “evil” fossil fuels even more rapidly? Or at the very least, let the Chinese government instead of American taxpayers take the hits for allocating capital through politics rather than market realities.

Those favoring these energy subsidies may disagree, believing that sending taxpayer money to politically connected select companies is actually a “jobs creator.” Disregarding the mountains of evidence that government is notoriously bad at picking economic winners, just looking at these two solar companies should show that this is a bad argument: The companies combined to employ about 1,500 people at the time of their bankruptcies (a few hundred for Evergreen Solar and 1,100 for Solyndra). On top of the federal funds, Evergreen Solar received $58.6 million from the state of Massachusetts and millions more from Michigan sources, while Solyndra got $535 million in federal aid and more from California. This is, in the words of my colleague Michael LaFaive, an expensive game creating the illusion of jobs.

State and federal governments should stop using selective economics and get out of this game altogether.


http://www.mackinac.org/15735

_________________
Image


September 22nd, 2011, 12:52 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: Report: White House tried to rush Solyndra loan
The article does a bait an switch... it talks about what happened then makes a jab at renewables intent to cut down pollution so Chinese undercutting is ok? Isn't this about the gov'ts bad investemen and protectionism? What a crappy article... shows just how stupid people will get to shoot down whatever they just don't like...

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


September 22nd, 2011, 12:59 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 97 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Blueskies, rao and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.