Romney pays surprise visit to Solyndra

[The Moonshield]

I never even heard of Solyndra until the right wing echo chamber jumped all over the fact that it failed...

Then you haven't been paying attention. Here's two rather well known examples (well known to anyone who's followed this whole ordeal even slightly, at least) of what Darth was talking about:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=KYiJ-_K9NCo

September 2009, Biden, Chu and Arnold announce Solyndra's loan guarantee.

...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=KYiJ-_K9NCo

May 26, 2010 - Obama paying a visit to, and giving a speech at, Solyndra.

As Darth said - propaganda to tout Obama's green energy policies and "job creation" abilities.

Also, there is more to Solyndra than the mere fact that it went bankrupt. Wikipedia isn't the greatest source, I know, but I'm too lazy right now to look through my 10,000 RSS feeds to find the best links, so it will have to do for now. Anyway, here's a few choice quotes from Wikipedia's Solyndra entry on why Solyndra reflects so badly on the Obama administration:

It was later revealed that the company's shareholders and executives had made substantial donations to Obama's campaign, that the company had spent a large sum of money on lobbying, and that Solyndra executives had had many meetings with White House officials.

It was also revealed that the Obama administration had already been aware of Solyndra's financial troubles. For example, according to the company's security filings in 2009, the company had been selling its product for less than the cost of production.

On September 13, 2011, the Washington Post reported on emails which showed that the Obama administration had tried to rush federal reviewers to approve the loan so Vice President Joe Biden could announce it at a September 2009 groundbreaking for the company’s factory. The company was a hallmark of President Obama's plan to support clean energy technologies.

The New York Times reported that government auditors and industry analysts had faulted the Obama administration for failing to properly evaluate the company's business proposals, as well as for failing to take note of troubling signs which were already evident. In addition, Frank Rusco, a program director at the Government Accountability Office, had found that the preliminary loan approval had been granted before officials had completed the legally mandated evaluations of the company.

On September 29, 2011, the Washington Post reported that the Obama administration had continued to allow Solyndra to receive taxpayer money even after it had defaulted on its $535 million loan.

On October 7, 2011, The Washington Post reported that newly revealed emails showed that Energy Department officials had been warned that their plan to help Solyndra by restructuring the loan might be illegal, and should be cleared with the Justice Department first. However, Energy Department officials moved ahead with the restructuring anyway, with a new deal that would repay company investors before taxpayers if the company were to default. The emails showed concerns within the Obama administration about the legality of the Energy Department's actions. In addition, an Energy Department stimulus adviser, Steve Spinner, had pushed for the loan, despite having recused himself because his wife's law firm had done work for the company.

[JimL]

You couldn't be more wrong.


Okay, you don't support either of them, you just criticize the one and defend the other. Ha ha!

People of lower intelligence often make the mistake of assuming there are only TWO possible solutions to a particular problem or challenge. This is called a "false dichotomy", Jimmy.

Okay, why don't you tell me what your particular solution is Cow Poke? Who are you going to vote for?

Nope. You're praising Obama, and using Romney's faults to try to make your point. Romney has plenty of faults without you having to invent or distort them.

Its no secret that I support Obama, but I never praised his particular decision on Solyndra, I have only pointed out the hypocrisy of Romney's criticism of that decision. Thats not inventing or distorting Romney's faults, its pointing them out.

"Agencies".... plural, not possessive. And, no, NOT exactly the same thing.[/QUOTE]


Investing tax payor money into private industry. Yeah, it is one and the same thing.

Like you taught yourself grammar?

Pointing out peoples spelling mistakes doesn't help your argument, it only makes you look like a jerk who has no argument to make.

Maybe it will help my spelling and grammar, too?

No, your spelling is fine, its just the thought behind it that is wanting.

[JimL]

Then you haven't been paying attention. Here's two rather well known examples (well known to anyone who's followed this whole ordeal even slightly, at least) of what Darth was talking about:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=KYiJ-_K9NCo

September 2009, Biden, Chu and Arnold announce Solyndra's loan guarantee.

...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=KYiJ-_K9NCo

May 26, 2010 - Obama paying a visit to, and giving a speech at, Solyndra.

As Darth said - propaganda to tout Obama's green energy policies and "job creation" abilities.

Also, there is more to Solyndra than the mere fact that it went bankrupt. Wikipedia isn't the greatest source, I know, but I'm too lazy right now to look through my 10,000 RSS feeds to find the best links, so it will have to do for now. Anyway, here's a few choice quotes from Wikipedia's Solyndra entry on why Solyndra reflects so badly on the Obama administration:

Right, Wikipedia isn't the greatest source and the details are disputed on both sides. That isn't the point of the O.P. and it is not the point that I am arguing. The point that OC is trying to make is that Romney should be supported because he is against putting taxpayor money into private industry, against picking winners and losers as he accused Obama of doing as he stood in front of the closed Solyndra Plant. The problem with this argument is that Romney, the lying hypocrite that he is, had the same policy as governor of Massachusetts and apparently thought it would not be made known.

[JimL]

You really couldn't tell me anything Jimmy. Sorry, not reading the rest of your post, given that you pretty much just admitted you have no idea what you're talking about. Look up what the scandal was actually about, it's not merely investing in a company and then having the company happen to fail.

Perhaps you should go back and read the O.P., before posting. You're not able, it seems, to stay on track.

[Cow Poke]

"Agencies".... plural, not possessive. And, no, NOT exactly the same thing.

You blew the quote, there, Jimmy. Sheeeesh.... what's wrong with you? That's what I said!

Investing tax payor money into private industry. Yeah, it is one and the same thing.

Payer. not payor.

Pointing out peoples spelling mistakes doesn't help your argument, it only makes you look like a jerk who has no argument to make.

My argument is that you're a big dummy. You're the moron who claimed there's "no mechanism" for somebody to voluntarily give money to the government. You just keep screwing up.

No, your spelling is fine, its just the thought behind it that is wanting.

"taught yourself logic", indeed! NOW, I'm beginning to understand you better.

It's called "the Chicago Way", Jimmy.

Chicago Tribune

t's the Chicago Way, but instead of a paving or trucking contract, it's a "green" solar panel contract. The company received a $535 million loan.

"The optics of a Solyndra default will be bad," according to a Jan. 31 email from an Office of Management and Budget staffer printed in the Washington Post. "If Solyndra defaults down the road, the optics will arguably be worse later than they would be today. … In addition, the timing will likely coincide with the 2012 campaign season heating up."

I love the use of "optics." It's one of those bloodless words finding favor these days.

"Optics" suggests bureaucrats might think in terms of symbolism, political hieroglyphs, in grand vistas, rather than in hard numbers, like the $535,000,000 that went poof.

But it's not their money, is it? It's ours.

So this is not about Washington optics after all. The Solyndra scandal is about the Washington smell of things.

Those of us from Chicago know exactly what it smells like. And It doesn't smell fresh and green.

© source where applicable

[JimL]

You blew the quote, there, Jimmy. Sheeeesh.... what's wrong with you? That's what I said!



Payer. not payor.



My argument is that you're a big dummy. You're the moron who claimed there's "no mechanism" for somebody to voluntarily give money to the government. You just keep screwing up.



"taught yourself logic", indeed! NOW, I'm beginning to understand you better.

It's called "the Chicago Way", Jimmy.

Chicago Tribune

t's the Chicago Way, but instead of a paving or trucking contract, it's a "green" solar panel contract. The company received a $535 million loan.

"The optics of a Solyndra default will be bad," according to a Jan. 31 email from an Office of Management and Budget staffer printed in the Washington Post. "If Solyndra defaults down the road, the optics will arguably be worse later than they would be today. … In addition, the timing will likely coincide with the 2012 campaign season heating up."

I love the use of "optics." It's one of those bloodless words finding favor these days.

"Optics" suggests bureaucrats might think in terms of symbolism, political hieroglyphs, in grand vistas, rather than in hard numbers, like the $535,000,000 that went poof.

But it's not their money, is it? It's ours.

So this is not about Washington optics after all. The Solyndra scandal is about the Washington smell of things.

Those of us from Chicago know exactly what it smells like. And It doesn't smell fresh and green.

© source where applicable

Go back and read the O.P. Cow Poke. I not concerning myself with your spin, or the opinions expressed in the conservative rags you reference. OC's complaint, though he himself seems to have disappeared, was the fact that the government, i.e. Obama, puts money into private business, period. He complains thusly in support of Romney who made the same complaint against Obama, i.e. that the government should not be investing in private business, that the government should not be in the business, as he put it, of picking winners and losers. My point to OC is that Romney practiced the same policy, period. That his canidate is a hypocrite, and I wonder if OC has changed his mind now that he knows. If its Romney rather than Obama, does it become good policy.

[Cow Poke]

I not concerning myself...

Bless your heart.

[Cow Poke]

He complains thusly

"thusly"?

in support of Romney who made the same complaint against Obama, i.e. that the government should not be investing in private business, that the government should not be in the business, as he put it, of picking winners and losers.

Obama, as Romney points out, seems to be much better at picking losers.

[JimL]

"thusly"?



Obama, as Romney points out, seems to be much better at picking losers.

And unfortunately for you, you take Romney's, (the liar's) word for that rather than seeking the truth of the matter. Of the 24 business's that recieved government assistance only 4 have gone kaput which is actually less than Congress had anticipated when they initiated the program. Thats not nearly half of them, like Romney has said! In fact its better than Romney's record itself at Bain.

[Cow Poke]

And unfortunately for you, you take Romney's, (the liar's) word for that rather than seeking the truth of the matter.

That's a lie, Jimmy. I checked other sources. And I have said REPEATEDLY I am no fan of Romney. I'm tired of you misrepresenting me.

Of the 24 business's that recieved government assistance only 4 have gone kaput which is actually less than Congress had anticipated when they initiated the program. Thats not nearly half of them, like Romney has said! In fact its better than Romney's record itself at Bain.

Businesses, Jimmy... not "business's" --- that's possessive, not plural. And "received", not "recieved".

Now, show me STATISTICS, Jimmy --- not just your ignorant blather. I get really tired of you just regurgitating stuff you hear from MSNBC.

heritage.org

Evergreen Solar ($25 million)*
SpectraWatt ($500,000)*
Solyndra ($535 million)*
Beacon Power ($43 million)*
Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
SunPower ($1.2 billion)
First Solar ($1.46 billion)
Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*
Amonix ($5.9 million)
Fisker Automotive ($529 million)
Abound Solar ($400 million)*
A123 Systems ($279 million)*
Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($700,981)*
Johnson Controls ($299 million)
Schneider Electric ($86 million)
Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
ECOtality ($126.2 million)
Raser Technologies ($33 million)*
Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*
Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*
Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)*
Range Fuels ($80 million)*
Thompson River Power ($6.5 million)*
Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*
Azure Dynamics ($5.4 million)*
GreenVolts ($500,000)
Vestas ($50 million)
LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power ($151 million)
Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*
Navistar ($39 million)
Satcon ($3 million)*
Konarka Technologies Inc. ($20 million)*
Mascoma Corp. ($100 million)

*Denotes companies that have filed for bankruptcy.

© source where applicable

Are you afraid to reveal your source because it's MSNBC again? Or do you not HAVE a source?

[The Moonshield]

Speaking of winners and losers in the Green Energy market, some recently obtained emails from DOE credit adviser Jim McCrea are rather interesting:

Washington Examiner

"l really cannot fathom how one figures out whether a loan to a PV manufacturer is being made to one that will survive. Everything about the business argues for the failure of many lf not most of the suppliers."

The "PV" reference is to photovoltaic solar panel manufacturing technology. Solyndra and Abound Solar both used PV technology.
Then McCrea offers this further confession:

"lf, as a jobs creation mechanism, there is an incentive for PV solar installations, I do think demand could soar and create large numbers ofjobs simultaneously.

"However, lf I were going to invest on that thesis, l might look at inverter manufacturers like Xantrex rather than bet on the PV solar anufacturers. All in all in the solar field, l think it is extremely easy to pick losers and l really do not know how to pick winners."

(Emphasis mine)

SOURCE

© source where applicable

Related and also worth reading: NOT POLITICAL? EMAILS SHOW WHITE HOUSE DROVE FAILED GREEN-LOAN IN COLORADO