Poop hit the fan late today!
A prominent 2008 Barack Obama fundraiser who held a key role in the Energy Department played an active part in Solyndra's $535 million loan guarantee despite conflict of interest concerns over his wife's work at a law firm that also represented the California solar company, according to internal Obama administration emails released Friday.
Steve Spinner's involvement in the Solyndra loan had been difficult to determine until the release of hundreds of emails on Friday showing the Silicon Valley energy consultant engaged while at the DOE in a range of high-level roles.
In a series of emails sent on Aug. 28, 2009, Spinner expressed repeated frustrations with the Office of Management and Budget over the holdup on the Solyndra loan.
"Any word from OMB? I have the OVP and WH breathing down my neck on this," he wrote to DOE career staffer Kelly Colyar. "Just want to make sure we get their questions. They are getting itchy to get involved if needed. I don't want that."
"We got their questions last night," Colyar replied. "We've followed up on most, but the ball is still in our court. Bill has sent me some things, but it's not exactly what i need. i've requested more."
"How — hard is this? What is he waiting for?" Spinner replied. "Will we have it by end of day? If any risk of not, let me know."
"How do OMB's questions look? What you were expecting? How long for us to respond? Just so I can be better educated, can you share with me?" Spinner added.
Spinner also was central in trying to line up Obama or Vice President Joe Biden to participate via videoconference in a September 2009 groundbreaking ceremony.
Writing on Aug. 17 to the DOE's Megan Guy, Spinner explains that the event will need to include "golden shovels, construction workers, bulldozers, ribbon cutting, tour of existing assembly line, customer testimonials."
Spinner had some role in dealing with details of the Solyndra loan. Guy wrote in an Aug. 20, 2009, email, "Quick question - do you want to put in credit score estimates for Solyndra [redacted] and [redacted], or just use flat 11.85 percent?"
Spinner outlined his concern about the possible conflict of interest in a Sept. 23, 2009, email to DOE ethics official Sue Wadel, explaining the arrangement that his wife Allison Spinner had worked out with her law firm, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati.
"WSGR has programmed Allison's pay structure to take out any profit sharing that any of these companies may generate in fees re: DOE loan applications."
"I shall update you monthly as the list changes," Spinner added. "As agreed, I will recuse myself from any active participation in any of these applications (solicitations, due diligence, negotiations). Please let me know if there's anything else I should be aware of."
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/65448.html#ixzz1a8Fh764T
I believe the Bush Administration approved the loan. I am not convinced that the Obama administration had that much to with it.
Quote from: stageidea on October 07, 2011, 04:31:15 PM
I believe the Bush Administration approved the loan. I am not convinced that the Obama administration had that much to with it.
The Bush administration turned the loan down. They said it was too risky.
O.k. but it wasn't the Bush Administration that blocked it. It was the DOE.
January 2009: In an effort to show it has done something to support renewable energy, the Bush Administration tries to take Solyndra before a DOE credit review committee before President Obama is inaugurated. The committee, consisting of career civil servants with financial expertise, remands the loan back to DOE "without prejudice" because it wasn't ready for conditional commitment.
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/09/13/317594/timeline-bush-administration-solyndra-loan-guarantee/
They already tried that defense but it didn't work.
The White House noted to ABC News that the Bush administration was the first to consider Solyndra's application and that some executives at the company have a history of donating to Republicans.
The results of the Congressional probe shared Tuesday with ABC News show that less than two weeks before President Bush left office, on January 9, 2009, the Energy Department's credit committee had voted against offering a loan commitment to Solyndra.
Even after Obama took office on Jan. 20, 2009, analysts in the Energy Department and in the Office of Management and Budget were repeatedly questioning the wisdom of the loan. In one exchange, an Energy official wrote of "a major outstanding issue" -- namely, that Solyndra's numbers showed it would run out of cash in September 2011.
There was also concern about the high-risk nature of the project. Internally, the Office of Management and Budget wrote that "the risk rating for the project sponsor [Solyndra] ... seems high." Outside analysts had warned for months that the company might not be a sound investment.
Peter Lynch, a New York-based solar energy analyst, told ABC News it took only a cursory glance through Solyndra's prospectus to see there was a problem with their numbers.
"It's very difficult to perceive a company with a model that says, well, I can build something for six dollars and sell it for three dollars," Lynch said. "Those numbers don't generally work. You don't want to lose three dollars for every unit you make."
Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/solyndra/2011/09/14/bush-admin-voted-against-solyndra-loan#ixzz1a8P4fMsv
I am now convinced that everything wrong in this country is Bush's fault.
Quote from: guido911 on October 07, 2011, 04:45:43 PM
I am now convinced that everything wrong in this country is Bush's fault.
I blame him for every one of these exact same posts I see.
Quote from: Townsend on October 07, 2011, 04:52:54 PM
I blame him for every one of these exact same posts I see.
Will someone blame me for our problems? I feel left out.
As for Solyndra, the slow drip...drip...of new revelations makes it confusing to know what is really going on. My only thought is that we dropped $1/2B on something and got nothing to show for it. Am I right?
Quote from: guido911 on October 07, 2011, 05:30:08 PM
Will someone blame me for our problems? I feel left out.
As for Solyndra, the slow drip...drip...of new revelations makes it confusing to know what is really going on. My only thought is that we dropped $1/2B on something and got nothing to show for it. Am I right?
Kinda like the war in Iraq divided by a bunch...what have we got to show for that, other than we can nation build and have many of our sons/daughters die in the process.
NOTE: Doesn't mean I don't support the troops. Just not the Iraq operation...
Quote from: guido911 on October 07, 2011, 05:30:08 PM
Will someone blame me for our problems? I feel left out.
As for Solyndra, the slow drip...drip...of new revelations makes it confusing to know what is really going on. My only thought is that we dropped $1/2B on something and got nothing to show for it. Am I right?
Hardly ever....wait and we will see. Nobody knows how to sort out assets better in bankruptcy than GK....and besides, spread the citizen taxpayer loss out among us stockholder's and it's of minimal impact compared to what we spend to kill.
Quote from: Teatownclown on October 08, 2011, 09:46:30 AM
Hardly ever....wait and we will see. Nobody knows how to sort out assets better in bankruptcy than GK....and besides, spread the citizen taxpayer loss out among us stockholder's and it's of minimal impact compared to what we spend to kill.
Are you seriously comparing the Iraq war expense to Solyndra? Remember, the Iraq war was approved of by Congress. Solyndra was approved of by apparently Obama and insiders. I don't want to waste time with the video of top DEMS voting for the war.
Quote from: guido911 on October 08, 2011, 12:16:51 PM
Are you seriously comparing the Iraq war expense to Solyndra? Remember, the Iraq war was approved of by Congress. Solyndra was approved of by apparently Obama and insiders. I don't want to waste time with the video of top DEMS voting for the war.
Just because it was approved of by Congress doesn't make it any less wrong...LOL. You so funny.
Last I checked, 800 billion <> to 2 billion. 2 billion is still a lot, but you make it sound like this country has never invested in something so costly and had it fail. I'm pointing out something that cost 400 times as much, and failed.
Like Solyndra, Eco-Fest goes t$ts up in California. tee hee.
QuoteIt was the first New World Festival of Eco-Friendly Science and Technology and quite possibly the last.
The event near the beach in Santa Monica, which had been scheduled to run through Sunday, was shut down abruptly Saturday afternoon.
Its website had promised robots, a petting zoo, six stages of live music and more than 150 exhibits. But the gathering on Saturday looked more like a medium-sized, eco-friendly farmers market.
Howard Mauskopf, the festival's organizer, said he needed to shut down because so few people had shown up. "We're in a position where we don't have the financial ability to continue," he said, adding that he would have needed eight to 10 times the crowd that was present to make ends meet. He said he is going to try to reimburse food vendors next week.
"I don't know why people didn't come," he said.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-eco-fest-20111009,0,4226305.story
Quote from: guido911 on October 09, 2011, 01:00:32 PM
Like Solyndra, Eco-Fest goes t$ts up in California. tee hee.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-eco-fest-20111009,0,4226305.story
My favorite comment:
QuoteSorker at 9:16 AM October 09, 2011
"I don't know why people didn't come," Wow. With a petting zoo and chile and a sculptor? It's all "so relevant" to ecoscience! Not. Perhaps if the sculptor were working with scrap Solyndra panels then the crowds would have come.
Why is it is so important for conservatives to revel in the failure of Solyndra? It seems to me that the failure of any amercian company is lamentable, certainly any company that helps relieve our dependancy on petroleum. I'm an environmentalist, for sure, but whether we like it or not, we WILL one day be forced get away from oil for supply reasons. The fact that Obama backed something that failed is not important to me. It may have been an unwise investment, but at least he was trying to shore up a new manifacturing sector. What IS important to me is that the government is supporting new technologies that will take this country in a better direction than simply letting large oil concerns dictate our foreign policy. You may not like Obama, but the fact that this company went under is NOT a good thing.
Quote from: jacobi on October 09, 2011, 05:28:56 PM
Why is it is so important for conservatives to revel in the failure of Solyndra?
The thing that bothers me is that the loans were approved
after the venture was predicted to fail. If there had been a prediction of probable success and it failed, then so be it. It was approved as part of a green agenda regardless of any chance of success. Promoting green projects is one thing. Promoting green projects predicted to fail is another, unacceptable thing.
I'm not reveling in it, it's just that it was deemed to fail 3 or 4 years ago, that's why it was not funded by the Bush Administration. The other issue is the DOE and Congress p!!$$ed away a half billion of taxpayer money on this. I'm all for developing new technology and moving the country forward, but it seems that this administration would hire the guy running the pole barn construction scam, and just go "Oh well, we got screwed, live and learn".
If this story is true, and it goes bust.........
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/09/more-crony-socialism-obama-gives-737-million-to-pelosis-brother-in-laws-solar-firm/ (http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/09/more-crony-socialism-obama-gives-737-million-to-pelosis-brother-in-laws-solar-firm/)
Harry Reid? Anyone? Anyone?
Kaiser involved in a lie?
Kaiser previously claimed about his trips to the White House:
Kaiser has "said publically that Solyndra was not discussed at these meetings, and we have no reason to dispute that," the White House official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because he had not been given approval to discuss the matter. "We understand that the conversations in these meetings were focused on the general policy priorities of the George Kaiser Family Foundation, including early childhood education and poverty, health care policy and energy policy."
Emails released today show that the meetings were indeed lobby attempts for a second Solyndra loan.
(http://htmlimg3.scribdassets.com/6pjpliydq818raui/images/4-474c711b02.jpg)
(http://htmlimg3.scribdassets.com/6pjpliydq818raui/images/5-28aa4d127d.jpg)
(http://htmlimg3.scribdassets.com/6pjpliydq818raui/images/6-f8d51c4059.jpg)
(http://htmlimg4.scribdassets.com/6pjpliydq818raui/images/7-1d4a272367.jpg)
(http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/1003/uh-oh-uh-oh-demotivational-poster-1267764420.jpg)
Quote from: Gaspar on November 09, 2011, 01:16:23 PM
Emails released today show that the meetings were indeed lobby attempts for a second Solyndra loan.
Got a source?
Quote from: Townsend on November 09, 2011, 01:20:44 PM
Got a source?
You really need to get the Google. It's headlines except for MSNBC I suppose.
http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/emails-show-obama-donor-discussed-solyndra-wh
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/solyndra-e-mails-show-obama-fundraiser-discussed-lobbying-white-house/2011/11/09/gIQAqPsq5M_story.html?tid=sm_twitter_washingtonpost
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/09/us-solyndra-fundraiser-idUSTRE7A86P120111109
http://www.nationaljournal.com/whitehouse/quick-take-emails-show-obama-fundraiser-involved-in-solyndra-20111109
http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFN1E7A81B120111109?sp=true
QuoteEmails among George Kaiser, head of the George Kaiser Family Foundation; Ken Levit, the executive director of the Foundation; and Steve Mitchell, who manages Argonaut Private Equity and was a member of Solyndra's board; show that Vice President Joe Biden's office were very gung-ho.
"They about had an orgasm in Biden's office when we mentioned Solyndra," reads a Feb. 27, 2010, email from Levit to Mitchell. A follow-up email from Mitchell to Levit later that day responds with: "That's awesome! Get us a (Department of Energy) loan."
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/11/09/solyndra-emails-claim-bidens-staff-about-had-orgasm-about-energy-loans-to-firm/#ixzz1dEpkcqKz
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/11/09/solyndra-emails-claim-bidens-staff-about-had-orgasm-about-energy-loans-to-firm/
Quote from: Gaspar on November 09, 2011, 01:24:03 PM
You really need to get the Google. It's headlines except for MSNBC I suppose.
You really need to support your posts.
Quote from: Townsend on November 09, 2011, 01:31:31 PM
You really need to support your posts.
I sourced mine twice!!!
Quote from: Townsend on November 09, 2011, 01:31:31 PM
You really need to support your posts.
I like attention I get when you guys have to open any other tab than KOS or Huffington.
(http://www.supercoloring.com/wp-content/thumbnail/2008_12/where-must-i-go-coloring-page.jpg)
According to the emails Vice President Biden really really liked the deal.
(http://rasica.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/sleepy-joe-biden1.jpg?w=180&h=226)
Quote from: Gaspar on November 09, 2011, 01:59:55 PM
According to the emails Vice President Biden really really liked the deal.
(http://rasica.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/sleepy-joe-biden1.jpg?w=180&h=226)
That fuckstick is so dumb he wouldn't know a good deal if it smacked him in the forehead.....
Quote from: Breadburner on November 09, 2011, 02:07:50 PM
That fuckstick is so dumb he wouldn't know a good deal if it smacked him in the forehead.....
Presidents have traditionally chosen VPs that will help prevent assasination attempts. The threat of the VP becoming President is usually enough.
This has got to be my favorite.
http://www.businessinsider.com/gross-out-solyndra-emails-they-about-had-an-orgasm-in-bidens-office-when-we-mentioned-solyndra-2011-11
Quote from: Gaspar on November 09, 2011, 02:43:46 PM
This has got to be my favorite.
http://www.businessinsider.com/gross-out-solyndra-emails-they-about-had-an-orgasm-in-bidens-office-when-we-mentioned-solyndra-2011-11
(http://www.fashion-police.ca/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Jizz-In-My-Pants3-1024x640.png)
So. . .after Mitchell and Kaiser knew that the company was headed towards the shitter, they continued to lobby for the second loan. The only reason they would do this is to preserve their investment, which was somehow magically agreed to be put before the people's investment in the company.
They continued to pump up Chu so he would blow smoke through Biden's cranial cavity (resulting in orgasm). Unfortunately, stupid is not a crime and no one really expects a community organizer or his appointees to be very good at business. So unless someone can prove that a member of the administration made it possible for the changes to the loan guaranteeing Kaiser's money before the peoples, Kaiser will be the lone scapegoat for this as I expected.
Certainly sucks for Tulsa, because he's done a lot for this city.
Quote from: Townsend on November 09, 2011, 02:50:02 PM
(http://www.fashion-police.ca/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Jizz-In-My-Pants3-1024x640.png)
Samberg is a riot..that video is awesome. OK, back to the regularly scheduled sniping.
another perspective:
http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Letter_UptonStearns_11.09.11.pdf
Quote from: ex-riverman on November 09, 2011, 06:41:57 PM
another perspective:
http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Letter_UptonStearns_11.09.11.pdf
Good find and informative.
Quote from: Gaspar on November 09, 2011, 04:14:28 PM
So. . .after Mitchell and Kaiser knew that the company was headed towards the shitter, they continued to lobby for the second loan. The only reason they would do this is to preserve their investment, which was somehow magically agreed to be put before the people's investment in the company.
Were you at all concerned about Inhofe doing the same thing in $125 million worth of cleanup Picher, OK funds to go to his buddies with a bulldozer? In such old dollars, that today it would probably be a billion or more...
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on November 10, 2011, 10:33:20 AM
Were you at all concerned about Inhofe doing the same thing in $125 million worth of cleanup Picher, OK funds to go to his buddies with a bulldozer?
You are comparing rose bushes with hamburgers.
Quote from: Red Arrow on November 10, 2011, 10:41:44 AM
You are comparing rose bushes with hamburgers.
And yet, the comparison is still valid! But then, who wouldn't want Inhofe to profit dramatically from his decades of pubic...er, uh, public....service.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on November 10, 2011, 10:47:34 AM
And yet, the comparison is still valid!
As valid as a $3 bill with Bill Clinton's picture on it is legal tender.
(I added the legal tender part because there is a "$3 bill" with Bill's picture on it at the barber shop I go to.)
Okay, so I'm confused here. At what point does the content of those emails which were released become null and void? Are they fabrications? All I'm reading here is the testimony of Kaiser contradicts the written record of the emails. Granted, having five different projects going on while reading that may have affected my comprehension. I'm ADHD like that.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 10, 2011, 12:30:08 PM
Okay, so I'm confused here. At what point does the content of those emails which were released become null and void? Are they fabrications? All I'm reading here is the testimony of Kaiser contradicts the written record of the emails. Granted, having five different projects going on while reading that may have affected my comprehension. I'm ADHD like that.
It's not that the emails are fabrications, it's that you can make anyone sound like they were saying anything you like if you are sufficiently selective as to which of their words you choose to quote. Without the full story, it's just BS. Much like O'Keefe's escapades, only done by our elected representatives instead of some nutjob child with impulse control issues. As the letter states, there are many other emails that the Chair refuses to release which apparently contradict the Republicans' chosen narrative.
Quote from: nathanm on November 10, 2011, 12:39:46 PM
It's not that the emails are fabrications, it's that you can make anyone sound like they were saying anything you like if you are sufficiently selective as to which of their words you choose to quote. Without the full story, it's just BS. Much like O'Keefe's escapades, only done by our elected representatives instead of some nutjob child with impulse control issues. As the letter states, there are many other emails that the Chair refuses to release which apparently contradict the Republicans' chosen narrative.
Okay, so at what point were they NOT pursuing contacts at the WH to help sell solar panels or to get help with the DOE. That's the part I'm a little lost on.
Really doesn't matter how many other bazzilian emails there are. These are very clear, reference discussions, dates and people.
There is really no way to somehow imply that what was clearly stated in these emails is somehow less important than the claims that these statements were never made.
I see a debate on the definition of "is" looming. . .but I doubt that will actually happen.
The administration will cut bait and use Mr. Kaiser as a convenient scapegoat, unless there is communication that surfaces showing that an administration official recommended or approved the modification of the loan.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 10, 2011, 12:47:43 PM
Okay, so at what point were they NOT pursuing contacts at the WH to help sell solar panels or to get help with the DOE. That's the part I'm a little lost on.
Mitchell specifically said it was more about getting help selling panels to the government rather than help modifying the loan.
There is a whole lot of missing communication that would be very interesting to read.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on November 10, 2011, 02:26:20 PM
Mitchell specifically said it was more about getting help selling panels to the government rather than help modifying the loan.
There is a whole lot of missing communication that would be very interesting to read.
Now it's become whether it was about help in getting the government to buy their solar panels or modifying the loan. I believe the initial claim was that Solyndra never came up on those trips to the White House. But these emails specifically rebuts the claim that Solyndra was never mentioned on all those trips to the WH.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 10, 2011, 02:39:06 PM
Now it's become whether it was about help in getting the government to buy their solar panels or modifying the loan. I believe the initial claim was that Solyndra never came up on those trips to the White House. But these emails specifically rebuts the claim that Solyndra was never mentioned on all those trips to the WH.
Come on! When Mitchell and Kaiser said Solyndra, they really meant healthcare reform. They were jokers and Solyndra was just their little code word for healthcare reform. It was kind of a blanket term, meaningless really.
Quote from: Gaspar on November 10, 2011, 02:42:50 PM
Come on! When Mitchell and Kaiser said Solyndra, they really meant healthcare reform. They were jokers and Solyndra was just their little code word for healthcare reform. It was kind of a blanket term, meaningless really.
Oh, you mean like milk being a euphemism for propofol?
Quote from: Conan71 on November 10, 2011, 02:39:06 PM
Now it's become whether it was about help in getting the government to buy their solar panels or modifying the loan.
Makes me wonder where the revisionist version is coming from? "Now it's become..." - in whose mind, and under whose direction. Those emails shown here are obviously not about modifying the loan. It IS about getting help to sell their panels - a pretty normal lobbying effort - similar to what I have tried to do in the past.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on November 10, 2011, 03:08:50 PM
Makes me wonder where the revisionist version is coming from? "Now it's become..." - in whose mind, and under whose direction. Those emails shown here are obviously not about modifying the loan. It IS about getting help to sell their panels - a pretty normal lobbying effort - similar to what I have tried to do in the past.
Um, you are aware there was a flat denial that Solyndra was ever mentioned during any of the visits to the White House by Kaiser or his minions, right?
How is that revisionist?
Quote from: Conan71 on November 10, 2011, 03:12:16 PM
Um, you are aware there was a flat denial that Solyndra was ever mentioned during any of the visits to the White House by Kaiser or his minions, right?
How is that revisionist?
You are aware that the loan guarantee was a done deal (2009) over a year before these emails were written (2010)? So how could they be used as evidence of trying to influence the loan guarantee? And if he had tried to influence the loan deal a year after the fact, then I think there is nothing to worry about anyway because he is obviously seriously out of touch and incompetent. That is the revisionist part - trying to use the "time machine" approach to political attacks.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on November 10, 2011, 03:37:47 PM
You are aware that the loan guarantee was a done deal (2009) over a year before these emails were written (2010)? So how could they be used as evidence of trying to influence the loan guarantee? And if he had tried to influence the loan deal a year after the fact, then I think there is nothing to worry about anyway because he is obviously seriously out of touch and incompetent. That is the revisionist part - trying to use the "time machine" approach to political attacks.
You are not following the story. This is for the second loan.
Quote from: Gaspar on November 10, 2011, 03:46:24 PM
You are not following the story. This is for the second loan.
I was about to point that out, but I've decided to resign myself from educating those who are bound and determined to create their own reality in spite of what the facts show.
This is not really spinable at this point.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 10, 2011, 02:39:06 PM
Now it's become whether it was about help in getting the government to buy their solar panels or modifying the loan. I believe the initial claim was that Solyndra never came up on those trips to the White House. But these emails specifically rebuts the claim that Solyndra was never mentioned on all those trips to the WH.
No, they don't. They rebut something else entirely, that George Kaiser was never involved in conversations about the possibility of him lobbying for Solyndra. On their face, the released emails never state that Kaiser mentioned special treatment for Solyndra to Administration officials. The Republicans only released some of them because they know that if the full record were available to the public the baselessness of their claims would become evident. This is literally the worst they have, and it includes Kaiser specifically stating that he would not be comfortable lobbying on Solyndra's behalf.
Ironically, I placed a lot more weight on the allegations prior to reading the emails.
Quote from: nathanm on November 10, 2011, 03:59:38 PM
No, they don't. They rebut something else entirely, that George Kaiser was never involved in conversations about the possibility of him lobbying for Solyndra. On their face, the released emails never state that Kaiser mentioned special treatment for Solyndra to Administration officials. The Republicans only released some of them because they know that if the full record were available to the public the baselessness of their claims would become evident. This is literally the worst they have, and it includes Kaiser specifically stating that he would not be comfortable lobbying on Solyndra's behalf.
Ironically, I placed a lot more weight on the allegations prior to reading the emails.
Not following the story again.
The White house and Kaiser both said that there was no discussion of Solyndra during his visits. In fact they stated that the visits were to discuss fund raising efforts for his charities.
As of about an hour ago this conversation is far less important. The White House has announced that they will comply with the subpoena after all. http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=BCC31CF8-78FD-4B26-B69E-16100E7BF7A6
So, we will have the whole story, and that does not bode well for Mr. Kaiser. There is no doubt now that they will establish that Kaiser and Mitchell mislead them on the health of the organization.
Quote from: Gaspar on November 10, 2011, 04:09:31 PM
Not following the story again.
It doesn't matter, they are parsing again, Gassy.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 10, 2011, 04:11:19 PM
It doesn't matter, they are parsing again, Gassy.
Like a Shufflebot loop-tape.
Quote from: Gaspar on November 10, 2011, 04:13:52 PM
Like a Shufflebot loop-tape.
Next it will be: "Kaiser got Swiftboated"
Quote from: Conan71 on November 10, 2011, 04:14:57 PM
Next it will be: "Kaiser got Swiftboated"
No, that was Kerry that got that 'bendover'.
Well, then let's see all the emails. Until then, it is just another O'Keefe scenario.
Quote from: Gaspar on November 10, 2011, 04:09:31 PM
Mitchell mislead them on the health of the organization.
Mitchell isn't the issue, Kaiser is. GK stated that he had
mentioned Solyndra as an example of a US solar firm that was selling to China (I don't believe this was even at one of the WH meetings at issue). That is not the same as lobbying the administration on behalf of Solyndra, and is not the accusation made by the Republicans.
It
appears at this point that GK told Mitchell he wasn't comfortable lobbying on behalf of Solyndra and that if Solyndra wanted lobbying to happen, they should use their own lobbyists. I guess we'll see what the full info dump brings.
Wow! For an administration that claims not to know anything this is a bit odd.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/solyndra-department-of-energy-pushed-hard-for-company-not-to-announce-layoffs-until-after-2010-mid-term-elections/2011/11/15/gIQA2AriON_story.html?wprss=rss_whitehouse
Oct. 30, 2010, advisers to Solyndra's primary investor, Argonaut Equity, explain that the Energy Department had strongly urged the company to put off the layoff announcement until Nov. 3. the day after the midterm elections.
"DOE continues to be cooperative and have indicated that they will fund the November draw on our loan (app. $40 million) but have not committed to December yet," a Solyndra investor adviser wrote Oct. 30. "They did push very hard for us to hold our announcement of the consolidation to employees and vendors to Nov. 3rd – oddly they didn't give a reason for that date."
Quote from: nathanm on November 10, 2011, 05:06:02 PM
Mitchell isn't the issue, Kaiser is. GK stated that he had mentioned Solyndra as an example of a US solar firm that was selling to China (I don't believe this was even at one of the WH meetings at issue). That is not the same as lobbying the administration on behalf of Solyndra, and is not the accusation made by the Republicans.
It appears at this point that GK told Mitchell he wasn't comfortable lobbying on behalf of Solyndra and that if Solyndra wanted lobbying to happen, they should use their own lobbyists. I guess we'll see what the full info dump brings.
I'm thinking wonder boy Mitchell may be history....
Quote from: Gaspar on November 15, 2011, 10:54:02 AM
Wow! For an administration that claims not to know anything this is a bit odd.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/solyndra-department-of-energy-pushed-hard-for-company-not-to-announce-layoffs-until-after-2010-mid-term-elections/2011/11/15/gIQA2AriON_story.html?wprss=rss_whitehouse
Oct. 30, 2010, advisers to Solyndra's primary investor, Argonaut Equity, explain that the Energy Department had strongly urged the company to put off the layoff announcement until Nov. 3. the day after the midterm elections.
"DOE continues to be cooperative and have indicated that they will fund the November draw on our loan (app. $40 million) but have not committed to December yet," a Solyndra investor adviser wrote Oct. 30. "They did push very hard for us to hold our announcement of the consolidation to employees and vendors to Nov. 3rd – oddly they didn't give a reason for that date."
Who cares. This stuff is minuscule compared to say Haliburton/Cheney/Bush/Death....
Besides, there are bigger fish to fry....like Cain,Newt, RomneyCare etc.
Keep digging....it's a good diversion for you.
Quote from: Teatownclown on November 15, 2011, 10:57:25 AM
I'm thinking wonder boy Mitchell may be history....
Oh, I agree, but someone will have to take the big hit and that will either be Chu or Kaiser, because the ball will not be allowed to bounce any higher than that. I doubt it will be Chu because that would signal the collapse of all of the other failing green projects, so the target remains our own George Kaiser. Last week's document dump was a partial. We still lack the link that shows who signed off on the restructuring of the loan, and the reasoning behind it. If a case can be made that the restructuring agreement was made under the veil of inaccurate information from Argonaut or Kaiser than the Administration will have their out.
The other option is that the restructuring agreement was made with full disclosure which would show favoritism for a donor over the public, and indicate corruption on the part of the administration. I have no doubt that this is what the case is, but President Obama will not allow himself to be taken down this way, so the blame will be shifted to Kaiser.
Quote from: Gaspar on November 15, 2011, 11:06:05 AM
Oh, I agree, but someone will have to take the big hit and that will either be Chu or Kaiser, because the ball will not be allowed to bounce any higher than that. I doubt it will be Chu because that would signal the collapse of all of the other failing green projects, so the target remains our own George Kaiser. Last week's document dump was a partial. We still lack the link that shows who signed off on the restructuring of the loan, and the reasoning behind it. If a case can be made that the restructuring agreement was made under the veil of inaccurate information from Argonaut or Kaiser than the Administration will have their out.
The other option is that the restructuring agreement was made with full disclosure which would show favoritism for a donor over the public, and indicate corruption on the part of the administration. I have no doubt that this is what the case is, but President Obama will not allow himself to be taken down this way, so the blame will be shifted to Kaiser.
I know that it's exciting -- like Christmas morning-exciting -- to have a possible scandal at the White House to obsess over, but honestly there's no there there. And there hasn't been any there there since the beginning. It was a bad business bet made at a time when any investment in the country was to be applauded and aided by the Administration. That it was towards building a green energy infrastructure was so much the better. There's a fine line between government making the private business process easier and forcing it along. So far, even though there's plainly lots of "making it easier," there's not much evidence of "forcing it along." And there's even been a lot of private emails backing up the "making it easier" end of things.
In other words, while you're getting that long overdue thrill up your leg (and honestly, why not? anything to take the Devil President down, right?), you're backing a losing horse.
Quote from: we vs us on November 15, 2011, 11:54:38 AM
I know that it's exciting -- like Christmas morning-exciting -- to have a possible scandal at the White House to obsess over, but honestly there's no there there. And there hasn't been any there there since the beginning. It was a bad business bet made at a time when any investment in the country was to be applauded and aided by the Administration. That it was towards building a green energy infrastructure was so much the better. There's a fine line between government making the private business process easier and forcing it along. So far, even though there's plainly lots of "making it easier," there's not much evidence of "forcing it along." And there's even been a lot of private emails backing up the "making it easier" end of things.
In other words, while you're getting that long overdue thrill up your leg (and honestly, why not? anything to take the Devil President down, right?), you're backing a losing horse.
Careful Wevus you are coming dangerously close to PARTISAN HACK status ;)
The more I learn about the program of which this loan was a part, the more I find this supposed scandal more and more laughable.
Quote from: nathanm on November 15, 2011, 03:12:03 PM
The more I learn about the program of which this loan was a part, the more I find this supposed scandal more and more laughable.
So you find the pissing away of a few billion from the Treasury to Obama supporters laughable? I'm having a hard time seeing the humor in it, just like all the other corruption and quid pro quo I'm seeing out of Dims and Repugs.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 15, 2011, 03:14:28 PM
So you find the pissing away of a few billion from the Treasury to Obama supporters laughable? I'm having a hard time seeing the humor in it, just like all the other corruption and quid pro quo I'm seeing out of Dims and Repugs.
The program is essentially a government-run VC fund. (seems like a pretty good way to fund things that are needed but that the private sector isn't interested in funding, although I don't have enough information yet to fully form an opinion) They're presently running well below expected losses despite Solyndra going tits up. I've seen nothing other than baseless allegations by the Republicans of any impropriety. Aside from the emails which those privy to the entire set say are deliberately misleading, that is.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 15, 2011, 03:14:28 PM
So you find the pissing away of a few billion from the Treasury to Obama supporters laughable? I'm having a hard time seeing the humor in it, just like all the other corruption and quid pro quo I'm seeing out of Dims and Repugs.
Well well....a 91%er!
Anyone here part of the %9 who approve of Congress? (those must be the %20 satisfied Government employees).....
Quote from: Conan71 on November 15, 2011, 03:14:28 PM
So you find the pissing away of a few billion from the Treasury to Obama supporters laughable? I'm having a hard time seeing the humor in it, just like all the other corruption and quid pro quo I'm seeing out of Dims and Repugs.
How do you feel about pissing away $55 billion to Dick Cheney's supporters?
Let me see.... 500 million. 55 billion. Yep, just about the same there...
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on November 15, 2011, 04:53:16 PM
How do you feel about pissing away $55 billion to Dick Cheney's supporters?
Let me see.... 500 million. 55 billion. Yep, just about the same there...
The green jobs scam goes well beyond $500 mil and you know that. You are also aware that the Obama Administration continues the tradition of no-bid contracts to Halliburton aren't you?
Quote from: Conan71 on November 16, 2011, 10:35:51 AM
The green jobs scam goes well beyond $500 mil and you know that. You are also aware that the Obama Administration continues the tradition of no-bid contracts to Halliburton aren't you?
As did Clinton.
You know why?
Quote from: Gaspar on November 16, 2011, 10:40:05 AM
As did Clinton.
You know why?
Only ones who can do certain tasks. Pure and simple.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 16, 2011, 10:35:51 AM
The green jobs scam goes well beyond $500 mil and you know that. You are also aware that the Obama Administration continues the tradition of no-bid contracts to Halliburton aren't you?
Isn't the whole program around $3 billion? That's a lot of leveraging of private money with a relatively small amount of seed money. Seems like the sort of thing Republicans would be for. And far less than even just the cash that was
misplaced (and never found) in Iraq. Perhaps we could send someone out to look for it and pay for the Solyndra losses.
(http://weaselzippers.us/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/rezkoobama.jpg)
Another bundler goes to prison today.
Quote from: nathanm on November 16, 2011, 04:07:43 PM
Isn't the whole program around $3 billion? That's a lot of leveraging of private money with a relatively small amount of seed money. Seems like the sort of thing Republicans would be for. And far less than even just the cash that was misplaced (and never found) in Iraq. Perhaps we could send someone out to look for it and pay for the Solyndra losses.
(http://jazzroc.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/straw-man.jpg)
Read today that the ex-Solyndra employees will get $13K each from the government, er, taxpayers. That's $14.3M.
Quote from: guido911 on November 22, 2011, 02:40:39 PM
Read today that the ex-Solyndra employees will get $13K each from the government, er, taxpayers. That's $14.3M.
It's ok. They're not bankers!
Quote from: Gaspar on November 22, 2011, 03:09:25 PM
It's ok. They're not bankers!
Good thing. It would have cost us $1.2 trillion if they were!
Quote from: guido911 on November 22, 2011, 02:40:39 PM
Read today that the ex-Solyndra employees will get $13K each from the government, er, taxpayers. That's $14.3M.
What, compensation owed employees shouldn't be first priority in a bankruptcy?
Quote from: nathanm on November 22, 2011, 07:52:00 PM
What, compensation owed employees shouldn't be first priority in a bankruptcy?
OUCH!!!! I agree.
Quote from: nathanm on November 22, 2011, 07:52:00 PM
What, compensation owed employees shouldn't be first priority in a bankruptcy?
Not according to the guid-ster. It's all about the top 1%. And working people aren't included in that rarified atmosphere.
I am not going to comment on Solyndra or the roles of the Energy department since I like my job. I will say this; as a person who works in the "purchasing" side of the Government, we are held to an extremely high ethical and moral standard when it comes to the interaction between us and our contractors/prospective contractors. 99.7% of my fellows contract administrators will never attempt to risk our livelyhood for possible advancement. Unfortunately, you always here the stories like this. Some person who holds a high ranking position attempts to influence(s) a decision, it back fires and now a whole agency is in question. The Government has always had the "punish the many for the acts of a few" approach, and the media has always had the "persecute the whole for the acts of one". We are thorougly trained on how to handle a situation and how to move forward. You only have issues when a person who doesn't know the rules or knows the rules but thinks they are above them, tries to intervene.
Quote from: nathanm on November 22, 2011, 07:52:00 PM
What, compensation owed employees shouldn't be first priority in a bankruptcy?
Depends. I haven't read the article nor do I know specifics. Is this severance or back-pay. If it's back-pay, then sure they are owed it. If it's severance, that's a slippery slope right there.
Quote from: JCnOwasso on November 23, 2011, 09:26:19 AM
Unfortunately, you always here the stories like this. Some person who holds a high ranking position attempts to influence(s) a decision, it back fires and now a whole agency is in question.
I don't believe that it's ever been proven that any improper influence was attempted. (all that I've seen proven so far is that Solyndra would have liked to see some influence deployed) So far, it's all smoke and no fire. I have a sneaking suspicion some Republicans are hiding incense in their pockets and blaming the resultant smoke on the Administration, but maybe not. After all the never substantiated smile thrown at Clinton during his time in office, I'm more than a little skeptical of Congressional Republicans' accusations.
Quote from: Hoss on November 23, 2011, 09:40:43 AM
Depends. I haven't read the article nor do I know specifics. Is this severance or back-pay. If it's back-pay, then sure they are owed it. If it's severance, that's a slippery slope right there.
Turns out it doesn't matter. Employee compensation, including severance, goes first unless one of a few specific exceptions related to executive severance is triggered (never thought I'd look back at something the Republicans passed and say that parts of it make sense):
Quote
Severance payments are permissible to insiders of the employer in bankruptcy only if the payment is part of a program that is generally applicable to all full-time employees, and the amount of the payment is not greater than 10 times the amount of the mean severance pay given to non-management employees during the calendar year in which the payment is made.
Wow! The Obama legacy may be that all of these failed Donor deals, and shady investments abort the birth of the green energy market all together. Sad.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45409951/ns/business-oil_and_energy/t/google-pulls-plug-renewable-energy-plan/#.Ts0pqGPNlGU
Born out of private sector investment and innovation, renewable energy and "green" energy programs are the future of all energy. We know it, we just argue on how to, and how fast we can get there, but now we have a backlash caused by the injection of Chicago politics into what should be a natural push for innovation. Shame.
Investors now see these private endeavors thought the filter of failure, corruption, and waste. They will continue to be a hard sell.
Yes, Obama made 'em do it. He called up Larry Page and said "hey, just so you know, there's no money in solar." Maybe it has more to do with the fact that Google is an advertising and search company, not a solar manufacturer.
In other news, I'm annoyed that they're getting rid of Timeline.
Quote from: nathanm on November 22, 2011, 07:52:00 PM
What, compensation owed employees shouldn't be first priority in a bankruptcy?
What are you talking about. I said the GOVERNMENT was giving private company Solyndra former employees $13K in benefits. Here's an article:
QuoteThe Labor Department today announced that it had approved Trade Adjustment Assistance for the former employees of the bankrupt solar panel maker Solyndra.
That means all of the firm's 1,100 ex-employees are eligible for federal aid packages, including job retraining and income assistance. The department has valued packages at about $13,000 a head.
Taxpayers will have to cough up yet another $14.3 million as a result of Solyndra's bankruptcy. They are already on the hook for $528 million in federal loan guarantees to the company that are unlikely to ever be paid back.
Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/solyndra/2011/11/21/obamas-labor-department-approves-deal-giving-ex-solyndra-staff-13000-each-federal-aid#ixzz1eYgilEcc
[
Emphasis added]. I didn't realize that TAA was now considered federally owed compensation. Thanks Clavin.
Quote from: Hoss on November 23, 2011, 09:40:43 AM
Depends. I haven't read the article nor do I know specifics. Is this severance or back-pay. If it's back-pay, then sure they are owed it. If it's severance, that's a slippery slope right there.
It's neither. It's fed money used for essentially a reemployment program. My beef is that the tax payers (you and I) are already stuck with $1/2B in bad loans, some of that wound up in the pockets of these employees as salary, now the taxpayers (you and I) are getting nailed again for more that $14M.
We can discuss the merits of TAA and whether it's a good program. But in this case, in my opinion, stop the damned bleeding already government.
Quote from: guido911 on November 23, 2011, 01:42:35 PM
It's neither. It's fed money used for essentially a reemployment program. My beef is that the tax payers (you and I) are already stuck with $1/2B in bad loans, some of that wound up in the pockets of these employees as salary, now the taxpayers (you and I) are getting nailed again for more that $14M.
We can discuss the merits of TAA and whether it's a good program. But in this case, in my opinion, stop the damned bleeding already government.
It seems thou dost protest too much... the amount of time, energy, and rant given over to this $500 million is amazing compared to the dearth of same for the $1.2 trillion for the bank/insurance bailout, or the $2 trillion or so of the Iraq war, or the ongoing - for 30 years - of deficit spending for "Star Wars" and tax breaks for the richest. Oh, wait...I completely get the last one - tax breaks.
But now, for the last couple years, these piddly little amounts are creating apoplectic Pavlovian responses?
We the taxpayers are already stuck with trillions in misguided war costs, and now we get to keep paying for more of it!
Why not stop the bleeding - both literal and figurative - in Iraq and Afghanistan...NOW!!!?? Save hundreds of billions before worrying about hundreds of millions!
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on November 23, 2011, 01:52:33 PM
It seems thou dost protest too much... the amount of time, energy, and rant given over to this $500 million is amazing compared to the dearth of same for the $1.2 trillion for the bank/insurance bailout, or the $2 trillion or so of the Iraq war, or the ongoing - for 30 years - of deficit spending for "Star Wars" and tax breaks for the richest. Oh, wait...I completely get the last one - tax breaks.
But now, for the last couple years, these piddly little amounts are creating apoplectic Pavlovian responses?
We the taxpayers are already stuck with trillions in misguided war costs, and now we get to keep paying for more of it!
Why not stop the bleeding - both literal and figurative - in Iraq and Afghanistan...NOW!!!?? Save hundreds of billions before worrying about hundreds of millions!
Come on, stop with the straw men. You think wasting money is okay since money was "wasted" on things you don't approve of? And also, back pedal much off after that 1% crap? ;D
Quote from: guido911 on November 23, 2011, 02:37:43 PM
Come on, stop with the straw men. You think wasting money is okay since money was "wasted" on things you don't approve of? And also, back pedal much off after that 1% crap? ;D
Straw men such as the trillion dollars? Versus the half billion...
You think it was a waste to put half a billion into Solyndra (I happen to agree it was a waste, but for a different reason I have explained previously) -- but since you approve of killing 4,000 of our kids and pounding a trillion+ down a sand hole, it was NOT a waste...
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on November 25, 2011, 11:39:14 PM
Straw men such as the trillion dollars? Versus the half billion...
You think it was a waste to put half a billion into Solyndra (I happen to agree it was a waste, but for a different reason I have explained previously) -- but since you approve of killing 4,000 of our kids and pounding a trillion+ down a sand hole, it was NOT a waste...
I don't agree entirely with our military involvement abroad. However, consider that those 4000 soldiers went willingly, without conscription, and fully understood the risk and ultimate sacrifice which could be asked of them. For some reason those 4000 and hundreds of thousands of other soldiers who have served in that theater have deemed it a worthy cause.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 28, 2011, 04:45:16 PM
I don't agree entirely with our military involvement abroad. However, consider that those 4000 soldiers went willingly, without conscription, and fully understood the risk and ultimate sacrifice which could be asked of them. For some reason those 4000 and hundreds of thousands of other soldiers who have served in that theater have deemed it a worthy cause.
I know from talking to a lot of them (within family/extended family I know) they equated that worthy cause to be Iraq = Al Qaeda. That turns out to apparently not be the case. I know some of them also questioned why we remained so long. I also know that alot of them signed up for two and three years in the military, and didn't have a lot of say on whether or not they'd be redeployed.
I'm not saying I don't appreciate their sacrifice; I do indeed. But even some of them question it.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 28, 2011, 04:45:16 PM
I don't agree entirely with our military involvement abroad. However, consider that those 4000 soldiers went willingly, without conscription, and fully understood the risk and ultimate sacrifice which could be asked of them. For some reason those 4000 and hundreds of thousands of other soldiers who have served in that theater have deemed it a worthy cause.
This is turning into as big a divisive issue as any other we have. Very sad.
OUCH!
CBS Last week. 11 More Solyndras in the Obama Energy scheme.
Again Gaspar, it's only a few billion, it's not like that adds up to trillions in debt eventually.
Quote from: Conan71 on January 16, 2012, 01:11:06 PM
Again Gaspar, it's only a few billion, it's not like that adds up to trillions in debt eventually.
You're right...that only happens when you are giving it to car companies. Oh, yeah...and insurance companies. Oh yeah, and no-bid contracts to Halliburton ($75 billion or so.).
But yeah...$3 billion... WHEW!!! What a monstrous financial event for the country! Oh, wait - what is the corn subsidy for ethanol every year?
Heh, First Solar would be flying high if it weren't for illegal dumping by the Chinese. They've got a problem only the government can solve.
Also, that copy Charlie Rose was reading sounded like it came straight from the Republican staffer who is so blind to reality that he doesn't know that First Solar's problems begin and end with illegal Chinese dumping.
Quote from: nathanm on January 16, 2012, 09:58:33 PM
Heh, First Solar would be flying high if it weren't for illegal dumping by the Chinese. They've got a problem only the government can solve.
Also, that copy Charlie Rose was reading sounded like it came straight from the Republican staffer who is so blind to reality that he doesn't know that First Solar's problems begin and end with illegal Chinese dumping.
I suspect the problems go further than the dumping issue or is it only companies with union problems which have incompetent management? ;)
I do agree at the very least, the government could have protected our investment in these solar companies by discouraging "dumping" by Chinese competition with tariffs. That still doesn't absolve poor loan decision making on the part of the DOE or the Administration in granting loans to companies which are essentially junk bond-rated. That's the ludicrous part of the story Gaspar posted: Secretary Chu said these are the future of energy technology. Enough is known at this point how competitive and how relevant what types of energy are practical or necessary at this point in time. IMO, Solar seems to be a pretty poor return on investment and only good for micro generation to help get homes or commercial structures entirely or partially off the grid. Hydro-electric and wind, however, seem to be pretty solid, reliable and efficient technology with minimal foreign competition.
There's a drawback to every method of generating electricity, we simply need to figure out what we are willing to tolerate without regressing to the stone ages and weigh it's overall value.
I believe there's pretty solid evidence that free trade agreements have been a bust for the American manufacturing worker and the government continues to do very little to protect durable or capital goods jobs which can easily be exported.
Quote from: Conan71 on January 16, 2012, 10:24:10 PM
I suspect the problems go further than the dumping issue or is it only companies with union problems which have incompetent management? ;)
I believe there's pretty solid evidence that free trade agreements have been a bust for the American manufacturing worker and the government continues to do very little to protect durable or capital goods jobs which can easily be exported.
There are many companies with incompetent management who have no union whatsoever - some even right here in Oklahoma. And the converse is also very true - there are many very well managed companies who have a significant union contingent - I just happen to work for one now.
Free trade is bad for workers? Hmm...what a populist idea! You turning into a Realist on us here??
I wonder if Kaiser knows about this?
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2012/01/19/bankrupt-solyndra-caught-destroying-brand-new-parts/
Quote from: Gaspar on January 20, 2012, 02:24:43 PM
I wonder if Kaiser knows about this?
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2012/01/19/bankrupt-solyndra-caught-destroying-brand-new-parts/
Meh. They are just recycling.
Quote from: Conan71 on January 20, 2012, 02:43:40 PM
Meh. They are just recycling.
OUTRAGE. That's high quality recyclable material!
Lucky said he would have bought the tubes...yeah, right. Sooooo easy to say after the fact - hindsight is perfect. There was the potential for a whole lot of crack pipes there. Or maybe bongs.
Here is a very good engineering explanation of some of the problems they had. As well as their production costs - $3. per watt?? Geez... no one was paying attention to the real world. As compared to First Solar - at about a buck per watt.
http://www.edn.com/article/520093-Solyndra_Its_technology_and_why_it_failed.php
For sale: Brand new state of the art mfg facility near San Jose, CA. Great highway access, facility has never been used, paid for by taxpayers at a bargain basement price.
(http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p309/kallsop2/solyndra.jpg)
I meant for sale at bargin basement.
You're going to hate this, but.....
You win some, you lose some.
The outrage seems pretty selective at "1%'ers". Why is it there doesn't seem to be much outrage at mega-wealthy bundlers for Obama, who didn't need government-backed loans in the first place, to finance their operations basically bilked the taxpayers out of several billion on questionable business enterprises?
Quote from: Conan71 on February 05, 2012, 10:55:43 AM
The outrage seems pretty selective at "1%'ers". Why is it there doesn't seem to be much outrage at mega-wealthy bundlers for Obama, who didn't need government-backed loans in the first place, to finance their operations basically bilked the taxpayers out of several billion on questionable business enterprises?
That should be fairly obvious. Old money vs. new money. Green projects at any cost. Punish the dirty oil and coal barons that are killing earth.......
I guess it was seeing this facility and another just south of this location that it just kind of slaps you in the face if you only have seen it in the news. I was doing some other reading and found that these two facilities were built at the cost of almost a billion including the $538m they got from the fed, and when they built them there was already almost 1 million square feet of mfg space in Freemont already available.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/09/28/BURG1LAO3J.DTL (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/09/28/BURG1LAO3J.DTL)
Quote
"There hasn't been a factory or warehouse building built in Silicon Valley in well over 10 years," Jeff Fredericks, managing partner at Colliers International in San Jose, said in an e-mail.
The asking rate for industrial properties in Silicon Valley is the fourth-most expensive in the country, according to Jack DePuy, Bay Area research manager at CB Richard Ellis in Foster City.
About 11.4 percent, or 950,801 square feet, of industrial space was vacant in Fremont in September 2009, according to data from Colliers.
"There was available space that we talked about with them," Bob Wasserman, Fremont's mayor, said in an interview. "It was their decision that they needed a new building. Was that a good decision? It didn't turn out to be."
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 05, 2012, 11:32:40 AM
That should be fairly obvious. Old money vs. new money. Green projects at any cost. Punish the dirty oil and coal barons that are killing earth.......
The true irony with Solyndra and Kaiser is a good amount of Kaiser's billions comes from filthy oil.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 05, 2012, 10:55:43 AM
The outrage seems pretty selective at "1%'ers". Why is it there doesn't seem to be much outrage at mega-wealthy bundlers for Obama, who didn't need government-backed loans in the first place, to finance their operations basically bilked the taxpayers out of several billion on questionable business enterprises?
And if you were in charge of fighting an epidemic of body odor, while there was a pandemic of smallpox, which would you expend your energy on?
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on February 05, 2012, 07:46:18 PM
And if you were in charge of fighting an epidemic of body odor, while there was a pandemic of smallpox, which would you expend your energy on?
Body odor. My grandfather survived smallpox in Poland when he was a kid. I think I could do the same.
(Just kidding, but my grandfather really did survive smallpox.)
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 05, 2012, 08:10:08 PM
Body odor. My grandfather survived smallpox in Poland when he was a kid. I think I could do the same.
(Just kidding, but my grandfather really did survive smallpox.)
The elimination of body odor is the equivalent of what we are hearing about Solyndra.
I got the smallpox shot, so I missed getting it. Thankfully.
Same with polio - but do have some friends and a nephew who got that.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on February 05, 2012, 08:17:44 PM
The elimination of body odor is the equivalent of what we are hearing about Solyndra.
I knew that was where you were going. I think Solyndra was not thoroughly vetted but I don't have a big problem with the concept that a government investment can fail. We just need to look more carefully to see what we get for our investment. I think research rather than production of something with an already outdated process would be in order.
QuoteI got the smallpox shot, so I missed getting it. Thankfully.
Same with polio - but do have some friends and a nephew who got that.
Polio was a big deal when we both were kids. I got the shots too. My best friend's father (friend our age) died from complications of polio in the late 50s or early 60s. The father lived in an iron lung for many years. I also had a friend (our age) in the volunteer fire dept of my original home town that had a "mild" case of polio. He was lucky but was concerned about what might affect him as he aged. I haven't seen him since we were in our early 20s.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on February 05, 2012, 07:46:18 PM
And if you were in charge of fighting an epidemic of body odor, while there was a pandemic of smallpox, which would you expend your energy on?
And if I had way more than enough resources to fight small pox, I'd do it on my own, not pimp the
government others for
money resources I didn't need in the first place.
Face it, your outrage is selective. If this had been Rupert Murdoch, the late Ken Lay, or someone like that, we'd never hear the end of it.
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 05, 2012, 08:32:35 PM
I knew that was where you were going. I think Solyndra was not thoroughly vetted but I don't have a big problem with the concept that a government investment can fail. We just need to look more carefully to see what we get for our investment. I think research rather than production of something with an already outdated process would be in order.
Polio was a big deal when we both were kids. I got the shots too. My best friend's father (friend our age) died from complications of polio in the late 50s or early 60s. The father lived in an iron lung for many years. I also had a friend (our age) in the volunteer fire dept of my original home town that had a "mild" case of polio. He was lucky but was concerned about what might affect him as he aged. I haven't seen him since we were in our early 20s.
I wasn't trying to hide it, either...I have repeatedly made it clear that it is ridiculously disingenuous for all the fretting and stewing that goes on for a billion or two. Or even 10 or 20, when the big money to the tune of trillions has been wasted by previous regimes for much less productive endeavors than Solyndra, et al. At the very least, we have learned a good and valuable lesson from Solyndra that says when you are trying to compete with a $3 cost in a market that is dominated by $1 costs, you are doing it wrong. Won't stop us from doing it again, since we aren't in charge!
Polio - yeah, it was big even after the shots became widely available, 'cause it took several years to completely cover the population. We were kept indoors at prime mosquito time - maybe helped, maybe didn't - will never know for sure, but that's what you did then. Even mild cases seem to have long term adverse effects. Nephew (7 years younger than me) has been having more trouble as he ages. Muscle deterioration in the affected arm, with pain and decreasing strength. But I am getting some of those, too, so it may just be old age.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on February 05, 2012, 08:48:56 PM
We were kept indoors at prime mosquito time - maybe helped, maybe didn't - will never know for sure, but that's what you did then. But I am getting some of those, too, so it may just be old age.
Probably has something to do with chasing the mosquito truck spraying DDT.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 05, 2012, 08:47:01 PM
And if I had way more than enough resources to fight small pox, I'd do it on my own, not pimp the government others for money resources I didn't need in the first place.
Face it, your outrage is selective. If this had been Rupert Murdoch, the late Ken Lay, or someone like that, we'd never hear the end of it.
Face it - we should have made big oil and insurance companies do it on their own - not pimp the government (our money!). Or fighting the wrong war for stupid crap that I didn't need in the first place!
As I have said - the energy expended to rave about Solyndra is the same as that required for Rupert and the gang. The actual costs talked about are orders of magnitude different. And I HAVE made statements about the ignorance of Solyndra. And just those statements were vastly out of proportion to the relative effects between the two situations. If I were to have commented proportionally, it would have been something along the line of "oh,...we maybe shouldn't have done that..."
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 05, 2012, 08:53:10 PM
Probably has something to do with chasing the mosquito truck spraying DDT.
Not sure. The truck always seemed to come around after the bugs were already bedded down for the night. We got to go back out after dark a lot of the time, especially on the weekends - after the bugs were done for the day.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on February 05, 2012, 08:58:46 PM
Or fighting the wrong war for stupid crap that I didn't need in the first place!
Viet Nam was a long time ago.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on February 05, 2012, 09:00:36 PM
Not sure. The truck always seemed to come around after the bugs were already bedded down for the night. We got to go back out after dark a lot of the time, especially on the weekends - after the bugs were done for the day.
Have you ever been to Richard Lloyd Jones Riverside Airport after dark? The mosquitos don't quit when the sun goes down.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on February 05, 2012, 09:10:09 PM
Iraq this time.
It will be interesting to see what history says in another 30 or so years, if we live that long.
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 05, 2012, 08:32:35 PM
I knew that was where you were going. I think Solyndra was not thoroughly vetted but I don't have a big problem with the concept that a government investment can fail. We just need to look more carefully to see what we get for our investment. I think research rather than production of something with an already outdated process would be in order.
Solyndra's product and process aren't outdated, they're ahead of their time. They needed more time to get cost down and they needed the low hanging fruit to already be picked. Thin film solar will be a big deal, but at the moment most of the money is going to traditional silicon panels. Someday, your shingles will be your solar panels, and that's the sort of application where thin film will eat silicon's lunch, but it, of course, goes back to price per watt.
The final nail in their coffin was the Chinese silicon cell dumping. The Chinese manufacturers are presently selling far below cost because they're being forced to overproduce due to overly optimistic sales estimates leading to them contracting for far more silicon ingot than they actually need. Were Chinese panels not so abnormally cheap, Solyndra's product wouldn't seem outrageously expensive like it does now, so they'd have sold enough to remain in business long enough to better optimize the process.
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 05, 2012, 09:04:35 PM
Have you ever been to Richard Lloyd Jones Riverside Airport after dark? The mosquitos don't quit when the sun goes down.
That's a serious mosquito. They seem to calm down by 9:30 or so in other areas of town. It's that pesky stagnant river just to the east of the airport.
We went by twice in the last two weeks. Last weekend, we drove by on Saturday afternoon. Don't know the streets, but we came north from town up along a little wooded creek area just south of the runway. If you were taking off to the south, you would cross that east/west street at end of runway and be over the creek and the woods. Sitting in a couple of trees about 300 feet south of the street were two bald eagles, just chillin'. It was magnificent!!!
Yesterday, we didn't see the eagles, but came up the road on the east side of airport, then looped around the north toward the west.
Quote from: nathanm on February 05, 2012, 09:15:02 PM
They needed more time to get cost down and they needed the low hanging fruit to already be picked.
So how much are you willing to pay for a Chevy Impala to subsidize the Chevy Volt?
Quote from: nathanm on February 05, 2012, 09:15:02 PM
Solyndra's product and process aren't outdated, they're ahead of their time. They needed more time to get cost down and they needed the low hanging fruit to already be picked. Thin film solar will be a big deal, but at the moment most of the money is going to traditional silicon panels. Someday, your shingles will be your solar panels, and that's the sort of application where thin film will eat silicon's lunch, but it, of course, goes back to price per watt.
The final nail in their coffin was the Chinese silicon cell dumping. The Chinese manufacturers are presently selling far below cost because they're being forced to overproduce due to overly optimistic sales estimates leading to them contracting for far more silicon ingot than they actually need. Were Chinese panels not so abnormally cheap, Solyndra's product wouldn't seem outrageously expensive like it does now, so they'd have sold enough to remain in business long enough to better optimize the process.
I wouldn't be at all surprised to see their tubular technique come back in the future. It just isn't gonna happen at $3 per watt. If someone can get it down under $1, then they will be good to go - and that $1 can be prorated to the efficiency of the architecture - if the tube is 30% more effective at gathering energy, then that $1 can be adjusted by 30% and still be fine. But the other technologies may improve, too during that time - perhaps multiple layers gathering energy from different sections of the light spectrum. (That's a patentable idea that I hereby place in the public domain if no one else has patented it yet.)
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 05, 2012, 09:20:48 PM
So how much are you willing to pay for a Chevy Impala to subsidize the Chevy Volt?
Don't do it nathan! I just rented an Impala and it was crappy!!
Red, how much are you willing to pay for a gallon of gas PLUS the portion of your tax bill to subsidize Exxon?
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on February 05, 2012, 09:16:04 PM
That's a serious mosquito. They seem to calm down by 9:30 or so in other areas of town. It's that pesky stagnant river just to the east of the airport.
We went by twice in the last two weeks. Last weekend, we drove by on Saturday afternoon. Don't know the streets, but we came north from town up along a little wooded creek area just south of the runway. If you were taking off to the south, you would cross that east/west street at end of runway and be over the creek and the woods. Sitting in a couple of trees about 300 feet south of the street were two bald eagles, just chillin'. It was magnificent!!!
Yesterday, we didn't see the eagles, but came up the road on the east side of airport, then looped around the north toward the west.
The south end of the airport is 91st St. The golf course and houses in Jenks are south of there, not really a creek. The north end is bounded by 81st St which is wooded and potentially wet. The west end is bounded by Elwood and private property. The NW corner along Elwood is also wooded, low and there are several sites where houses used to be. The east side is bounded by the RR tracks which cross Peoria/Elm near the south end of the airport. Take a look at Google Maps, I think you may have gotten your N, E, S, and W confused.
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 05, 2012, 09:34:24 PM
The south end of the airport is 91st St. The golf course and houses in Jenks are south of there, not really a creek. The north end is bounded by 81st St which is wooded and potentially wet. The west end is bounded by Elwood and private property. The NW corner along Elwood is also wooded, low and there are several sites where houses used to be. The east side is bounded by the RR tracks which cross Peoria/Elm near the south end of the airport. Take a look at Google Maps, I think you may have gotten your N, E, S, and W confused.
Ooops! Forgot about that mile where the golf course is. South on Elwood to 101st. Looking at Google Earth, there is a little clump of woods about 250 feet south of the road, on the east side of Elwood. The eagles were in those trees.
Also went out to Keystone eagle sanctuary, but didn't see any at all. And as a side note, the county has just gotta be proud the way they are keeping up that road (old highway 51) that goes along the south side of the river from the dam east to highway 51. Great place to watch the eagles, but just a horrible ride. They should just grind it up and go back to gravel if they aren't gonna do any better than that. But hey, what can you expect from a county in Oklahoma?
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on February 05, 2012, 09:24:18 PM
Red, how much are you willing to pay for a gallon of gas PLUS the portion of your tax bill to subsidize Exxon?
If my driving profile were more stop and go, I would consider a hybrid or electric car. Right now, both of my (1995 and 1998) cars are paid for. It would take a lot of miles of stop and go driving to pay the premium for a hybrid or electric car. I also have occasional need to exceed the travel range and load capabilities (I need to tow a trailer occasionally) of an electric car. Right now, most of us have no choice but to pay whatever the price of gas is. The only thing we have control over is how much of it we use. I don't just hop in the car and go for a drive for the fun of it much any more. I don't use enough gasoline to justify buying a new hybrid or electric car. Avgas is pretty much anywhere from $4.50/gal to over $7.00/gal. I don't do as much flying as I would like or used to do. If I am just out flying about, I stop at Okmulgee for Avgas since it's about $1.00/gal cheaper than at Riverside.
If you are talking about the oil depletion allowance for Exxon/Mobil (and all the other oil companies), that's another deal entirely.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on February 05, 2012, 09:50:03 PM
Ooops! Forgot about that mile where the golf course is. South on Elwood to 101st.
Yep, southbound (or northbound) on Elwood between 101st and 96th (Main St, Jenks) is wooded and a creek on the east side. I'm not surprised you saw some eagles there.
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 05, 2012, 09:56:09 PM
If my driving profile were more stop and go, I would consider a hybrid or electric car. Right now, both of my (1995 and 1998) cars are paid for. It would take a lot of miles of stop and go driving to pay the premium for a hybrid or electric car. I also have occasional need to exceed the travel range and load capabilities (I need to tow a trailer occasionally) of an electric car. Right now, most of us have no choice but to pay whatever the price of gas is. The only thing we have control over is how much of it we use. I don't just hop in the car and go for a drive for the fun of it much any more. I don't use enough gasoline to justify buying a new hybrid or electric car. Avgas is pretty much anywhere from $4.50/gal to over $7.00/gal. I don't do as much flying as I would like or used to do. If I am just out flying about, I stop at Okmulgee for Avgas since it's about $1.00/gal cheaper than at Riverside.
If you are talking about the oil depletion allowance for Exxon/Mobil (and all the other oil companies), that's another deal entirely.
The oil depletion allowance was ended a long time ago. It was replaced by a variety of more complex and larger deductions/credits/subsidies.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on February 05, 2012, 10:14:36 PM
The oil depletion allowance was ended a long time ago. It was replaced by a variety of more complex and larger deductions/credits/subsidies.
Since I have obviously not kept up with the deductions/credits/subsidies, I cannot say whether or not I willingly support them. Intentionally screwing the oil companies is probably not in our best interest though.
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 05, 2012, 10:40:50 PM
Since I have obviously not kept up with the deductions/credits/subsidies, I cannot say whether or not I willingly support them. Intentionally screwing the oil companies is probably not in our best interest though.
Turn about is fair play....
Don't worry, they won't let us get to them. They control the money and the power. As evidenced by our non-support of any alternatives - we have to let other countries do it for us.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on February 05, 2012, 10:44:07 PM
As evidenced by our non-support of any alternatives - we have to let other countries do it for us.
We need the rich to support the cutting edge technology that the rest of us cannot afford. I remember that the early airpots for coffee cost in excess of $100. Enough rich folks bought them as toys to make the production numbers such that the rest of us peons could afford them. I see alternative energy in much the same light. I'm not going to pay a (30%?) premium for an alternative energy car when plain old gasoline meets my needs. The rich guys that want the toy can pay the price to pay for the development and get the social standing of doing the right thing. Eventually the price will come down to where you and I can afford to buy it too.
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 05, 2012, 10:50:50 PM
We need the rich to support the cutting edge technology that the rest of us cannot afford. I remember that the early airpots for coffee cost in excess of $100. Enough rich folks bought them as toys to make the production numbers such that the rest of us peons could afford them. I see alternative energy in much the same light. I'm not going to pay a (30%?) premium for an alternative energy car when plain old gasoline meets my needs. The rich guys that want the toy can pay the price to pay for the development and get the social standing of doing the right thing. Eventually the price will come down to where you and I can afford to buy it too.
Getting close. One of the kids has a Prius. She was driving Corollas and Camry's for a few years - a new one about every 18 to 24 months. Crazy. Gets 45 to 50 around town and 40 on the highway. Seems to be close to EPA guesses. I'm still waiting for Subaru to starting letting us have a diesel. That I would buy new. Tomorrow.
Solar cells are getting there in a big way. I am not going to try to go "off grid", but am working on a small pallet sized backup system for when power goes out like the ice storms. Will have two 250 watt cells, charge controller, good inverter, and large capacity battery bank. Will also built a small windmill for a few hundred watts. (See www.otherpower.com). Just enough to run the furnace and keep the fridge going. Should be able to get at reasonable cost - around $3,000. As compared to a generator for full house (5kw) that would be around $1,000 plus power switch (couple grand installed?), plus $30+ per day fuel. Or a nice Generac natural gas unit, with grid switch for 10k and more plus installation.
Not any big savings for my system, but don't have the ongoing fuel cost. And am willing to do without full house power - just need heat and food preservation. Maybe a few CFL lights?
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on February 05, 2012, 11:03:19 PM
Getting close. One of the kids has a Prius. She was driving Corollas and Camry's for a few years - a new one about every 18 to 24 months. Crazy. Gets 45 to 50 around town and 40 on the highway. Seems to be close to EPA guesses. I'm still waiting for Subaru to starting letting us have a diesel. That I would buy new. Tomorrow.
I drive about 100 mi/week to work and back from Bixby to RVS in a paid for car. Even 50 mpg isn't really going to warrant the price of a new hybrid. If someone drives a lot of miles that suits the hybrid driving profile, then go for it. Most of us around here probably don't fit that profile.
QuoteAs compared to a generator for full house (5kw) that would be around $1,000 plus power switch (couple grand installed?), plus $30+ per day fuel. Or a nice Generac natural gas unit, with grid switch for 10k and more plus installation.
Depending on your house, I wouldn't call 5KW a whole house generator. We had/have a 5KW generator that my dad deemed insufficient to take care of the water well pump and other starting currents for the fridge while running the other necessities like the TV. I think your $10K for a Generac is a bit high.
These are the first URLs I found. I have not investigated details but $5K plus installation is probably more like it.
http://www.norwall.com/categories/Auto%252dTransfer-Switches/
http://www.norwall.com/products/Generac-Guardian-5875-20kW-Standby-Generator-(Aluminum)-Pre-Packaged-200-Amp-Service-Rated-ATS.html?gdftrk=gdfV23267_a_7c1096_a_7c3327_a_7c5875&gclid=CL6-443MiK4CFSFeTAodABU_3g
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 05, 2012, 11:13:16 PM
I drive about 100 mi/week to work and back from Bixby to RVS in a paid for car. Even 50 mpg isn't really going to warrant the price of a new hybrid. If someone drives a lot of miles that suits the hybrid driving profile, then go for it. Most of us around here probably don't fit that profile.
Depending on your house, I wouldn't call 5KW a whole house generator. We had/have a 5KW generator that my dad deemed insufficient to take care of the water well pump and other starting currents for the fridge while running the other necessities like the TV. I think your $10K for a Generac is a bit high.
These are the first URLs I found. I have not investigated details but $5K plus installation is probably more like it.
http://www.norwall.com/categories/Auto%252dTransfer-Switches/
http://www.norwall.com/products/Generac-Guardian-5875-20kW-Standby-Generator-(Aluminum)-Pre-Packaged-200-Amp-Service-Rated-ATS.html?gdftrk=gdfV23267_a_7c1096_a_7c3327_a_7c5875&gclid=CL6-443MiK4CFSFeTAodABU_3g
House is a whopping 1045 square feet. Without air conditioning, 1.5 kw generation with adequate battery would power the entire house indefinitely. Air is what kicks it up. Have rarely needed that for winter ice storm...
Water well pumps are usually pretty small - 1 HP or so. That's under 1kw running, and should be under 5kw for starting. (Franklin Electric pump motor - they are the most common).
I don't have a problem staging things like the fridge - making sure nothing else is running at same time, but my little system would start that and the heater motor (1/2 HP) and run them both.
I thought it was dirt. :P
Father-in-law's is 1,700 sq/ft in Midtown. Has a 17kw natural gas generator and capacitor, so the power NEVER goes out. 17KW will run everything with no problems. Ticks off the neighbors when the power goes out for a few days and they see him through the front window watching TV and sipping wine. The generator is so quiet that you can hardly hear it unless you walk out behind the detached garage. The larger units are variable speed, so they will only kick out what you are pulling, and if you have a capacitor, that pull is gradual.
We run a 5kw gasoline unit now when we lose power. I have breakers marked so that I can shut down everything that will pull over that maximum. We basically go into "Storm Mode" and have power for just about everything we need. If you walk into a room and try to turn on a light or TV and it doesn't come on, then you can't use it. We went to all LED TVs last year, and they don't pull much power. We get 8 hours on a tank. Haven't needed anything over an hour in a while, certainly not this year!
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on February 06, 2012, 09:33:00 AM
Huh??
I think I managed to somehow confuse the forum software, leaving my post out of place over here instead of where it belonged. I didn't intend to imply you live in a sod house. ;)
Quote from: nathanm on February 06, 2012, 01:50:13 PM
I think I managed to somehow confuse the forum software, leaving my post out of place over here instead of where it belonged. I didn't intend to imply you live in a sod house. ;)
Oh.
I wouldn't be adverse to sod house. Or hay bale for that matter.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/06/06/495791/cnn-solyndra-loan-bush-started-no-evidence-of-wrong-doing-romney-attacks-are-made-up/?mobile=nc
CNN has two dynamite pieces on Solyndra, "Romney wrong on Solyndra facts" and "Seven things you should know about Solyndra."
The first one, by Steve Hargreaves of CNN Money, ends:
It's one thing to spin something to one's advantage. It's another to simply make things up to make the other guy look bad. Romney's
Solyndra speech was an example of the latter. Disgraceful.
Hargreaves shows that Mitt Romney's key claim —
"An independent inspector general looked at this investment and concluded that the
Administration had steered money to friends and family and campaign contributors" — has no basis in fact.
The second piece, also by Hargreaves, lists 7 key facts:
1. It was started by Bush: The DOE loan program that funded Solyndra was actually started by President Bush in 2005. It was intended to provide government support
for "innovative technologies"....
In fact, as Climate Progress reported back in September, the "Bush Administration advanced the Solyndra loan guarantee for two years" before Obama became President.
2. Congress thought there would be more failures: Two companies have declared bankruptcy under the loan program so far, out of the 33 projects funded. Congress
was expecting more....
Congress appropriated money to cover expected losses, and multiple independent reviews have confirmed that the actual losses will likely be less than Congress expected.
3. Solyndra wanted more: The company applied for another $468 million in funding shortly after its first DOE loan closed. The government did not award the second
request.
4. Taxpayers aren't the only losers: Private investors lost almost twice what the government did — nearly $1 billion.
While much has been made that the largest private investor was an Obama supporter, the second largest was a fund controlled by the Walton family — of WalMart fame. Walton family members are noted Republican donors.
5. The renewable program is closed: The renewables loan program that funded Solyndra and other wind and solar ventures is now over. There is still $170 million
available for renewables under a separate program that also handles nuclear power....
6. No smoking gun with Solyndra wrongdoing: Last week Mitt Romney said an inspector general "looked at this investment and concluded that the administration had
steered money to friends and family."
That appears to be incorrect, as no evidence of undue influence peddling by the White House has been uncovered in an official, independent report.
As a major Bloomberg analysis of Solyndra and the media hype of the story concluded, "The Focus on Solyndra Is Not Proportional to Its Impact."
7. Solyndra isn't a typical solar company: Solyndra did not make regular, flat solar panels.
It made a more advanced, cylinder-shaped device designed to capture the sun's rays on its entire surface — hence the company's name.
It was the rapidly declining price of traditional, flat solar panels and silicon – mostly from China — that did the company in.
more at link.
Nice defensive spin, but people actually capable of thinking for themselves know better. The Bush Admin did not advance the loan because they knew it was a stinking POS.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 07, 2012, 02:17:19 PM
The Bush Admin did not advance the loan because they knew it was a stinking POS.
So the article's author is a liar? I seem to recall reading a sentence specifically contradicting the assertion that "the Bush Admin did not advance the loan."
I think this pretty well sums it up.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-solyndra-shuffle/2012/03/22/gIQAEy4dUS_blog.html
Typical, politicians want the best of both worlds: credit when things are good, and no blame when things are bad.
I'm still not sure what all the brouhaha is about anyway. We have a long history of subsidizing new energy developments in this country. Modern fracking, for example, was largely paid for by government funded research and subsidies to get operators to actually try it. Sometimes they work out, sometimes they take a while or never pay off. Such is life. Private industry is far too focused on tomorrow to think about what kind of research they need for next year, much less next decade.
Basic R&D, like roads and bridges, improve all of our lives.
Quote from: nathanm on June 07, 2012, 02:44:17 PM
So the article's author is a liar? I seem to recall reading a sentence specifically contradicting the assertion that "the Bush Admin did not advance the loan."
IIRC, the Bush administration pushed forward the program, but did not sign off on Solyndra, that was done by the current administration, so Bush did not give them the loan. I will have to do some research, but I read articles after I actually drove by the Solyndra facility near San Jose that stated that there were multiple existing locations for the plant that were below market value that would meet the needs for the plant, but they were not accepted and the only way the plant would be built was if they built a completely new facility for manufacturing, and corporate headquarters.
I suspect it had something to do with the over $35 million in tax breaks they got for building a new plant, but I don't know enough about it to say for sure.
Also, LOL. While I was looking for breakdowns of the exact subsidies Solyndra got (you'd think the news media would have it easily available, but most of the folks refuse to do more than quote candidates and their spokespeople), I noticed an article from a few days ago about one of the startups Romney directed Massachusetts subsidy money towards going bankrupt recently. Whoops. Something something glass houses something stones.
Quote from: nathanm on June 08, 2012, 03:45:55 PM
I suspect it had something to do with the over $35 million in tax breaks they got for building a new plant, but I don't know enough about it to say for sure.
Also, LOL. While I was looking for breakdowns of the exact subsidies Solyndra got (you'd think the news media would have it easily available, but most of the folks refuse to do more than quote candidates and their spokespeople), I noticed an article from a few days ago about one of the startups Romney directed Massachusetts subsidy money towards going bankrupt recently. Whoops. Something something glass houses something stones.
I have one word for you, plastics. Well, maybe two....plastics and Lexan.
Turns out, not only did they fudge the investment and inventory numbers, but they fudged the layoff numbers:
http://www.baycitizen.org/solyndra/story/solyndra-layoffs-larger-reported/
The investors were paid back, the executives were paid bonuses, and 1,800 workers lost their jobs along with half a billion in tax payer funds.
If Bain Capital had worked this deal, they would be testifying before congress.
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7075/7352521566_d96e0534b2.jpg)
"They about had an orgasm in Biden's office when we mentioned Solyndra"-Ken Levit, Executive Director of The Kaiser Foundation