Obama's $535,000,000 Waist Of Tax Payers Money

[12thMan]

I'll make two contributions. First and most importantly, my waist size is 32. And that's after a hearty breakfast, a couple of brews, and a Bloody Mary. Secondly, let's see if we can resurrect this flailing thread because it's actually a good topic worthy of discussion. Without trying to take sides (because you know which side I'm on), I'll post a couple of links that provide some insight as to why this investment unraveled and didn't work.

To be clear though, this was a program sponsored by the Department of Energy (DOE) in which start-up renewable companies could apply for a loan to expand their operation. This wasn't a situation where Obama stormed down to the local bank and pressured the loan officer into forking over 500 cakes. (<<<<slang) Or upped their credit rating to get them approved. As far as I can tell there was no impropriety or scandal on the part of the White House. If anything the White House probably got a little over zealous and didn't vet this firm good enough to warrant such a huge investment of taxpayer money. If Obama and the White House are guilty of anything here, they bet on the wrong horse. Had Solyndra succeeded there's no story, no thread, and Firstdown is asking where's Obama's birth certificate

Here's where I come down on this issue: Should government be in the business of investing in green companies or any start-up technologies to help them succeed and keep jobs here and not abroad? Before you say no, read this excerpt I clipped from one of the links.

But the real take-away is this: Can U.S. companies developing advanced solar technology compete against low-cost Chinese manufacturers who benefit from state support and a government policy to create markets at home and abroad for their products?


What Solyndra's Bankruptcy Means For Silicon Valley Solar Startups - Forbes

Solyndra: Yes, It Was Possible To See This Failure Coming - Forbes

Couple of good Forbes articles here and within one of them, it leads to another Blog where some conservatives are ripping Obama a new one. It's all fair game.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

I'll make two contributions. First and most importantly, my waist size is 32. And that's after a hearty breakfast, a couple of brews, and a Bloody Mary. Secondly, let's see if we can resurrect this flailing thread because it's actually a good topic worthy of discussion. Without trying to take sides (because you know which side I'm on), I'll post a couple of links that provide some insight as to why this investment unraveled and didn't work.

To be clear though, this was a program sponsored by the Department of Energy (DOE) in which start-up renewable companies could apply for a loan to expand their operation. This wasn't a situation where Obama stormed down to the local bank and pressured the loan officer into forking over 500 cakes. (<<<<slang) Or upped their credit rating to get them approved. As far as I can tell there was no impropriety or scandal on the part of the White House. If anything the White House probably got a little over zealous and didn't vet this firm good enough to warrant such a huge investment of taxpayer money. If Obama and the White House are guilty of anything here, they bet on the wrong horse. Had Solyndra succeeded there's no story, no thread, and Firstdown is asking where's Obama's birth certificate

Here's where I come down on this issue: Should government be in the business of investing in green companies or any start-up technologies to help them succeed and keep jobs here and not abroad? Before you say no, read this excerpt I clipped from one of the links.

But the real take-away is this: Can U.S. companies developing advanced solar technology compete against low-cost Chinese manufacturers who benefit from state support and a government policy to create markets at home and abroad for their products?


What Solyndra's Bankruptcy Means For Silicon Valley Solar Startups - Forbes

Solyndra: Yes, It Was Possible To See This Failure Coming - Forbes

Couple of good Forbes articles here and within one of them, it leads to another Blog where some conservatives are ripping Obama a new one. It's all fair game.

I like how you wash over the points that warning signs went up and someone even warned that the company would be out of money by Sept of 2011. He had an agenda and ignord the warning to push his agenda. So now I'm not suppose to point this out. People say I never give Obama credit but I gave him credit for killing those pirates and Osama. He has done a good job killing people.

FYI: I don't think I have ever said anything about his bith certificate.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by firstdown

I like how you wash over the points that warning signs went up and someone even warned that the company would be out of money by Sept of 2011. He had an agenda and ignord the warning to push his agenda. So now I'm not suppose to point this out. People say I never give Obama credit but I gave him credit for killing those pirates and Osama. He has done a good job killing people.

FYI: I don't think I have ever said anything about his bith certificate.

Now you are saying that Obama is a bith?!

[12thMan]

Basically, the debate comes to one thing. How can we achieve energy independence and what is our blue print to get there. If you notice, the politicians on TV outraged and screaming the loudest either live in coal or oil producing states or have ties to the oil lobby. If we can get past the right and left politics for a moment, this really comes down to entrenched special interests and lobbyists fighting to maintain the status quo to keep their share of the pie. They have no interest in seeing the Solyndra's of the world take off and shape our energy future.

[mooby]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Basically, the debate comes to one thing. How can we achieve energy independence and what is our blue print to get there. If you notice, the politicians on TV outraged and screaming the loudest either live in coal or oil producing states or have ties to the oil lobby. If we can get past the right and left politics for a moment, this really comes down to entrenched special interests and lobbyists fighting to maintain the status quo to keep their share of the pie. They have no interest in seeing the Solyndra's of the world take off and shape our energy future.

So what you're saying is due to conflicts of interest with our elected politicians, new and inventive companies are having a hard time getting off the ground. Well that sucks, because as long as those "conflicts of interest" exist, we're gonna be stuck in the same situation we're in today. Aka there's no hope.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by mooby

So what you're saying is due to conflicts of interest with our elected politicians, new and inventive companies are having a hard time getting off the ground. Well that sucks, because as long as those "conflicts of interest" exist, we're gonna be stuck in the same situation we're in today. Aka there's no hope.

In short, yes. Granted the Chinese is a communist regime, but they will spare no expense to out innovate the US at every turn. And while we're sitting here bickering over, in the grand scheme of things, what amounts to peanuts, they're throwing money hand over fist at Solar companies.

Not only that but they're also mining the earth in Afghanistan, as we speak, for it's precious mineral resources. China, Not U.S., Likely to Benefit from Afghanistan's Mineral Riches - DailyFinance

So while we're spending billions on the war in Afghanistan, a war the Chinese refuses to participate in, they benefit from the security of our troops watching their backs as Afghanistan yields more precious resources.

[mooby]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

In short, yes. Granted the Chinese is a communist regime, but they will spare no expense to out innovate the US at every turn. And while we're sitting here bickering over, in the grand scheme of things, what amounts to peanuts, they're throwing money hand over fist at Solar companies.

Not only that but they're also mining the earth in Afghanistan, as we speak, for it's precious mineral resources. China, Not U.S., Likely to Benefit from Afghanistan's Mineral Riches - DailyFinance

So while we're spending billions on the war in Afghanistan, a war the Chinese refuses to participate in, they benefit from the security of our troops watching their backs as Afghanistan yields more precious resources.

Boy that article just makes it seems as if there's more bad times ahead. So our geologists are the ones finding these mineral deposits in Afghanistan and the Chinese and Russians are the guys buying it up. And on top of that, corruption and bribery played a key role in China/Russia getting these contracts that allow them to come into Afghanistan to mine. Yeah, remind me again why I have no faith in politics/gov't.

[SBXVII]

No the worst part is Obama trying to negotiate with the Taliban. WTF? I voted for him once but we all should learn from our mistakes.

I guess the lives of Americans lost in the War are worthless.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

No the worst part is Obama trying to negotiate with the Taliban. WTF? I voted for him once but we all should learn from our mistakes.

I guess the lives of Americans lost in the War are worthless.

????

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

No the worst part is Obama trying to negotiate with the Taliban. WTF? I voted for him once but we all should learn from our mistakes.

I guess the lives of Americans lost in the War are worthless.

You realize that the Taliban and al-Qaeda are separate groups, right?

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by Lotus

You realize that the Taliban and al-Qaeda are separate groups, right?

....and this thread is about neither.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

....and this thread is about neither.

True. This thread is about "waisting" internet bandwidth.

No offense 12th. You are valiantly trying to make it intelligent.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by Lotus

You realize that the Taliban and al-Qaeda are separate groups, right?

Yea, and you realize America has been at war with both the Taliban and A-Qaeda and at times both have worked together at the Pakistan/Afghanastan border? Both are attacking Americans.

Taliban targets coalition base on eve of 9/11 anniversary - CNN.com

Slain Navy SEALs had targeted known Taliban leader, officials say - CNN.com

The Taliban engage in attacks against the civilian population. According to a report by the United Nations, the Taliban were responsible for 2,477 civilian casualties (76 percent of all casualties) in the first six months of 2010.[17]

But I guess the lives of our lost American troops in these and many other attacks should be over looked and simply brushed under the carpet in order to make peace with terrorist. Atleast according to Obama.

Peace talks with Taliban in Afghanistan have begun, US confirms - The National

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

Yea, and you realize America has been at war with both the Taliban and A-Qaeda and at times both have worked together at the Pakistan/Afghanastan border? Both are attacking Americans.

Taliban targets coalition base on eve of 9/11 anniversary - CNN.com

Slain Navy SEALs had targeted known Taliban leader, officials say - CNN.com



But I guess the lives of our lost American troops in these and many other attacks should be over looked and simply brushed under the carpet in order to make peace with terrorist. Atleast according to Obama.

Peace talks with Taliban in Afghanistan have begun, US confirms - The National

You missed the point. The Taliban are a multifaceted group with a different agenda from al-Qaeda. The Taliban seek a voice in the Afghani government and might become more peaceful if they get that voice, like the IRA did in Ireland. The same cannot be said for al-Qaeda, which has a different agenda and a different MO. So treating the Taliban and al-Qaeda differently makes realistic sense, as many foreign policy experts beyond Obama have said.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by Lotus

You missed the point. The Taliban are a multifaceted group with a different agenda from al-Qaeda. The Taliban seek a voice in the Afghani government and might become more peaceful if they get that voice, like the IRA did in Ireland. The same cannot be said for al-Qaeda, which has a different agenda and a different MO. So treating the Taliban and al-Qaeda differently makes realistic sense, as many foreign policy experts beyond Obama have said.

No I didn't miss the point which is why I added the links. Proving they have been connected to each other in the past helping each other out while attacking American soldiers. Anyone who is going to side with Al-Qaeda does not need peacful negotiations.

But, others probably would have prefered us to have had peaceful negotiations with the Nazi's as well maybe all the Jews and Americans would not have been killed. We probably should have had peaceful negotiations with North Korea as well.