|
|
 |
|
#21
09-15-2011, 11:10 AM
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
|
#22
09-16-2011, 03:32 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Gotta love people still falling for the false left-right paradigm. This happens all of the time. Republicans introduce a bill/loan, time runs out, democrat takes office, finishes the job.
Bush Sr. - Introduces NAFTA Clinton - Signs NAFTA Their cheap imitations expand FTA's. It's all bulls.hit. Bring on the feigned outrage from both parties while they laugh at us while the cameras are off.
|
|
#23
09-16-2011, 06:58 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
__________________
We've Gone Delirious
|
|
#24
09-16-2011, 08:41 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
don't run out of ammo.
|
|
#25
09-16-2011, 09:00 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
The battering they take may play a part. Guys like him are far too tough for their own good.
Then again, Graziano and LaMotta took a lot of punches and came out OK.I guess it's the constitution. That's why I hate fans who will boo a fighter in the ring or call him a bum.Most wouldn't have the guts to fight a fence post.
|
|
#26
09-16-2011, 09:03 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
don't run out of ammo.
|
|
#27
09-16-2011, 10:51 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#28
09-16-2011, 11:45 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
http://projects.propublica.org/bailout/main/summary The total amount invested in Fannie and Freddie so far is $169 billion. They have returned none of the money invested so far—and might never do so.
|
|
#29
09-16-2011, 12:08 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
How much money is left to pay by specifically the BANKS, escpecially any large institutions? How much did the banks pay in dividends, interest, etc.? Did you know that the government forced many of the banks to take the money even though they didn't want it? It was described by a top CEO of a bank as a scene out of the god father. Many knew they didn't want it because of the unintended consequences of taking the money, which in turn is a major part of the problem with the economy. Banks are afraid to lend money to anyone with any risk because of the government intervention into their business.
|
|
#30
09-16-2011, 12:54 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#31
09-16-2011, 01:02 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#32
09-19-2011, 04:08 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
 http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/n...,1142974.story
|
|
#33
09-19-2011, 04:11 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Then please, go over your outrage about Haliburton. Geesh, the Obama-haters are beyond desperate ....
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts
|
|
#34
09-19-2011, 05:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
The company applied for a loan guarantee in December 2006, filing under a program created by George W. Bush's administration. It received a conditional commitment for $535 million in March 2009, shortly before Spinner arrived. In the months that followed, department staffers negotiated the final terms and provided the Office of Management and Budget with data as it assessed the risks of the deal. In August 2009, while that risk assessment was underway, White House officials began expressing interest in having Vice President Joe Biden announce the deal during a trip to California the following month, according to emails released to House investigators this week. That spurred exchanges between officials at the White House, the Energy Department and the OMB about whether they could speed up the final approval.Spinner was the recipient of at least one of the emails, administration officials confirmed Friday — an Aug. 25, 2009, message from Biden's office saying that "we would want the VP [to] satellite into the event on 9/4. It's the same day the unemployment numbers come out, and we'd want to use this as an example where the Recovery Act is helping create new high tech jobs."
|
|
#35
09-19-2011, 06:05 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
No, better to try and create political drama where little exists! Even though Solandra was going belly up a year ago. The worse that happened here was yeah, the government gave money to a company that lost it. You know, like we've done before? Boeing ring a bell? The capitalist free market - it sucks when it's a real company, and not a money-making set-up like many of the Wall Street stock manipulations that pass for "business" today.
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts
|
|
#36
09-19-2011, 06:16 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Facts have a liberal bias
It’s often claimed that the Solyndra loan guarantee was “rushed through” by the Obama Administration for political reasons. In fact, the Solyndra loan guarantee was a multi-year process that the Bush Administration launched in 2007.
You’d never know from the media coverage that: 1. The Bush team tried to conditionally approve the Solyndra loan just before President Obama took office. 2. The company’s backers included private investors who had diverse political interests. 3. The loan comprises just 1.3% of DOE’s overall loan portfolio. To date, Solyndra is the only loan that’s known to be troubled. Because one of the Solyndra investors, Argonaut Venture Capital, is funded by George Kaiser — a man who donated money to the Obama campaign — the loan guarantee has been attacked as being political in nature. What critics don’t mention is that one of the earliest and largest investors, Madrone Capital Partners, is funded by the family that started Wal-Mart, the Waltons. The Waltons have donated millions of dollars to Republican candidates over the years. With a stagnant job market and Obama sinking in the polls, the media has decided on a narrative that matches right-wing talking points but not the facts. For instance, Bloomberg had this incredibly misleading headline yesterday, “Obama Team Backed $535 Million Solyndra Aid as Auditor Warned on Finances.” If you replace “backed” with “touted,” that would be accurate. But the headline makes it seem like the White House had decided to give $535 million to a company after an auditor had said it was financially troubled. You have to read half the story to learn that the loan guarantee was made in 2009 and the audit was done in 2010 after market conditions had sharply worsened! And the Bloomberg story never explains that the company itself raised $250 million from private investors after the supposedly devastating audit! To set the record straight, Climate Progress is publishing this timeline — verified by Department of Energy officials — that shows how the loan guarantee came together under both administrations. In fact, rather than rushing the loan for Solyndra through, the Obama Administration restructured the original Bush-era deal to further protect the taxpayers’ investment: May 2005: Just as a global silicon shortage begins driving up prices of solar photovoltaics, Solyndra is founded to provide a cost-competitive alternative to silicon-based panels. July 2005: The Bush Administration signs the Energy Policy Act of 2005 into law, creating the 1703 loan guarantee program. February 2006 – October 2006: In February, Solyndra raises its first round of venture financing worth $10.6 million from CMEA Capital, Redpoint Ventures, and U.S. Venture Partners. In October, Argonaut Venture Capital, an investment arm of George Kaiser, invests $17 million into Solyndra. Madrone Capital Partners, an investment arm of the Walton family, invests $7 million. Those investments are part of a $78.2 million fund. December 2006: Solyndra Applies for a Loan Guarantee under the 1703 program. Late 2007: Loan guarantee program is funded. Solyndra was one of 16 clean-tech companies deemed ready to move forward in the due diligence process. The Bush Administration DOE moves forward to develop a conditional commitment. October 2008: Then Solyndra CEO Chris Gronet touted reasons for building in Silicon Valley and noted that the “company’s second factory also will be built in Fremont, since a Department of Energy loan guarantee mandates a U.S. location.” November 2008: Silicon prices remain very high on the spot market, making non-silicon based thin film technologies like Solyndra’s very attractive to investors. Solyndra also benefits from having very low installation costs. The company raises $144 million from ten different venture investors, including the Walton-family run Madrone Capital Partners. This brings total private investment to more than $450 million to date. 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. March 2009: The same credit committee approves the strengthened loan application. The deal passes on to DOE’s credit review board. Career staff (not political appointees) within the DOE issue a conditional commitment setting out terms for a guarantee. June 2009: As more silicon production facilities come online while demand for PV wavers due to the economic slowdown, silicon prices start to drop. Meanwhile, the Chinese begin rapidly scaling domestic manufacturing and set a path toward dramatic, unforeseen cost reductions in PV. Between June of 2009 and August of 2011, PV prices drop more than 50%. September 2009: Solyndra raises an additional $219 million. Shortly after, the DOE closes a $535 million loan guarantee after six months of due diligence. This is the first loan guarantee issued under the 1703 program. From application to closing, the process took three years – not the 41 days that is sometimes reported. OMB did raise some concerns in August not about the loan itself but how the loan should be “scored.” OMB testified Wednesday that they were comfortable with the final scoring. January – June 2010: As the price of conventional silicon-based PV continues to fall due to low silicon prices and a glut of solar modules, investors and analysts start questioning Solyndra’s ability to compete in the marketplace. Despite pulling its IPO (as dozens of companies did in 2010), Solyndra raises an additional $175 million from investors. November 2010: Solyndra closes an older manufacturing facility and concentrates operations at Fab 2, the plant funded by the $535 million loan guarantee. The Fab 2 plant is completed that same month — on time and on budget — employing around 3,000 construction workers during the build-out, just as the DOE projected. February 2011: Due to a liquidity crisis, investors provide $75 million to help restructure the loan guarantee. The DOE rightly assumed it was better to give Solyndra a fighting chance rather than liquidate the company – which was a going concern – for market value, which would have guaranteed significant losses. March 2011: Republican Representatives complain that DOE funds are not being spent quickly enough. House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI): “despite the Administration’s urgency and haste to pass the bill [the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act] … billions of dollars have yet to be spent.” And House Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Chairman Cliff Stearns (R-FL): “The whole point of the Democrat’s stimulus bill was to spend billions of dollars … most of the money still hasn’t been spent.” June 2011: Average selling prices for solar modules drop to $1.50 a watt and continue on a pathway to $1 a watt. Solyndra says it has cut costs by 50%, but analysts worry how the company will compete with the dramatic changes in conventional PV. August 2011: DOE refuses to restructure the loan a second time. September 2011: Solyndra closes its manufacturing facility, lays off 1,100 workers and files for bankruptcy. The news is touted as a failure of the Obama Administration and the loan guarantee office. However, as of September 12, the DOE loan programs office closed or issued conditional commitments of $37.8 billion to projects around the country. The $535 million loan is only 1.3% of DOE’s loan portfolio. To date, Solyndra is the only loan that’s known to be troubled. Meanwhile, after complaining about stimulus funds moving too quickly, Congressmen Fred Upton and Cliff Stearns are now claiming that the Administration was pushing funds out the door too quickly: “In the rush to get stimulus cash out the door, despite repeated claims by the Administration to the contrary, some bets were bad from the beginning.” What critics fail to mention is that the Solyndra deal is more than three years old, started under the Bush Administration, which tried to conditionally approve the loan right before Obama took office. Rather than “pushing funds out the door too quickly,” the Obama Administration restructured the original loan when it came into office to further protect the taxpayers’ investment. Stephen Lacey is a reporter/blogger with Climate Progress and Richard Caperton is a senior policy analyst with the energy team at the Center for American Progress. This story was originally published at ClimateProgress.org and was cross-posted with permission http://cleantechnica.com/2011/09/15/...ndra-timeline/
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts Last edited by Riot : 09-19-2011 at 06:28 PM.
|
|
#38
09-19-2011, 08:43 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts
|
|
#39
09-19-2011, 08:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#40
09-19-2011, 08:54 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts
|
Linear Mode
