Solargate

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

And I immediately corrected the article and gave you the link reference, didn't I? But you refuse to acknowledge that, too.

LOL - this is perfect example of what you do: create straw men and change the reference.

I didn't call you a jackass for anything to do with the article I posted. I called you a jackass because you ignored and deliberately mischaracterized my position, which was "If anything criminal happened, heads should roll".

God forbid anything bad I say about the Obama administration should be acknowledged by some here. It doesn't work with their "we hate Obama and all who supported him" meme. Black and white, yes, unable to appreciate any nuance in politics.

So yes, you're pretty much still a jackass, because you constantly take what I say and attribute it to something entirely different.

And that's makes a good point, too: how many of your posts on this thread had anything to do with politics, and how many were just making comments about me? It's pretty clear you barely post anything about politics.

You can't do it. You can't post about politics without bashing other posters.

Do you not see both the irony and hypocrisy in what you just posted?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Do you not see both the irony and hypocrisy in what you just posted?

Your first post on this thread was not about the subject of this thread, but was a reference making fun of me regarding a subject on another thread.

You followed that up with your second post, calling me a hypocrite for something I've never said on these boards, and don't think (and an entirely different subject, again, than the subject of this thread)

And you refused to take back your name-calling when I pointed out your name-calling was not only unsupported by fact, but false based upon what I think.

Tell me about irony and hypocrisy, Dell. Lecture me about it. When you joined this thread with two posts that were only about about bashing me, with the second post also lying about my political opinion and falsely calling me a hypocrite.

Guess what? That makes you a jackass, Dell. Now please, make me laugh by going off on how hypocritical and how evil I am to call you a name.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

Your first post on this thread was not about the subject of this thread, but was a reference making fun of me regarding a subject on another thread.

You followed that up with your second post, calling me a hypocrite for something I've never said on these boards, and don't think (and an entirely different subject, again, than the subject of this thread)

And you refused to take back your name-calling when I pointed out your name-calling was not only unsupported by fact, but false based upon what I think.

Tell me about irony and hypocrisy, Dell. Lecture me about it. When you joined this thread with two posts that were only about about bashing me, with the second post also lying about my political opinion and falsely calling me a hypocrite.

Guess what? That makes you a jackass, Dell. Now please, make me laugh by going off on how hypocritical and how evil I am to call you a name.

strike two and this pitch is in the dirt. LMAO

[clyde]

Originally Posted by Riot

Your first post on this thread was not about the subject of this thread, but was a reference making fun of me regarding a subject on another thread.

You followed that up with your second post, calling me a hypocrite for something I've never said on these boards, and don't think (and an entirely different subject, again, than the subject of this thread)

And you refused to take back your name-calling when I pointed out your name-calling was not only unsupported by fact, but false based upon what I think.

Tell me about irony and hypocrisy, Dell. Lecture me about it. When you joined this thread with two posts that were only about about bashing me, with the second post also lying about my political opinion and falsely calling me a hypocrite.

Guess what? That makes you a jackass, Dell. Now please, make me laugh by going off on how hypocritical and how evil I am to call you a name.

eauxh!!






You muff puffer, you!!

[Rileyoriley]

Originally Posted by clyde

eauxh!!






You muff puffer, you!!

Welcome to the "Jackass" club.

[clyde]

kissykissykissykissy

[lord007]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...=all#pagebreak

[geeker2]

and the beat goes on...

http://www.businessinsider.com/solar...ra-loan-2011-9


and on.....what a business plan!


http://www.businessinsider.com/gover...isaster-2011-9

[dellinger63]

Days before a solar panel maker collapsed, the Obama administration considered a bailout that would have provided an infusion of cash and a new board of directors, including two directors appointed by the Energy Department.

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/o...1/03/id/416668

So the social security administration can't be privatized because Americans will 'risk' their retirement savings in the stock market yet the idiots in charge make 'investments' like this? And to think some want 'them' involved in healthcare.

LOL Tax the 1% !!!

[Danzig]

i can't help but wonder if....

the feds decided to just take all the money they've spent on all these now failed programs, and put it all towards beefing up ss payments-would more retirement age people have retired or could retire, thereby forcing firms to hire, reducing unemployment, etc, etc...and actually having something useful come from all the spending?
perhaps instead of pushing to give money to states to hire teachers (money lasts one whole year), put it where it will make a real change.

and for crying out loud, states who allow public employees to 'retire' and then rehire them a month later, stop doing that! how does that put one unemployed person into a job?? it doesn't!

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i can't help but wonder if....

The feds simply distributed the $2.6 trillion it owes to SS benefactors and privatized SS? If an employee instead of paying 6.2% in a payroll tax was able to put it into a private investment account and their employer matched it? If instead of investing in things like Solyndra, bailing out failed banks and backing up Freddie and Fannie the money was invested in stocks, selected by the investor, gold or if desired, even T-Bonds?

The answer is obvious. SS taxes are the cash cow of the government. Allowing 12.4% back into private hands is unacceptable because we have wars and useless programs and companies to invest in. The only way government will ever cut anything is if the funds are made unavailable.

Under George W. Bush the National Debt rose $4.9 trillion in 8 years. In 3 years and nine months the National Debt has risen $4.4 trillion under Obama. No fear though as if he can maintain his current pace of $203 billion a month (October’s total) he’ll top the $5 trillion mark and do in four years what took Bush eight. If he maintains his current pace and is re-elected he’s on track for a $9.7 trillion second term debt and will not only double what Bush did to the debt but triple it.


Wall Street and the 1% are the wrong targets to protest.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

The feds simply distributed the $2.6 trillion it owes to SS benefactors and privatized SS? If an employee instead of paying 6.2% in a payroll tax was able to put it into a private investment account and their employer matched it? If instead of investing in things like Solyndra, bailing out failed banks and backing up Freddie and Fannie the money was invested in stocks, selected by the investor, gold or if desired, even T-Bonds?

The answer is obvious. SS taxes are the cash cow of the government. Allowing 12.4% back into private hands is unacceptable because we have wars and useless programs and companies to invest in. The only way government will ever cut anything is if the funds are made unavailable.

Under George W. Bush the National Debt rose $4.9 trillion in 8 years. In 3 years and nine months the National Debt has risen $4.4 trillion under Obama. No fear though as if he can maintain his current pace of $203 billion a month (October’s total) he’ll top the $5 trillion mark and do in four years what took Bush eight. If he maintains his current pace and is re-elected he’s on track for a $9.7 trillion second term debt and will not only double what Bush did to the debt but triple it.


Wall Street and the 1% are the wrong targets to protest.

knowing how wall street has been, and most likely will continue to be, stocks are not where i'd place money. not a mutual fund either. my pick right now would be some sort of permanent insurance fund with a reputable life insurance company. it's a guaranteed return, which you never get with stocks or funds, and most insurance offers a higher interest rate than any cd out there. another option would be an annuity, same safe investments, same guarantees on interest never dropping below a certain percentage. unless you have years to hope for a return for long term investments, stocks are off putting for many.
matter of fact, i read an article last week in the ny times that said many financial planners are also advocating permanent life insurance. where else can you get a guarantee?
ask your insurance agent to do a fund vs policy comparison if you have money in a cd. it's an eye opener.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

The feds simply distributed the $2.6 trillion it owes to SS benefactors and privatized SS? If an employee instead of paying 6.2% in a payroll tax was able to put it into a private investment account and their employer matched it?

You want to force private businesses to fund an employee's retirement account? What are you, a Marxist socialist libertarian?

Dell, people have been whining about privatizing social security since it's inception. That's not about helping people or making better retirement plans, that's just a talking point they feed you. It's about the Republican game plan of privatizing everything they can and getting their hands on your money (war contractors, etc).

Privatizing social security funds would be a huge financial windfall to Wall Street in management fees (automatically making the SS return on investment smaller).

And that's the only reason they want SS privatized. Get it?

For the account holders, it's a good thing Social Security has not been privatized, because the stock market would have wiped out people's retirements three times over. Look what it's done to matched-fund 401K's.

People used to have three methods of saving for retirement: personal savings (that paid 5% interest), company pension plan, and social security. Personal savings are gone, paying only 0.05% interest. Company pension plans are gone (and you're on that side, too, of eliminating those, with you being in favor of union-busting).

The only thing many have left is the success and safety of Social Security. Yes, Social Security is a massive success, and has decreased elder poverty exactly as it intended.

But you want to hand that money over to Wall Street, so they can steal that money via fees and management? BWAAAHAAAAAA !

If that plan would be successful, right now we'd be rolling in people who are privately rich, due to their Wall Street investments over the past 40 years.

Oh, wait. They've been wiped out.

And, your figure of 6.2% on "payroll tax" for Social Security is wrong. You have to eliminate the Medicare portion of that. So you want Medicare eliminated, too?

You want to go back to the massive elderly poverty and elderly illness we had before those very successful programs were instituted? That's exactly what you are proposing, in your faux Libertarian zeal to get the government out of your life. Thank goodness you and your ilk have been outvoted for the past many decades.

[dellinger63]

and the beat goes on, and the beat goes on......

Newly obtained emails released by House investigators suggest that George Kaiser, a billionaire Obama donor and chief investor in bankrupt solar panel manufacturer Solyndra, discussed the company with White House officials, directly contradicting earlier accounts

Shocked!!!

http://campaign2012.washingtonexamin...ed-solyndra-wh

Yet both Kaiser and the White House previously denied Solyndra was ever discussed in any of his 17 visits to the White House.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i can't help but wonder if....

the feds decided to just take all the money they've spent on all these now failed programs, and put it all towards beefing up ss payments-would more retirement age people have retired or could retire, thereby forcing firms to ship more jobs overseas thus increasing unemployment, etc, etc...and actually having something useful come from all the spending?
perhaps instead of pushing to give money to states to hire teachers (money lasts one whole year), put it where it will make a real change.

and for crying out loud, states who allow public employees to 'retire' and then rehire them a month later, stop doing that! how does that put one unemployed person into a job?? it doesn't!

ftfy, Let me guess, you haven't been in the workforce a bit.

[geeker2]

and the beat goes on....

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybens...lie_under_oath

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by jms62

ftfy, Let me guess, you haven't been in the workforce a bit.

i've always worked, i can't imagine not working.

[Riot]

Oh, it will be a pleasure to vote all of these losers out of office

Republicans keep on getting caught with their pants down over their Solyndra scandalmongering:

The loan was never approved by the Energy Department, but Upton’s advocacy for United Solar stands in contrast to his recent skepticism about the government’s clean-energy loan guarantee program.

Upton has pursued two lines of argument against the administration over Solyndra. First, he says the government shouldn't pick winners and losers. Second, he says Solyndra shouldn't have been given the loan because it was a company in trouble. This news exposes the hypocrisy of both arguments—not only did he urge the government to "pick a winner," he urged it to pick a winner that was on the cusp of failure.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/1...irm?via=blog_1

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

Oh, it will be a pleasure to vote all of these losers out of office

The loan was never approved by the Energy Department, but Upton’s advocacy for United Solar stands in contrast to his recent skepticism about the government’s clean-energy loan guarantee program.

Perhaps if a guy like George Kaiser, Obama's billionaire fundraiser, was a lead investor, like he was for Solyndra, it would have been approved like Solyndra was. Seventeen visits to the White House and Solyndra was never discussed.

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad the loan wasn't approved, however it appears that the Auburn Hills company outlasted Solyndra despite a $500 billion disadvantage.

The Fed is broke it does not need to be loaning or giving anyone, anything. Period!

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Perhaps if a guy like George Kaiser, Obama's billionaire fundraiser, was a lead investor, like he was for Solyndra, it would have been approved like Solyndra was. Seventeen visits to the White House and Solyndra was never discussed.

Solyndra wasn't approved first, either. Then they came back with redone paperwork, and lied to the government, making them look better on paper than they were.

Yeah .. that whole, "lied to the government thing", is a problem for them. Not the government.

And I don't notice you getting your panties in a wad because the Waltons, of Wal-Mart fame, long-time conservative Republican supporters and donors, were right on the front line of Solyndra investment as huge backers.

Your pathetic attempt to blame Obama for this is beyond absurd, and everyone who knows the Solyndra timeline is awares of it. Go sell your silly Faux News-Daily Caller-Big Government nonsense elsewhere. People know better.