DC Solar Owners Plead Guilty

[Andylusion]

A: Solyndra would never have existed to start with, without government support.
B: Solyndra was not able to be profitable, even with government support.

Case closed.

No businesses would exist without government support.

Solyndra wasn't profitable because China subsidized their competitors. Chinese companies sold retail for less than it cost to manufacturer, and baby bush let it happen.

No business would exist without government support? Bull crap. The vast majority of all businesses exist without government support.

It does not matter why Solyndra was not profitable. Completely irrelevant to the discussion.

What matters is that it cost tax payers a ton of money, for absolutely nothing.

I worked at a McDonald's when I was in high school, that even to my inexperienced eyes, was obviously and clearly badly managed.

Just a few months after I quit that job, the entire story closed. How much did that business closing cost the tax payers? Nothing.

Because the government doesn't hand out money, to open or run, or subsidize McDonald's stores.

No business would exist without government support? Bull crap. The vast majority of all businesses exist without government support.

Name one business that doesn't exist without government support.


I worked at a McDonald's when I was in high school, that even to my inexperienced eyes, was obviously and clearly badly managed.

Make your point.


Because the government doesn't hand out money, to open or run, or subsidize McDonald's stores.

McDonald's | Subsidy Tracker

So your own link proves what I said.

You can look at the "subsidies" in that tracker, and it says the same thing. There is no money being handed out to McDonald.

You have tax abatements, and tax credits, and for a very short time in 2008-2009, you had guaranteed loans.

An abatement, is not giving money to anyone. I can't go get rich off a tax abatement. No one gets rich off tax credits either. Tax credits and abatement, merely means you pay less tax than you would have otherwise.

As I have said many times, if I came and stole hundreds of dollars from your wallet... and then I gave you $20 back... would you think I was subsidizing you now? Abatements and credits are not subsidizes, unless you are stupid enough, foolish enough, mindless enough, to believe that your money already belonged to government to begin with.

If you really are that incompetent as a person, then it makes sense that allowing you to keep more of the money you yourself earned, is somehow a 'subsidy'.

During the financial crash of 2008-9, the government had a CPFF program.
https://wikimili.com/en/Commercial_Paper_Funding_Facility
This program offered LOANS... not bailouts... Loans that were repaid with interest.
I disagree with this program, but it is still not a government hand out. So when you get a loan from a mortgage bank, do you consider that a hand out? Are you being subsidized by the big banks? Then you should be thankful to all the banks that are taking your money with interest. What a dumb position, but it fits the pattern of left-wingers like you.

McDonald's existed and was profitable, before this program ever existed, and it exists and is profitable, long after the program ended.

Besides that, even if you just look at the list of supposed "subsidies"... the vast vast majority are under $100,000, and a good portion are under $10,000.

So in your ignorant world, you really think that even a $90,000 tax credit or abatement, is going to make a huge difference in a McDonald's store that cost $2.7 Million to build, and usually rakes in $2.5 million in sales a year (on average 2014 numbers)? Really? The store rakes in $2.7 Million, but that $90K tax abatement... in your world, that's the reason it's profitable?

And lastly, your article is so full of crap....

Out of all the listings you have, only FIVE of those are since 2015. Only FIVE.... worth only $45,000. Really? McDonald's made $21 Billion dollars in sales, but in your mindlessly stupid universe, it was that $45K in NON-"subsidies", that kept McDonald's alive? They couldn't possibly survive without government "providing" (read 'not taking') that $45K?

You want to know why us on the right-wing, look at left-wingers and think this is why we need insane asylums? We read posts from people like you. That's why we know left-wing ideology is a mental illness.

Tax abatement's and tax credits are subsidies.

So if I take hundreds of dollars from you, then I give you back $50, then I am subsidizing you? This is ridiculously stupid claim.

A real subsidy, is when you take money out of the tax payers pockets, and give it to a wealthy man who is building a solar panel. That is what a real subsidy is.

If your business makes zero profit, you can keep that business going, using a subsidy.
If your business makes zero profit, you can't keep that business going, by using a tax break.

We know this because Ethanol is not profitable, without government subsidies for renewable fuel. If the government itself, doesn't cut wind-mill companies a check for wind-electricity, all wind power companies would go broke.

That is the difference between a real subsidy, where you are 'subsidizing the cost' of an operation.

This is why everyone laughed at the utterly retarded left-winger like AOC saying she's going to spend the tax subsidies that would have gone to Amazon, on schools and hospitals. Sorry, you can't "spend" a tax break.

 

[Andylusion]

Trump likes to do, what the people who voted for him, asked him to do.
While I generally agree with your statements about tariffs, your conclusion that Trump is doing it because he likes to tax working people, is absolute ignorance.

Whether your left-wing toddler level mind can handle it or not, Trump was elected on the idea of putting in place tariffs.
Whether the American public understands how tariffs works, and who ends up paying the cost of tariffs, is up for debate. But the fact is, Trump is simply doing what he ran on, and was elected on.

See below!

"I'm doing exactly what you asked me to do!"

Left-wing idiot "See he's fooling everyone... by doing what he was elected to do!"

You prove your stupidity in every post.

Which one of you "poor with credit" wanted your taxes raised?

Funny, I think the only people proposing raising taxes is on the left.

tRump actually did it.

Really? He said he was raising taxes on the working people? Please post video where he said that?

 

[westwall]

A: Solyndra would never have existed to start with, without government support.
B: Solyndra was not able to be profitable, even with government support.

Case closed.

No businesses would exist without government support.

Solyndra wasn't profitable because China subsidized their competitors. Chinese companies sold retail for less than it cost to manufacturer, and baby bush let it happen.

No business would exist without government support? Bull crap. The vast majority of all businesses exist without government support.

It does not matter why Solyndra was not profitable. Completely irrelevant to the discussion.

What matters is that it cost tax payers a ton of money, for absolutely nothing.

I worked at a McDonald's when I was in high school, that even to my inexperienced eyes, was obviously and clearly badly managed.

Just a few months after I quit that job, the entire story closed. How much did that business closing cost the tax payers? Nothing.

Because the government doesn't hand out money, to open or run, or subsidize McDonald's stores.

No business would exist without government support? Bull crap. The vast majority of all businesses exist without government support.

Name one business that doesn't exist without government support.


I worked at a McDonald's when I was in high school, that even to my inexperienced eyes, was obviously and clearly badly managed.

Make your point.


Because the government doesn't hand out money, to open or run, or subsidize McDonald's stores.

McDonald's | Subsidy Tracker

So your own link proves what I said.

You can look at the "subsidies" in that tracker, and it says the same thing. There is no money being handed out to McDonald.

You have tax abatements, and tax credits, and for a very short time in 2008-2009, you had guaranteed loans.

An abatement, is not giving money to anyone. I can't go get rich off a tax abatement. No one gets rich off tax credits either. Tax credits and abatement, merely means you pay less tax than you would have otherwise.

As I have said many times, if I came and stole hundreds of dollars from your wallet... and then I gave you $20 back... would you think I was subsidizing you now? Abatements and credits are not subsidizes, unless you are stupid enough, foolish enough, mindless enough, to believe that your money already belonged to government to begin with.

If you really are that incompetent as a person, then it makes sense that allowing you to keep more of the money you yourself earned, is somehow a 'subsidy'.

During the financial crash of 2008-9, the government had a CPFF program.
https://wikimili.com/en/Commercial_Paper_Funding_Facility
This program offered LOANS... not bailouts... Loans that were repaid with interest.
I disagree with this program, but it is still not a government hand out. So when you get a loan from a mortgage bank, do you consider that a hand out? Are you being subsidized by the big banks? Then you should be thankful to all the banks that are taking your money with interest. What a dumb position, but it fits the pattern of left-wingers like you.

McDonald's existed and was profitable, before this program ever existed, and it exists and is profitable, long after the program ended.

Besides that, even if you just look at the list of supposed "subsidies"... the vast vast majority are under $100,000, and a good portion are under $10,000.

So in your ignorant world, you really think that even a $90,000 tax credit or abatement, is going to make a huge difference in a McDonald's store that cost $2.7 Million to build, and usually rakes in $2.5 million in sales a year (on average 2014 numbers)? Really? The store rakes in $2.7 Million, but that $90K tax abatement... in your world, that's the reason it's profitable?

And lastly, your article is so full of crap....

Out of all the listings you have, only FIVE of those are since 2015. Only FIVE.... worth only $45,000. Really? McDonald's made $21 Billion dollars in sales, but in your mindlessly stupid universe, it was that $45K in NON-"subsidies", that kept McDonald's alive? They couldn't possibly survive without government "providing" (read 'not taking') that $45K?

You want to know why us on the right-wing, look at left-wingers and think this is why we need insane asylums? We read posts from people like you. That's why we know left-wing ideology is a mental illness.

Tax abatement's and tax credits are subsidies.

No. They aren't.

 

[OnePercenter]

No businesses would exist without government support.

Solyndra wasn't profitable because China subsidized their competitors. Chinese companies sold retail for less than it cost to manufacturer, and baby bush let it happen.

No business would exist without government support? Bull crap. The vast majority of all businesses exist without government support.

It does not matter why Solyndra was not profitable. Completely irrelevant to the discussion.

What matters is that it cost tax payers a ton of money, for absolutely nothing.

I worked at a McDonald's when I was in high school, that even to my inexperienced eyes, was obviously and clearly badly managed.

Just a few months after I quit that job, the entire story closed. How much did that business closing cost the tax payers? Nothing.

Because the government doesn't hand out money, to open or run, or subsidize McDonald's stores.

No business would exist without government support? Bull crap. The vast majority of all businesses exist without government support.

Name one business that doesn't exist without government support.


I worked at a McDonald's when I was in high school, that even to my inexperienced eyes, was obviously and clearly badly managed.

Make your point.


Because the government doesn't hand out money, to open or run, or subsidize McDonald's stores.

McDonald's | Subsidy Tracker

So your own link proves what I said.

You can look at the "subsidies" in that tracker, and it says the same thing. There is no money being handed out to McDonald.

You have tax abatements, and tax credits, and for a very short time in 2008-2009, you had guaranteed loans.

An abatement, is not giving money to anyone. I can't go get rich off a tax abatement. No one gets rich off tax credits either. Tax credits and abatement, merely means you pay less tax than you would have otherwise.

As I have said many times, if I came and stole hundreds of dollars from your wallet... and then I gave you $20 back... would you think I was subsidizing you now? Abatements and credits are not subsidizes, unless you are stupid enough, foolish enough, mindless enough, to believe that your money already belonged to government to begin with.

If you really are that incompetent as a person, then it makes sense that allowing you to keep more of the money you yourself earned, is somehow a 'subsidy'.

During the financial crash of 2008-9, the government had a CPFF program.
https://wikimili.com/en/Commercial_Paper_Funding_Facility
This program offered LOANS... not bailouts... Loans that were repaid with interest.
I disagree with this program, but it is still not a government hand out. So when you get a loan from a mortgage bank, do you consider that a hand out? Are you being subsidized by the big banks? Then you should be thankful to all the banks that are taking your money with interest. What a dumb position, but it fits the pattern of left-wingers like you.

McDonald's existed and was profitable, before this program ever existed, and it exists and is profitable, long after the program ended.

Besides that, even if you just look at the list of supposed "subsidies"... the vast vast majority are under $100,000, and a good portion are under $10,000.

So in your ignorant world, you really think that even a $90,000 tax credit or abatement, is going to make a huge difference in a McDonald's store that cost $2.7 Million to build, and usually rakes in $2.5 million in sales a year (on average 2014 numbers)? Really? The store rakes in $2.7 Million, but that $90K tax abatement... in your world, that's the reason it's profitable?

And lastly, your article is so full of crap....

Out of all the listings you have, only FIVE of those are since 2015. Only FIVE.... worth only $45,000. Really? McDonald's made $21 Billion dollars in sales, but in your mindlessly stupid universe, it was that $45K in NON-"subsidies", that kept McDonald's alive? They couldn't possibly survive without government "providing" (read 'not taking') that $45K?

You want to know why us on the right-wing, look at left-wingers and think this is why we need insane asylums? We read posts from people like you. That's why we know left-wing ideology is a mental illness.

Tax abatement's and tax credits are subsidies.

No. They aren't.

Yes, they are.

Property Tax Abatements | Good Jobs First

 

[OnePercenter]

See below!

"I'm doing exactly what you asked me to do!"

Left-wing idiot "See he's fooling everyone... by doing what he was elected to do!"

You prove your stupidity in every post.

Which one of you "poor with credit" wanted your taxes raised?

Funny, I think the only people proposing raising taxes is on the left.

tRump actually did it.

Really? He said he was raising taxes on the working people? Please post video where he said that?

Here's a video where he actually did such.

Trump promised to put 'American truckers first.' Drivers say he hasn't delivered.

 

[OnePercenter]

No businesses would exist without government support.

Solyndra wasn't profitable because China subsidized their competitors. Chinese companies sold retail for less than it cost to manufacturer, and baby bush let it happen.

No business would exist without government support? Bull crap. The vast majority of all businesses exist without government support.

It does not matter why Solyndra was not profitable. Completely irrelevant to the discussion.

What matters is that it cost tax payers a ton of money, for absolutely nothing.

I worked at a McDonald's when I was in high school, that even to my inexperienced eyes, was obviously and clearly badly managed.

Just a few months after I quit that job, the entire story closed. How much did that business closing cost the tax payers? Nothing.

Because the government doesn't hand out money, to open or run, or subsidize McDonald's stores.

No business would exist without government support? Bull crap. The vast majority of all businesses exist without government support.

Name one business that doesn't exist without government support.


I worked at a McDonald's when I was in high school, that even to my inexperienced eyes, was obviously and clearly badly managed.

Make your point.


Because the government doesn't hand out money, to open or run, or subsidize McDonald's stores.

McDonald's | Subsidy Tracker

So your own link proves what I said.

You can look at the "subsidies" in that tracker, and it says the same thing. There is no money being handed out to McDonald.

You have tax abatements, and tax credits, and for a very short time in 2008-2009, you had guaranteed loans.

An abatement, is not giving money to anyone. I can't go get rich off a tax abatement. No one gets rich off tax credits either. Tax credits and abatement, merely means you pay less tax than you would have otherwise.

As I have said many times, if I came and stole hundreds of dollars from your wallet... and then I gave you $20 back... would you think I was subsidizing you now? Abatements and credits are not subsidizes, unless you are stupid enough, foolish enough, mindless enough, to believe that your money already belonged to government to begin with.

If you really are that incompetent as a person, then it makes sense that allowing you to keep more of the money you yourself earned, is somehow a 'subsidy'.

During the financial crash of 2008-9, the government had a CPFF program.
https://wikimili.com/en/Commercial_Paper_Funding_Facility
This program offered LOANS... not bailouts... Loans that were repaid with interest.
I disagree with this program, but it is still not a government hand out. So when you get a loan from a mortgage bank, do you consider that a hand out? Are you being subsidized by the big banks? Then you should be thankful to all the banks that are taking your money with interest. What a dumb position, but it fits the pattern of left-wingers like you.

McDonald's existed and was profitable, before this program ever existed, and it exists and is profitable, long after the program ended.

Besides that, even if you just look at the list of supposed "subsidies"... the vast vast majority are under $100,000, and a good portion are under $10,000.

So in your ignorant world, you really think that even a $90,000 tax credit or abatement, is going to make a huge difference in a McDonald's store that cost $2.7 Million to build, and usually rakes in $2.5 million in sales a year (on average 2014 numbers)? Really? The store rakes in $2.7 Million, but that $90K tax abatement... in your world, that's the reason it's profitable?

And lastly, your article is so full of crap....

Out of all the listings you have, only FIVE of those are since 2015. Only FIVE.... worth only $45,000. Really? McDonald's made $21 Billion dollars in sales, but in your mindlessly stupid universe, it was that $45K in NON-"subsidies", that kept McDonald's alive? They couldn't possibly survive without government "providing" (read 'not taking') that $45K?

You want to know why us on the right-wing, look at left-wingers and think this is why we need insane asylums? We read posts from people like you. That's why we know left-wing ideology is a mental illness.

Tax abatement's and tax credits are subsidies.

So if I take hundreds of dollars from you, then I give you back $50, then I am subsidizing you? This is ridiculously stupid claim.

A real subsidy, is when you take money out of the tax payers pockets, and give it to a wealthy man who is building a solar panel. That is what a real subsidy is.

If your business makes zero profit, you can keep that business going, using a subsidy.
If your business makes zero profit, you can't keep that business going, by using a tax break.

We know this because Ethanol is not profitable, without government subsidies for renewable fuel. If the government itself, doesn't cut wind-mill companies a check for wind-electricity, all wind power companies would go broke.

That is the difference between a real subsidy, where you are 'subsidizing the cost' of an operation.

This is why everyone laughed at the utterly retarded left-winger like AOC saying she's going to spend the tax subsidies that would have gone to Amazon, on schools and hospitals. Sorry, you can't "spend" a tax break.

"A subsidy is a benefit given to an individual, business, or institution, usually by the government. It is usually in the form of a cash payment or a tax reduction. The subsidy is typically given to remove some type of burden, and it is often considered to be in the overall interest of the public, given to promote a social good or an economic policy.".

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/subsidy.asp

 

[Mac-7]

Another Obama solar initiative bites the dust, but not until after stealing millions from individuals, companies and the US government.

This solar project turned into the largest Ponzi scheme in Eastern California history.

It was reported this week that the owners of a massive solar company turned ponzi scheme were indicted this week in Eastern California. According to the DOJ in Eastern California:


The owners of DC Solar, a Benicia-based company, pleaded guilty today to charges related to a billion dollar Ponzi scheme— the biggest criminal fraud scheme in the history of the Eastern District of California. The government’s investigation has resulted in the largest criminal forfeiture in the history of the District with over $120 million in assets forfeited that will go to victims, and has returned $500 million to the United States Treasury, with more to come, U.S. Attorney McGregor W. Scott announced.

thegatewaypundit.com/2020/01/another-obama-solar-company-burns-out-dc-solar-owners-plead-guilty-to-largest-ponzi-scheme-in-eastern-california-history/

The owners, Jeff and Paulette Carpoff, were BIG Republican contributors.

Did the op mention democrats?

If not why are you so defensive?

Big government boondoggles are often bipartisan

 

[OnePercenter]

Another Obama solar initiative bites the dust, but not until after stealing millions from individuals, companies and the US government.

This solar project turned into the largest Ponzi scheme in Eastern California history.

It was reported this week that the owners of a massive solar company turned ponzi scheme were indicted this week in Eastern California. According to the DOJ in Eastern California:


The owners of DC Solar, a Benicia-based company, pleaded guilty today to charges related to a billion dollar Ponzi scheme— the biggest criminal fraud scheme in the history of the Eastern District of California. The government’s investigation has resulted in the largest criminal forfeiture in the history of the District with over $120 million in assets forfeited that will go to victims, and has returned $500 million to the United States Treasury, with more to come, U.S. Attorney McGregor W. Scott announced.

thegatewaypundit.com/2020/01/another-obama-solar-company-burns-out-dc-solar-owners-plead-guilty-to-largest-ponzi-scheme-in-eastern-california-history/

The owners, Jeff and Paulette Carpoff, were BIG Republican contributors.

Did the op mention democrats?

If not why are you so defensive?

Big government boondoggles are often bipartisan

The OP wrote: "Another Obama solar initiative bites the dust"

 

[Mac-7]

Another Obama solar initiative bites the dust, but not until after stealing millions from individuals, companies and the US government.

This solar project turned into the largest Ponzi scheme in Eastern California history.

It was reported this week that the owners of a massive solar company turned ponzi scheme were indicted this week in Eastern California. According to the DOJ in Eastern California:


The owners of DC Solar, a Benicia-based company, pleaded guilty today to charges related to a billion dollar Ponzi scheme— the biggest criminal fraud scheme in the history of the Eastern District of California. The government’s investigation has resulted in the largest criminal forfeiture in the history of the District with over $120 million in assets forfeited that will go to victims, and has returned $500 million to the United States Treasury, with more to come, U.S. Attorney McGregor W. Scott announced.

thegatewaypundit.com/2020/01/another-obama-solar-company-burns-out-dc-solar-owners-plead-guilty-to-largest-ponzi-scheme-in-eastern-california-history/

The owners, Jeff and Paulette Carpoff, were BIG Republican contributors.

Did the op mention democrats?

If not why are you so defensive?

Big government boondoggles are often bipartisan

The OP wrote: "Another Obama solar initiative bites the dust"

Thats probably true and obama is a democrat

but egg is on the face of all big government do-gooders who want to save the planet from global warming no matter what the cost

and that does include some republicans

 

[Andylusion]

No business would exist without government support? Bull crap. The vast majority of all businesses exist without government support.

It does not matter why Solyndra was not profitable. Completely irrelevant to the discussion.

What matters is that it cost tax payers a ton of money, for absolutely nothing.

I worked at a McDonald's when I was in high school, that even to my inexperienced eyes, was obviously and clearly badly managed.

Just a few months after I quit that job, the entire story closed. How much did that business closing cost the tax payers? Nothing.

Because the government doesn't hand out money, to open or run, or subsidize McDonald's stores.

No business would exist without government support? Bull crap. The vast majority of all businesses exist without government support.

Name one business that doesn't exist without government support.


I worked at a McDonald's when I was in high school, that even to my inexperienced eyes, was obviously and clearly badly managed.

Make your point.


Because the government doesn't hand out money, to open or run, or subsidize McDonald's stores.

McDonald's | Subsidy Tracker

So your own link proves what I said.

You can look at the "subsidies" in that tracker, and it says the same thing. There is no money being handed out to McDonald.

You have tax abatements, and tax credits, and for a very short time in 2008-2009, you had guaranteed loans.

An abatement, is not giving money to anyone. I can't go get rich off a tax abatement. No one gets rich off tax credits either. Tax credits and abatement, merely means you pay less tax than you would have otherwise.

As I have said many times, if I came and stole hundreds of dollars from your wallet... and then I gave you $20 back... would you think I was subsidizing you now? Abatements and credits are not subsidizes, unless you are stupid enough, foolish enough, mindless enough, to believe that your money already belonged to government to begin with.

If you really are that incompetent as a person, then it makes sense that allowing you to keep more of the money you yourself earned, is somehow a 'subsidy'.

During the financial crash of 2008-9, the government had a CPFF program.
https://wikimili.com/en/Commercial_Paper_Funding_Facility
This program offered LOANS... not bailouts... Loans that were repaid with interest.
I disagree with this program, but it is still not a government hand out. So when you get a loan from a mortgage bank, do you consider that a hand out? Are you being subsidized by the big banks? Then you should be thankful to all the banks that are taking your money with interest. What a dumb position, but it fits the pattern of left-wingers like you.

McDonald's existed and was profitable, before this program ever existed, and it exists and is profitable, long after the program ended.

Besides that, even if you just look at the list of supposed "subsidies"... the vast vast majority are under $100,000, and a good portion are under $10,000.

So in your ignorant world, you really think that even a $90,000 tax credit or abatement, is going to make a huge difference in a McDonald's store that cost $2.7 Million to build, and usually rakes in $2.5 million in sales a year (on average 2014 numbers)? Really? The store rakes in $2.7 Million, but that $90K tax abatement... in your world, that's the reason it's profitable?

And lastly, your article is so full of crap....

Out of all the listings you have, only FIVE of those are since 2015. Only FIVE.... worth only $45,000. Really? McDonald's made $21 Billion dollars in sales, but in your mindlessly stupid universe, it was that $45K in NON-"subsidies", that kept McDonald's alive? They couldn't possibly survive without government "providing" (read 'not taking') that $45K?

You want to know why us on the right-wing, look at left-wingers and think this is why we need insane asylums? We read posts from people like you. That's why we know left-wing ideology is a mental illness.

Tax abatement's and tax credits are subsidies.

No. They aren't.

Yes, they are.

Property Tax Abatements | Good Jobs First

No, they are not. You are allowed to be wrong, but you are still wrong.

 

[Andylusion]

"I'm doing exactly what you asked me to do!"

Left-wing idiot "See he's fooling everyone... by doing what he was elected to do!"

You prove your stupidity in every post.

Which one of you "poor with credit" wanted your taxes raised?

Funny, I think the only people proposing raising taxes is on the left.

tRump actually did it.

Really? He said he was raising taxes on the working people? Please post video where he said that?

Here's a video where he actually did such.

Trump promised to put 'American truckers first.' Drivers say he hasn't delivered.

I search the article carefully.... can't see a single example where Trump said he would raise taxes on working people.
Try again?

 

[Andylusion]

No business would exist without government support? Bull crap. The vast majority of all businesses exist without government support.

It does not matter why Solyndra was not profitable. Completely irrelevant to the discussion.

What matters is that it cost tax payers a ton of money, for absolutely nothing.

I worked at a McDonald's when I was in high school, that even to my inexperienced eyes, was obviously and clearly badly managed.

Just a few months after I quit that job, the entire story closed. How much did that business closing cost the tax payers? Nothing.

Because the government doesn't hand out money, to open or run, or subsidize McDonald's stores.

No business would exist without government support? Bull crap. The vast majority of all businesses exist without government support.

Name one business that doesn't exist without government support.


I worked at a McDonald's when I was in high school, that even to my inexperienced eyes, was obviously and clearly badly managed.

Make your point.


Because the government doesn't hand out money, to open or run, or subsidize McDonald's stores.

McDonald's | Subsidy Tracker

So your own link proves what I said.

You can look at the "subsidies" in that tracker, and it says the same thing. There is no money being handed out to McDonald.

You have tax abatements, and tax credits, and for a very short time in 2008-2009, you had guaranteed loans.

An abatement, is not giving money to anyone. I can't go get rich off a tax abatement. No one gets rich off tax credits either. Tax credits and abatement, merely means you pay less tax than you would have otherwise.

As I have said many times, if I came and stole hundreds of dollars from your wallet... and then I gave you $20 back... would you think I was subsidizing you now? Abatements and credits are not subsidizes, unless you are stupid enough, foolish enough, mindless enough, to believe that your money already belonged to government to begin with.

If you really are that incompetent as a person, then it makes sense that allowing you to keep more of the money you yourself earned, is somehow a 'subsidy'.

During the financial crash of 2008-9, the government had a CPFF program.
https://wikimili.com/en/Commercial_Paper_Funding_Facility
This program offered LOANS... not bailouts... Loans that were repaid with interest.
I disagree with this program, but it is still not a government hand out. So when you get a loan from a mortgage bank, do you consider that a hand out? Are you being subsidized by the big banks? Then you should be thankful to all the banks that are taking your money with interest. What a dumb position, but it fits the pattern of left-wingers like you.

McDonald's existed and was profitable, before this program ever existed, and it exists and is profitable, long after the program ended.

Besides that, even if you just look at the list of supposed "subsidies"... the vast vast majority are under $100,000, and a good portion are under $10,000.

So in your ignorant world, you really think that even a $90,000 tax credit or abatement, is going to make a huge difference in a McDonald's store that cost $2.7 Million to build, and usually rakes in $2.5 million in sales a year (on average 2014 numbers)? Really? The store rakes in $2.7 Million, but that $90K tax abatement... in your world, that's the reason it's profitable?

And lastly, your article is so full of crap....

Out of all the listings you have, only FIVE of those are since 2015. Only FIVE.... worth only $45,000. Really? McDonald's made $21 Billion dollars in sales, but in your mindlessly stupid universe, it was that $45K in NON-"subsidies", that kept McDonald's alive? They couldn't possibly survive without government "providing" (read 'not taking') that $45K?

You want to know why us on the right-wing, look at left-wingers and think this is why we need insane asylums? We read posts from people like you. That's why we know left-wing ideology is a mental illness.

Tax abatement's and tax credits are subsidies.

So if I take hundreds of dollars from you, then I give you back $50, then I am subsidizing you? This is ridiculously stupid claim.

A real subsidy, is when you take money out of the tax payers pockets, and give it to a wealthy man who is building a solar panel. That is what a real subsidy is.

If your business makes zero profit, you can keep that business going, using a subsidy.
If your business makes zero profit, you can't keep that business going, by using a tax break.

We know this because Ethanol is not profitable, without government subsidies for renewable fuel. If the government itself, doesn't cut wind-mill companies a check for wind-electricity, all wind power companies would go broke.

That is the difference between a real subsidy, where you are 'subsidizing the cost' of an operation.

This is why everyone laughed at the utterly retarded left-winger like AOC saying she's going to spend the tax subsidies that would have gone to Amazon, on schools and hospitals. Sorry, you can't "spend" a tax break.

"A subsidy is a benefit given to an individual, business, or institution, usually by the government. It is usually in the form of a cash payment or a tax reduction. The subsidy is typically given to remove some type of burden, and it is often considered to be in the overall interest of the public, given to promote a social good or an economic policy.".

Subsidy Definition

Again, a tax reduction is not a "Benefit given" to anyone. Me letting you keep the money you rightfully earned, is not me "giving you a benefit".

That is a ridiculous claim. Yes, I know it's written in your link... and your link is wrong.

Let me put it another way....

Benefits are not dependent on YOU to do something that gives yourself a benefit.

How much of a benefit am I giving you, if you earn no money? Can I take money from you, that you never earned? No.

So if you earn nothing, how is my tax reduction a benefit? It isn't. So is it really a benefit, when it requires you to work hard enough, to get my benefit?

I can't 'subsidize' you with your money. That makes no sense. If you have to earn it, in order for me to give it to you, then it isn't a subsidy.

And if you really believe that every tax deduction is a subsidy, then absolutely everyone in the entire country, from the homeless beggar, to the most wealthy CEO, are all entirely subsidizes. If that's the case, then you have no reason to complain, since everyone everywhere is subsidized.

 

[OnePercenter]

Which one of you "poor with credit" wanted your taxes raised?

Funny, I think the only people proposing raising taxes is on the left.

tRump actually did it.

Really? He said he was raising taxes on the working people? Please post video where he said that?

Here's a video where he actually did such.

Trump promised to put 'American truckers first.' Drivers say he hasn't delivered.

I search the article carefully.... can't see a single example where Trump said he would raise taxes on working people.
Try again?

You mean you "searched" the article carefully. Common mistake of the English as a second language paid posters.

tRump did raise taxes for some of the hardest Working Americans, truck drivers.

 

[OnePercenter]

No business would exist without government support? Bull crap. The vast majority of all businesses exist without government support.

Name one business that doesn't exist without government support.


I worked at a McDonald's when I was in high school, that even to my inexperienced eyes, was obviously and clearly badly managed.

Make your point.


Because the government doesn't hand out money, to open or run, or subsidize McDonald's stores.

McDonald's | Subsidy Tracker

So your own link proves what I said.

You can look at the "subsidies" in that tracker, and it says the same thing. There is no money being handed out to McDonald.

You have tax abatements, and tax credits, and for a very short time in 2008-2009, you had guaranteed loans.

An abatement, is not giving money to anyone. I can't go get rich off a tax abatement. No one gets rich off tax credits either. Tax credits and abatement, merely means you pay less tax than you would have otherwise.

As I have said many times, if I came and stole hundreds of dollars from your wallet... and then I gave you $20 back... would you think I was subsidizing you now? Abatements and credits are not subsidizes, unless you are stupid enough, foolish enough, mindless enough, to believe that your money already belonged to government to begin with.

If you really are that incompetent as a person, then it makes sense that allowing you to keep more of the money you yourself earned, is somehow a 'subsidy'.

During the financial crash of 2008-9, the government had a CPFF program.
https://wikimili.com/en/Commercial_Paper_Funding_Facility
This program offered LOANS... not bailouts... Loans that were repaid with interest.
I disagree with this program, but it is still not a government hand out. So when you get a loan from a mortgage bank, do you consider that a hand out? Are you being subsidized by the big banks? Then you should be thankful to all the banks that are taking your money with interest. What a dumb position, but it fits the pattern of left-wingers like you.

McDonald's existed and was profitable, before this program ever existed, and it exists and is profitable, long after the program ended.

Besides that, even if you just look at the list of supposed "subsidies"... the vast vast majority are under $100,000, and a good portion are under $10,000.

So in your ignorant world, you really think that even a $90,000 tax credit or abatement, is going to make a huge difference in a McDonald's store that cost $2.7 Million to build, and usually rakes in $2.5 million in sales a year (on average 2014 numbers)? Really? The store rakes in $2.7 Million, but that $90K tax abatement... in your world, that's the reason it's profitable?

And lastly, your article is so full of crap....

Out of all the listings you have, only FIVE of those are since 2015. Only FIVE.... worth only $45,000. Really? McDonald's made $21 Billion dollars in sales, but in your mindlessly stupid universe, it was that $45K in NON-"subsidies", that kept McDonald's alive? They couldn't possibly survive without government "providing" (read 'not taking') that $45K?

You want to know why us on the right-wing, look at left-wingers and think this is why we need insane asylums? We read posts from people like you. That's why we know left-wing ideology is a mental illness.

Tax abatement's and tax credits are subsidies.

So if I take hundreds of dollars from you, then I give you back $50, then I am subsidizing you? This is ridiculously stupid claim.

A real subsidy, is when you take money out of the tax payers pockets, and give it to a wealthy man who is building a solar panel. That is what a real subsidy is.

If your business makes zero profit, you can keep that business going, using a subsidy.
If your business makes zero profit, you can't keep that business going, by using a tax break.

We know this because Ethanol is not profitable, without government subsidies for renewable fuel. If the government itself, doesn't cut wind-mill companies a check for wind-electricity, all wind power companies would go broke.

That is the difference between a real subsidy, where you are 'subsidizing the cost' of an operation.

This is why everyone laughed at the utterly retarded left-winger like AOC saying she's going to spend the tax subsidies that would have gone to Amazon, on schools and hospitals. Sorry, you can't "spend" a tax break.

"A subsidy is a benefit given to an individual, business, or institution, usually by the government. It is usually in the form of a cash payment or a tax reduction. The subsidy is typically given to remove some type of burden, and it is often considered to be in the overall interest of the public, given to promote a social good or an economic policy.".

Subsidy Definition

Again, a tax reduction is not a "Benefit given" to anyone. Me letting you keep the money you rightfully earned, is not me "giving you a benefit".

That is a ridiculous claim. Yes, I know it's written in your link... and your link is wrong.

Let me put it another way....

Benefits are not dependent on YOU to do something that gives yourself a benefit.

How much of a benefit am I giving you, if you earn no money? Can I take money from you, that you never earned? No.

So if you earn nothing, how is my tax reduction a benefit? It isn't. So is it really a benefit, when it requires you to work hard enough, to get my benefit?

I can't 'subsidize' you with your money. That makes no sense. If you have to earn it, in order for me to give it to you, then it isn't a subsidy.

And if you really believe that every tax deduction is a subsidy, then absolutely everyone in the entire country, from the homeless beggar, to the most wealthy CEO, are all entirely subsidizes. If that's the case, then you have no reason to complain, since everyone everywhere is subsidized.

Again, Subsidy Definition

 

[Andylusion]

So your own link proves what I said.

You can look at the "subsidies" in that tracker, and it says the same thing. There is no money being handed out to McDonald.

You have tax abatements, and tax credits, and for a very short time in 2008-2009, you had guaranteed loans.

An abatement, is not giving money to anyone. I can't go get rich off a tax abatement. No one gets rich off tax credits either. Tax credits and abatement, merely means you pay less tax than you would have otherwise.

As I have said many times, if I came and stole hundreds of dollars from your wallet... and then I gave you $20 back... would you think I was subsidizing you now? Abatements and credits are not subsidizes, unless you are stupid enough, foolish enough, mindless enough, to believe that your money already belonged to government to begin with.

If you really are that incompetent as a person, then it makes sense that allowing you to keep more of the money you yourself earned, is somehow a 'subsidy'.

During the financial crash of 2008-9, the government had a CPFF program.
https://wikimili.com/en/Commercial_Paper_Funding_Facility
This program offered LOANS... not bailouts... Loans that were repaid with interest.
I disagree with this program, but it is still not a government hand out. So when you get a loan from a mortgage bank, do you consider that a hand out? Are you being subsidized by the big banks? Then you should be thankful to all the banks that are taking your money with interest. What a dumb position, but it fits the pattern of left-wingers like you.

McDonald's existed and was profitable, before this program ever existed, and it exists and is profitable, long after the program ended.

Besides that, even if you just look at the list of supposed "subsidies"... the vast vast majority are under $100,000, and a good portion are under $10,000.

So in your ignorant world, you really think that even a $90,000 tax credit or abatement, is going to make a huge difference in a McDonald's store that cost $2.7 Million to build, and usually rakes in $2.5 million in sales a year (on average 2014 numbers)? Really? The store rakes in $2.7 Million, but that $90K tax abatement... in your world, that's the reason it's profitable?

And lastly, your article is so full of crap....

Out of all the listings you have, only FIVE of those are since 2015. Only FIVE.... worth only $45,000. Really? McDonald's made $21 Billion dollars in sales, but in your mindlessly stupid universe, it was that $45K in NON-"subsidies", that kept McDonald's alive? They couldn't possibly survive without government "providing" (read 'not taking') that $45K?

You want to know why us on the right-wing, look at left-wingers and think this is why we need insane asylums? We read posts from people like you. That's why we know left-wing ideology is a mental illness.

Tax abatement's and tax credits are subsidies.

So if I take hundreds of dollars from you, then I give you back $50, then I am subsidizing you? This is ridiculously stupid claim.

A real subsidy, is when you take money out of the tax payers pockets, and give it to a wealthy man who is building a solar panel. That is what a real subsidy is.

If your business makes zero profit, you can keep that business going, using a subsidy.
If your business makes zero profit, you can't keep that business going, by using a tax break.

We know this because Ethanol is not profitable, without government subsidies for renewable fuel. If the government itself, doesn't cut wind-mill companies a check for wind-electricity, all wind power companies would go broke.

That is the difference between a real subsidy, where you are 'subsidizing the cost' of an operation.

This is why everyone laughed at the utterly retarded left-winger like AOC saying she's going to spend the tax subsidies that would have gone to Amazon, on schools and hospitals. Sorry, you can't "spend" a tax break.

"A subsidy is a benefit given to an individual, business, or institution, usually by the government. It is usually in the form of a cash payment or a tax reduction. The subsidy is typically given to remove some type of burden, and it is often considered to be in the overall interest of the public, given to promote a social good or an economic policy.".

Subsidy Definition

Again, a tax reduction is not a "Benefit given" to anyone. Me letting you keep the money you rightfully earned, is not me "giving you a benefit".

That is a ridiculous claim. Yes, I know it's written in your link... and your link is wrong.

Let me put it another way....

Benefits are not dependent on YOU to do something that gives yourself a benefit.

How much of a benefit am I giving you, if you earn no money? Can I take money from you, that you never earned? No.

So if you earn nothing, how is my tax reduction a benefit? It isn't. So is it really a benefit, when it requires you to work hard enough, to get my benefit?

I can't 'subsidize' you with your money. That makes no sense. If you have to earn it, in order for me to give it to you, then it isn't a subsidy.

And if you really believe that every tax deduction is a subsidy, then absolutely everyone in the entire country, from the homeless beggar, to the most wealthy CEO, are all entirely subsidizes. If that's the case, then you have no reason to complain, since everyone everywhere is subsidized.

Again, Subsidy Definition

Again, a tax reduction is not a "Benefit given" to anyone. Me letting you keep the money you rightfully earned, is not me "giving you a benefit".

That is a ridiculous claim. Yes, I know it's written in your link... and your link is wrong.

Let me put it another way....

Benefits are not dependent on YOU to do something that gives yourself a benefit.

How much of a benefit am I giving you, if you earn no money? Can I take money from you, that you never earned? No.

So if you earn nothing, how is my tax reduction a benefit? It isn't. So is it really a benefit, when it requires you to work hard enough, to get my benefit?

I can't 'subsidize' you with your money. That makes no sense. If you have to earn it, in order for me to give it to you, then it isn't a subsidy.

And if you really believe that every tax deduction is a subsidy, then absolutely everyone in the entire country, from the homeless beggar, to the most wealthy CEO, are all entirely subsidizes. If that's the case, then you have no reason to complain, since everyone everywhere is subsidized.

 

[Andylusion]

Funny, I think the only people proposing raising taxes is on the left.

tRump actually did it.

Really? He said he was raising taxes on the working people? Please post video where he said that?

Here's a video where he actually did such.

Trump promised to put 'American truckers first.' Drivers say he hasn't delivered.

I search the article carefully.... can't see a single example where Trump said he would raise taxes on working people.
Try again?

You mean you "searched" the article carefully. Common mistake of the English as a second language paid posters.

tRump did raise taxes for some of the hardest Working Americans, truck drivers.

You said that was his stated goal. He never stated that as a goal. He never said "I intend to raise taxes on working people.".

 

[OnePercenter]

Tax abatement's and tax credits are subsidies.

So if I take hundreds of dollars from you, then I give you back $50, then I am subsidizing you? This is ridiculously stupid claim.

A real subsidy, is when you take money out of the tax payers pockets, and give it to a wealthy man who is building a solar panel. That is what a real subsidy is.

If your business makes zero profit, you can keep that business going, using a subsidy.
If your business makes zero profit, you can't keep that business going, by using a tax break.

We know this because Ethanol is not profitable, without government subsidies for renewable fuel. If the government itself, doesn't cut wind-mill companies a check for wind-electricity, all wind power companies would go broke.

That is the difference between a real subsidy, where you are 'subsidizing the cost' of an operation.

This is why everyone laughed at the utterly retarded left-winger like AOC saying she's going to spend the tax subsidies that would have gone to Amazon, on schools and hospitals. Sorry, you can't "spend" a tax break.

"A subsidy is a benefit given to an individual, business, or institution, usually by the government. It is usually in the form of a cash payment or a tax reduction. The subsidy is typically given to remove some type of burden, and it is often considered to be in the overall interest of the public, given to promote a social good or an economic policy.".

Subsidy Definition

Again, a tax reduction is not a "Benefit given" to anyone. Me letting you keep the money you rightfully earned, is not me "giving you a benefit".

That is a ridiculous claim. Yes, I know it's written in your link... and your link is wrong.

Let me put it another way....

Benefits are not dependent on YOU to do something that gives yourself a benefit.

How much of a benefit am I giving you, if you earn no money? Can I take money from you, that you never earned? No.

So if you earn nothing, how is my tax reduction a benefit? It isn't. So is it really a benefit, when it requires you to work hard enough, to get my benefit?

I can't 'subsidize' you with your money. That makes no sense. If you have to earn it, in order for me to give it to you, then it isn't a subsidy.

And if you really believe that every tax deduction is a subsidy, then absolutely everyone in the entire country, from the homeless beggar, to the most wealthy CEO, are all entirely subsidizes. If that's the case, then you have no reason to complain, since everyone everywhere is subsidized.

Again, Subsidy Definition

Again, a tax reduction is not a "Benefit given" to anyone. Me letting you keep the money you rightfully earned, is not me "giving you a benefit".

That is a ridiculous claim. Yes, I know it's written in your link... and your link is wrong.

Let me put it another way....

Benefits are not dependent on YOU to do something that gives yourself a benefit.

How much of a benefit am I giving you, if you earn no money? Can I take money from you, that you never earned? No.

So if you earn nothing, how is my tax reduction a benefit? It isn't. So is it really a benefit, when it requires you to work hard enough, to get my benefit?

I can't 'subsidize' you with your money. That makes no sense. If you have to earn it, in order for me to give it to you, then it isn't a subsidy.

And if you really believe that every tax deduction is a subsidy, then absolutely everyone in the entire country, from the homeless beggar, to the most wealthy CEO, are all entirely subsidizes. If that's the case, then you have no reason to complain, since everyone everywhere is subsidized.

The fact is that every tax deduction is a subsidy.

 

[OnePercenter]

tRump actually did it.

Really? He said he was raising taxes on the working people? Please post video where he said that?

Here's a video where he actually did such.

Trump promised to put 'American truckers first.' Drivers say he hasn't delivered.

I search the article carefully.... can't see a single example where Trump said he would raise taxes on working people.
Try again?

You mean you "searched" the article carefully. Common mistake of the English as a second language paid posters.

tRump did raise taxes for some of the hardest Working Americans, truck drivers.

You said that was his stated goal. He never stated that as a goal. He never said "I intend to raise taxes on working people.".

tRump did raise taxes for some of the hardest Working Americans, truck drivers.

 

[miketx]

Another Obama solar initiative bites the dust, but not until after stealing millions from individuals, companies and the US government.

This solar project turned into the largest Ponzi scheme in Eastern California history.

It was reported this week that the owners of a massive solar company turned ponzi scheme were indicted this week in Eastern California. According to the DOJ in Eastern California:


The owners of DC Solar, a Benicia-based company, pleaded guilty today to charges related to a billion dollar Ponzi scheme— the biggest criminal fraud scheme in the history of the Eastern District of California. The government’s investigation has resulted in the largest criminal forfeiture in the history of the District with over $120 million in assets forfeited that will go to victims, and has returned $500 million to the United States Treasury, with more to come, U.S. Attorney McGregor W. Scott announced.

thegatewaypundit.com/2020/01/another-obama-solar-company-burns-out-dc-solar-owners-plead-guilty-to-largest-ponzi-scheme-in-eastern-california-history/

The owners, Jeff and Paulette Carpoff, were BIG Republican contributors.

Prove it

 

[OnePercenter]

Another Obama solar initiative bites the dust, but not until after stealing millions from individuals, companies and the US government.

This solar project turned into the largest Ponzi scheme in Eastern California history.

It was reported this week that the owners of a massive solar company turned ponzi scheme were indicted this week in Eastern California. According to the DOJ in Eastern California:


The owners of DC Solar, a Benicia-based company, pleaded guilty today to charges related to a billion dollar Ponzi scheme— the biggest criminal fraud scheme in the history of the Eastern District of California. The government’s investigation has resulted in the largest criminal forfeiture in the history of the District with over $120 million in assets forfeited that will go to victims, and has returned $500 million to the United States Treasury, with more to come, U.S. Attorney McGregor W. Scott announced.

thegatewaypundit.com/2020/01/another-obama-solar-company-burns-out-dc-solar-owners-plead-guilty-to-largest-ponzi-scheme-in-eastern-california-history/

The owners, Jeff and Paulette Carpoff, were BIG Republican contributors.

Prove it

I already have.