Nocera's take on Solyndra

[The Rabbi]

That's the Tea Party that does that.

No, I'm pretty sure I've seen lefties on here bashing Boosh for bailing out the banksters. You're right that their in-laws the narco-libertarians say the same thing though.

Yes, many people that you would identify as LEFTIES agree that bailing out the banksters was a form of socialism for the wealthy, just like the TPM does.

Now when BUSH II did it, almost nobody on the right asked why that was being done.

But now that Obama continued that policy, suddenly there's crowds of GOP types calling themselves Tea Party people, who suddenly realize that it was socialism for the rich.

Why now and not then?

Because NOW the GOP has stoked the fires against this POTUS, that's why.

When Bush II did it, that was fine.

When Obma does it? Then it's socialism.

Nice double standard there, eh?

If that were true you would have a point.
Actually you're one of the people I had in mind.
But TARP started out solely as a way to backstop the banks. I didnt have a problem with that as they had stopped lending ot each other and the whole system looked like it would collapse.
I did have a problem when Bush, against Congress' authorization, extended TARP to GM and Chrysler, which went bust anyway. Lots of Republicans in Congress opposed that, btw. I had an even greater problem when Obama decided that TARP was not a temporary measure but would become his permanent slush fund.

 

[daveman]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/24/opinion/the-phony-solyndra-scandal.html

The NYT's Joe Nocera offered the strongest defense of Solyndra I've seen so far. He says

-- No one is going to jail

-- The government has a role to play in investing in risky new technology

-- The scandal is "manufactured" by political partisans

I certainly agree with Nocera on his second point. The government has wider and longer interests than businesses, so it makes perfect sense for them to invest in for-profit technology companies as well as nonprofit basic research. I think that's a point that has been lost in this wider scandal.

However, I'm less charitable than Nocera on his other points. When executives are taking the fifth and the FBI is raiding offices, I have to think there is a possibility of criminal charges. And it seems clear that political pressure (though perhaps not extraordinary pressure) infected the decision to grant the loans. That's a worthy subject of Congressional inquiry, though of course Congress can't resist political posturing.

Righties don't really understand that their is always risk in lending money.

Nonsense. The Bush Admin denied the loan because it was too risky.

Obama approved it for political reasons, not financial reasons.

Democrats simply can't be trusted with money.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/24/opinion/the-phony-solyndra-scandal.html

The NYT's Joe Nocera offered the strongest defense of Solyndra I've seen so far. He says

-- No one is going to jail

-- The government has a role to play in investing in risky new technology

-- The scandal is "manufactured" by political partisans

I certainly agree with Nocera on his second point. The government has wider and longer interests than businesses, so it makes perfect sense for them to invest in for-profit technology companies as well as nonprofit basic research. I think that's a point that has been lost in this wider scandal.

However, I'm less charitable than Nocera on his other points. When executives are taking the fifth and the FBI is raiding offices, I have to think there is a possibility of criminal charges. And it seems clear that political pressure (though perhaps not extraordinary pressure) infected the decision to grant the loans. That's a worthy subject of Congressional inquiry, though of course Congress can't resist political posturing.

Nocera thinks there is going to be a massive coverup to hide any malfeasance by anyone in the administration? He might have a point.

 

[Big Fitz]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/24/opinion/the-phony-solyndra-scandal.html

The NYT's Joe Nocera offered the strongest defense of Solyndra I've seen so far. He says

-- No one is going to jail

-- The government has a role to play in investing in risky new technology

-- The scandal is "manufactured" by political partisans

I certainly agree with Nocera on his second point. The government has wider and longer interests than businesses, so it makes perfect sense for them to invest in for-profit technology companies as well as nonprofit basic research. I think that's a point that has been lost in this wider scandal.

However, I'm less charitable than Nocera on his other points. When executives are taking the fifth and the FBI is raiding offices, I have to think there is a possibility of criminal charges. And it seems clear that political pressure (though perhaps not extraordinary pressure) infected the decision to grant the loans. That's a worthy subject of Congressional inquiry, though of course Congress can't resist political posturing.

This is Obama's Enron.

 

[JoeB131]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/24/opinion/the-phony-solyndra-scandal.html

The NYT's Joe Nocera offered the strongest defense of Solyndra I've seen so far. He says

-- No one is going to jail

-- The government has a role to play in investing in risky new technology

-- The scandal is "manufactured" by political partisans

I certainly agree with Nocera on his second point. The government has wider and longer interests than businesses, so it makes perfect sense for them to invest in for-profit technology companies as well as nonprofit basic research. I think that's a point that has been lost in this wider scandal.

However, I'm less charitable than Nocera on his other points. When executives are taking the fifth and the FBI is raiding offices, I have to think there is a possibility of criminal charges. And it seems clear that political pressure (though perhaps not extraordinary pressure) infected the decision to grant the loans. That's a worthy subject of Congressional inquiry, though of course Congress can't resist political posturing.

I agree on his second point, PROVIDED that there is due diligence on how the money is being invested. It's pretty clear that it wasn't, when you find out that they were using the money to buy special glass for conferance rooms that blacked out what was gonig on. (A venetian blind could do the job for a lot less) or that they built a new office building when there were unoccupied office space on the same block.

Is there posturing going on? Yup. There was a ton of posturing going on with PlameGate (you know, the one where anti-war people were circle jerking about whether Valerie Plame was a spy sitting behind a desk for a decade.)

Even if no one is criminally liable, this is a fine example of how inept this White House and this president is.

 

[Charles_Main]

That's the Tea Party that does that.

No, I'm pretty sure I've seen lefties on here bashing Boosh for bailing out the banksters. You're right that their in-laws the narco-libertarians say the same thing though.

Yes, many people that you would identify as LEFTIES agree that bailing out the banksters was a form of socialism for the wealthy, just like the TPM does.

Now when BUSH II did it, almost nobody on the right asked why that was being done.

But now that Obama continued that policy, suddenly there's crowds of GOP types calling themselves Tea Party people, who suddenly realize that it was socialism for the rich.

Why now and not then?

Because NOW the GOP has stoked the fires against this POTUS, that's why.

When Bush II did it, that was fine.

When Obma does it? Then it's socialism.

Nice double standard there, eh?

Last time I checked, Bush didn't led half a Billion dollars to any Company that he was told was going to fail, just so he could have a Photo Op.

 

[bodhisattva]

Regarding Solyndra, and the numerous other payolas to Obama's supporters, like GM, etc.

Given Obama's record of being close to a pathological liar, a Corrupt Chicago Mob/ Mafia product, and having a continuous litany of distortions, one must take into consideration his so-far unindicted record of cronyism smelling much like payola for political contributions lightyears beyond the level of some political favoritism endemic to the political process.