Second Romney-Backed Solar Company Files For Bankruptcy

The Mass. legislature authorized funding for a company that was affiliated with the University of Mass. Obama authorized funding for a company that was on the verge of bankruptcy against recommendations by financial experts. See the difference?
 
The Mass. legislature authorized funding for a company that was affiliated with the University of Mass. Obama authorized funding for a company that was on the verge of bankruptcy against recommendations by financial experts. See the difference?

MA backed an energy subsidy with 1.5 million dollars (money earmarked for such a thing).

Obama loaned half a billion to a company from the Federal Bank against the expert opinions of those involved in the process.


Not even a close comparison- making it a non issue.
 
By Igor Volsky

On Thursday, Mitt Romney campaigned at the headquarters of Solyndra — the first renewable energy company to receive a federal loan under the stimulus — and reiterated his debunked claims that its bankruptcy symbolized the corruption and cronyism of the Obama administration. But just one day later, a solar panel developer “that landed a state loan from Mitt Romney when he was Massachusetts governor” went belly up, the Boston Herald reports, creating an inconvenient storyline for the GOP presidential nominee.

More: Second Romney-Backed Solar Company Files For Bankruptcy | ThinkProgress

Mitt Romney's big green flop - BostonHerald.com

FACT CHECK: Romney misses a mark on Solyndra claim | khou.com Houston

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/226641-fact-checking-romneys-solyndra-speech.html

Did Mitt Romney Ignore the Advice of Experts, and the Decision of the Previous Administration and Given them Tax Payer money when he knew damn well they would likely fail?

Hmmm I don't recall that one.

Game Over.
 
Do we need more proof that this is a failed industry that IS NOT READY TO GO?

Yet Obama, in his stupidity will continue to push it, along with the failed Volt

How is this industry ever going to get ready to go if no one ever invests in it?

We don't have a nuclear industry today because some plucky enterpeneurs said "let's do some nuclear stuff". We have it because the government pumped billions of dollars into the project.

Solar energy is a proven form of energy, guy. The sun is up there and it baths the planet in energy. We just need to learn how to harvest it economically.

The country that controls the next big thing will be the country that wins.

Nuclear technology WAS proven when it was invested in. You don't just pump money into something (your words "We just need to LEARN how to harvest it economically") and "learn as we go". You contradict yourself in the very same paragraph.
 
Sooo, let me see if I can sum up the wingnut spin so far:

1. Governor Romney never approved any solar loans that later went bankrupt.

2. Or, even if he did, no taxpayer funds were used.

3. Or, even if he did and used taxpayer funds, it was Obama's fault.
 
Sooo, let me see if I can sum up the wingnut spin so far:

1. Governor Romney never approved any solar loans that later went bankrupt.

2. Or, even if he did, no taxpayer funds were used.

3. Or, even if he did and used taxpayer funds, it was Obama's fault.

Your summations are as bad as your arguments.

To aid your lack of cognizant abilities let me provide you an accurate summation.

Romney merely approved a subsidy of 1.5 million dollars already earmarked for such a thing. This happened a decade ago- the company only recently went belly-up. Obama loaned taxpayer money from the Federal Bank, in the amount of nearly half a billion dollars. He did this against the advice of those involved in the process. He did this in the midst of a terrible recession. The company went belly up just a few months after the loan was given.
 
Last edited:
Sooo, let me see if I can sum up the wingnut spin so far:

1. Governor Romney never approved any solar loans that later went bankrupt.

2. Or, even if he did, no taxpayer funds were used.

3. Or, even if he did and used taxpayer funds, it was Obama's fault.

Or, even if he did Obama wasn't smart enough to learn from it.
 
:cuckoo: IDIOT :cuckoo: This company was a part of The University of Massachusetts....if Romney had not given them money you would still be fussing...only this time you would be saying he hates education!

God..you people are so STUPID! Konarka was a part of The University of Massachusetts!

Putting aside the relevance of this to the matter at hand, Konarka does not seem to be part of UMass. It was founded by people who worked at UMass (Our History - Konarka Technologies) but it never appears to have been part of UMass. It does claim UMass as a research partner (Our Partners - Konarka Technologies) but the same can be said of Imperial College in London.









I don't entirely understand the totality of your objections (feel free to clarify them), but I speculate that you believe that the article indicates that Romney invested his own money in Konarka. That would be entirely false. When the article says that Romney "personally" gave them the money I believe the inference is that Romney personally made the decision to give them the state's money. Contemporaneous media accounts make it clear that it was public money: Romney Ties Job Growth to Cleaner Environment





I'm not sure where you're getting your definition of subsidy, but the first definition I find at dictionary.com is (pecuniary means pertaining to money)



A loan from a government to a corporation can properly be termed a subsidy.


From the companies website....their various milestones...scroll down for "financial milestones"....

nope...no mention of any loan from Massachusetts.....

Our History - Konarka Technologies

You found a good source, but you seem to have read it a bit too quickly:

December 2002 $1.5 million in venture debt financing from the Massachusetts Renewable Energy Trust

Venture debt financing is a type of loan (Venture debt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). This appears to be the money mentioned in my ameresco link, though from the difference in dates it appears that Konarka is claiming they secured the loan slightly before Romney came into office.

I await your reply.



Interesting, if this was such a mechanism, then, you do realize there is a huge difference between what Chu was doing, vis a vis Solyndra and this issue?

Venture debt or venture lending is a type of debt financing provided to venture-backed companies by specialised banks or non-bank lenders to fund working capital or capital expenses, such as purchasing equipment. Unlike traditional bank lending, venture debt is available to startups and growth companies that do not have positive cash flows or significant assets to use as collateral. Venture debt providers combine their loans with warrants, or rights to purchase equity, to compensate for the higher risk of default.


Snip-

Venture debt lenders expect returns of 12–25% on their capital but achieve this through a combination of loan interest and equity returns. The lender is compensated for the higher rate of perceived level of risk on these loans by earning incremental returns from its equity holding in companies that are successful and achieve a trade sale or IPO.



Venture debt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This appears to be the money mentioned in my ameresco link, though from the difference in dates it appears that Konarka is claiming they secured the loan slightly before Romney came into office.

so this kerfuffle may be over...nothing?
 
It has just occurred to me that romney now has obama reacting his meme, in least in this matter....good on romney, he should make obama play defense.
 
Interesting, if this was such a mechanism, then, you do realize there is a huge difference between what Chu was doing, vis a vis Solyndra and this issue?

There are a number of differences, but I'm not sure to which you are alluding.

so this kerfuffle may be over...nothing?

If your question is "so Romney might not have had any control over the loan?" Then I would say I find that remotely possible, but extremely unlikely. Certainly, news accounts quote Romney as proudly announcing the disbursements as his decision, and they were made public under his watch. I suspect that if Konarka felt confident in December that they would get the loan then it was because the elected but not inaugurated Romney had assured them of his commitment. Otherwise they would have asked that it be announced under the previous governor.
 
Sooo, let me see if I can sum up the wingnut spin so far:

1. Governor Romney never approved any solar loans that later went bankrupt.

2. Or, even if he did, no taxpayer funds were used.

3. Or, even if he did and used taxpayer funds, it was Obama's fault.

FAIL!

Read the thread and follow your own links from your OP.
:cuckoo:
 
Interesting, if this was such a mechanism, then, you do realize there is a huge difference between what Chu was doing, vis a vis Solyndra and this issue?

There are a number of differences, but I'm not sure to which you are alluding.

so this kerfuffle may be over...nothing?

If your question is "so Romney might not have had any control over the loan?" Then I would say I find that remotely possible, but extremely unlikely. Certainly, news accounts quote Romney as proudly announcing the disbursements as his decision, and they were made public under his watch. I suspect that if Konarka felt confident in December that they would get the loan then it was because the elected but not inaugurated Romney had assured them of his commitment. Otherwise they would have asked that it be announced under the previous governor.

I love it when posters refuse to stay on topic, can't comprehend the 'issue' (as the OP linked to) and attempt to spin.

If a state grant is a loan, then I'm the Queen!
:eusa_whistle:
 
Last edited:
Let's see... Defend Obama over a failed "Green Energy" business, then Attack Romney over a failed "Green Energy" business, and forget completely that "Green Energy" IS a failed business... Sounds good to me.
 
Let's see... Defend Obama over a failed "Green Energy" business, then Attack Romney over a failed "Green Energy" business, and forget completely that "Green Energy" IS a failed business... Sounds good to me.

Green energy is NOT a failed business. It's still in its infancy. If the U.S. doesn't compete, China and Asia will have it all. Solar is booming in China.
 
Green energy is NOT a failed business. It's still in its infancy. If the U.S. doesn't compete, China and Asia will have it all. Solar is booming in China.

I somewhat agree with you, but you have moved the goal posts from your original OP.
 

Forum List

Back
Top