Nocera's take on Solyndra

ladyliberal

Progressive Princess
Joined
Aug 5, 2011
Messages
1,253
Reaction score
291
Points
48
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.
 

WillowTree

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2008
Messages
84,440
Reaction score
15,921
Points
2,180
The Phony Solyndra Scandal












Really? it's Phoney? Our 585 million taxpayer dollars aren't missing? Oh well.. who the fuck knew?













:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
 

boedicca

Uppity Water Nymph
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
55,542
Reaction score
17,552
Points
2,250
Location
The Land of Funk
Nocera is just carrying water for the Obama Administration.

Solyndra is a steaming pile of Obama Cronyism...and its wasteful and corrupt "Venture Socialism".
 
Last edited:

bitterlyclingin

Silver Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2011
Messages
3,116
Reaction score
423
Points
98
Nice unbiased publication there, the NYT. Was this the same newspaper that refused to halt their publication of Eric Lichtblau's and Mathew Riesens articles on the NSA Electronic Surveillance and the Terrorist Money Laundering programs when the Bush Administration pleaded with them not to? I thought so. Earlier in the day I tossed in a post about a Joe Walsh statement indicating that the Liberal Press was about to undertake a massive program to salvage their idol, This Socialist Wet Dream, from suffering any untoward effects of this bevy of scandals plaguing his administration. AP lead off with a puff piece about how his Socialist policies are caring for the unemployed recent graduates, conveniently ignoring the fact that the grads aren't able to find a job precisely because of his policies. Now we have the NYT looking under any and all rocks to find some silver linings with Solyndra. Its interesting that everybody involved in Solyndra, from George Kaiser on down, the officials in the energy department that approved the loans, and the Solyndra execs themselves were all contributors to the Democratic Party. Its just the Chicago way of governing. Too bad they couldn't find the same trail with Enron. They salivated then as if they had, though.
 

Gallagher

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2011
Messages
146
Reaction score
41
Points
46
Location
Boston, MA
The NYT? I think this clip says it succinctly...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8WFMKrP-PE]Obama's Hot Money - YouTube[/ame]
 

oreo

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2008
Messages
18,102
Reaction score
2,921
Points
290
Location
rocky mountains
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.
The FBI should be raiding the oval office as far as I am concerned. This loan was obviously made-WITHOUT following-standard protocol--access to the oval office was unprecedented--and what the taxpayers ended up with was a 535 MILLION dollar photo opt for Barack Obama and Joe Biden in a solar plant.

The e-mails are stacking up--and the fingers are pointing right at this administration--when the prior administration--under G.W. Bush denied this loan based on solid financial information.

$APOLLOBAMA.jpg


The cracks in these Greek columns are crumbling.
 
Last edited:

Charles_Main

AR15 Owner
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
16,692
Reaction score
2,248
Points
88
Location
Michigan, USA
What I liked was how the Obama defenders when this story first broke. Tried to blame it on Bush. Claiming the Loan "process" was started under Bush.

They were right, it was. It was started under Bush. The Bush administration was given the same advice by the same people about the loan as Obama was. Bush decided to first stall, and finally DENY their application. Obama was told this Company would fold, even with our loan, By September of this year. He ignored it all because he wanted an example of "stimulus" in action creating green Jobs. He pushed this through, and basically tossed half a billion dollars down the shitter, So he could grand stand from the Place and make a speech.

Then of course there is the Campaign Donations, and all that access to Obama some of the Executives had and made.

It is hilarious watching you Libs trying and cover for this absolute disaster of a President. If this same loan had been made with a Republican President, and that Republican President had ignored advice and pushed a loan though to reward big Donors, and give himself a place to make a speech from. Democrats would all be calling for his impeachment and prosecution.

Such a shameless bunch of Hypocrites you Libs are. Obama's hands are dirty on this, and you know it.
 
Last edited:

FA_Q2

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
19,053
Reaction score
3,237
Points
290
Location
Washington State
-- The government has a role to play in investing in risky new technology
Sure it does but in this case it was not investing in technology at all, it was investing in a company. If the government is going to invest in the advancement of science then it needs to do so separate from private enterprise. Private companies need to take those discoveries and make them profitable on their own but this is a case of political buyoffs NOT investment in technology.
 

OohPooPahDoo

Gold Member
Joined
May 11, 2011
Messages
15,347
Reaction score
985
Points
175
Location
N'Awlins Mid-City
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.
 

The Rabbi

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
67,602
Reaction score
7,864
Points
1,840
Location
Nashville
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

.
No one is going to jail. Yet. With execs taking the 5th you have to think something is up.
What role does the gov't have to play in risky new technology? Does pumping $500M into a private company count? I don't think so. I think such expenditures are unconstitutional.
Everyone facing a scandal says 1) this is old news. 2) this is merely partisan politics. 3) Everyone does it.

The most charitable view of this situation is that the Obama White House is hopelessly inept and grossly negligent. That's the most charitable view. After that it becomes a criminal matter of bribery.
 

The Rabbi

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
67,602
Reaction score
7,864
Points
1,840
Location
Nashville
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.
I thought the Left was always complaining about how the gov't bailed out the "banksters". Does bailing out the techsters make it any better?
 

The Rabbi

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
67,602
Reaction score
7,864
Points
1,840
Location
Nashville
I thought the Left was always complaining about how the gov't bailed out the "banksters".
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.
 

editec

Mr. Forgot-it-All
Joined
Jun 5, 2008
Messages
41,421
Reaction score
5,660
Points
48
Location
Maine
All I know to date is that Solyndra claimed to be solvent before they took that money.

Now they're insolvent?

Something's not right, that's for damned sure.
 

bitterlyclingin

Silver Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2011
Messages
3,116
Reaction score
423
Points
98
(Solyndra: Obama's Marble Boat)

"The dowager empress of China, Cixi, famously took the admiralty funds intended for building up an Imperial Admiralty and used them to construct a boat carved of marble on the shore of Kumming Lake for her amusement and the pleasure of her royal entourage. The embezzlement was condoned by the controller of the Admiralty, despite the disadvantage to the nation, because he owed his position to Cixi.

Solyndra is Obama's equivalent of the Marble Boat. It represents, we think, what may be the largest in a series of enormous federal expenditures to Obama's friends and supporters for their benefit and to buy him votes, with others deluded into thinking that traditional energy is too destructive of the planet and too cheap for our own good. Just as Cixi's marble boat impoverished China and placed it at risk, the foolish actions of this administration impoverish us and place us at risk. But the optics

To the left, which includes the president and many of his staunchest supporters, fossil fuels are a "source of 'death and destruction.'"

This plays into the hands of the Middle East oil producers. An outfit called Ethical Oil has exposed the ridiculous thinking behind those who are fighting Canadian oil sand production and transmission to the U.S. Ethical Oil created an ad that explains that the choice for consumers is not no oil; on the contrary, it is between ethical oil -- that is, oil produced in Canada -- or unethical oil produced in Saudia Arabia, an ad whose truth so roiled the Saudis that they tried to halt its continued airing.

Correctly, The National Post observed:

The reality is that the oil they love to hate makes modern civilization possible. The world is not going to end its dependence on fossil fuels any time soon, indeed, until other forms of energy are price-competitive. This will only happen when oil becomes too expensive, either due to scarcity or the invention of a cheaper (read: non-subsidized) form of alternative energy.

Until that happens, the ethical thing to do is not to eschew all fossil fuels, but to make choices between their sources, just as we have done with other products"

Articles: Solyndra: Obama's Marble Boat
 

naturegirl

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2011
Messages
4,416
Reaction score
871
Points
153
Location
NW Georgia
If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck...........well you know the rest.

Let's see, if they decide to call it something else, you know like a jobs bill instead of a stimulus, would it still be a duck???

Looks like 0bama and company can't duck this one. :D
 

bitterlyclingin

Silver Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2011
Messages
3,116
Reaction score
423
Points
98
(President Solyndra)

"The spectacular collapse of Solyndra has all of the trappings of an epic Washington scandal, with serial revelations of embarrassing and potentially improper White House machinations to secure a $535 million federal loan guarantee for a startup company with dubious prospects of success. The sudden bankruptcy of the Fremont, California, manufacturer of solar panels​—​after it was feted as a model creator of “green jobs” by President Obama and Vice President Biden​—​has already featured FBI raids, contentious congressional hearings, and demands for a special prosecutor to investigate. The plot thickened further last week when Solyndra’s two top executives, who made 20 trips to the White House while their loan application was under consideration, invoked the Fifth Amendment rather than answer questions from the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

Hey, it looks creditworthy to me: Obama tours Solyndra, May 2010.

NEWSCOM

Even if the administration eventually escapes any finding of legal wrongdoing, Solyndra threatens to haunt the green energy campaign in much the same way that the collapse of Lincoln Savings became the emblem of the savings and loan industry’s recklessness in the 1980s. The Solyndra story includes Obama campaign donors and everybody’s favorite Wall Street whipping boy, Goldman Sachs, in the middle of the whole sorry mess. Yet it would be a mistake to mark the story down as merely another excrescence of crony capitalism

The green energy lobby is probably hoping that Solyndra’s failure can be portrayed as an isolated case of illegal influence, lest it cast a shadow over the entire edifice of massive subsidies that green energy requires to survive. But Solyndra is merely the most spectacular of several recent green energy failures. And beyond the domain of green energy, the Solyndra fiasco is emblematic of the Obama administration’s economic philosophy, which harks back to the mid-20th-century hubris of state-planned enterprise. It is also fair to note that the origins of this fiasco predate the Obama administration, and illustrate the continuing incoherence and wishful thinking of U.S. energy policy.

Here’s what we know so far: Solyndra was founded in 2005 on the concept that lightweight, high-efficiency thin-film solar panels in a unique tubular design could compete effectively with traditional silicon-based flat panels. Thin-film solar is the energy equivalent of thin-thigh diets​—​dazzling results are always promised but seldom delivered. Still, the high price of silicon solar panels at the time, along with $78 million in initial capital from several investors, including the Walton family (of Walmart fame) and George Kaiser, an Oklahoma energy billionaire and subsequent donor to the 2008 Obama campaign, were enough to get the company up and running in 2006. At roughly the same time, Congress passed and President George W. Bush signed the Energy Policy Act of 2005, another in a long series of energy acts that essentially gave a little to “all of the above” on everyone’s wish list. One section of the law created a new loan guarantee program in the Department of Energy “to support innovative clean energy technologies that are typically unable to obtain conventional private financing due to high technology risks.” In other words, it was intended to back projects too unpromising for the marketplace.

Solyndra came knocking at the DOE’s loan office in December 2006 asking for a loan guarantee to enable it to build a brand new manufacturing facility in Fremont. (The loan amount requested in the initial application has been redacted from the publicly available documents.) This was only a few weeks after the DOE announced the program but before Congress had appropriated funds and before DOE had even begun the formal rule-making process for the program. DOE didn’t issue the final regulations until October 2007, so the due diligence process for Solyndra and every other applicant spilled over into 2008. DOE’s main interest with the loan program at that time was in pushing nuclear power technology and improvements to the electricity grid. So Solyndra’s application proceeded slowly. Meanwhile, Solyndra raised another $144 million in private capital during 2008.

In the closing days of the Bush administration in January 2009, the Department of Energy tried to get the Solyndra loan through the Office of Management and Budget’s review, but the OMB team found Solyndra’s application insufficient. OMB “remanded” the application back to DOE for further review and modification. As when the Supreme Court remands a case to lower courts for reconsideration, this step is usually tantamount to killing the application."

President Solyndra | The Weekly Standard
 

editec

Mr. Forgot-it-All
Joined
Jun 5, 2008
Messages
41,421
Reaction score
5,660
Points
48
Location
Maine
I thought the Left was always complaining about how the gov't bailed out the "banksters".
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?
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top