Solyndra - Worthy of Its Own Thread

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

How about "not pick losers that can't pay back their loans"? :)

Nobody bats a thousand.

I agree with Masbee that the bigger issue is whether tax dollars (or dollars borrowed in the name of the American people) should be used to invest in private enterprise.

(And, yes, a loan is an investment even if it's not equity. There are expected returns and opportunity costs involved.)

Ed O.

Depends on how much of a globalist you are, I think. If you don't care whether a Chinese company or an American company wins, there's no reason to subsidize an American company. Hey, if the Chinese make a better solar cell, more power (ha ha) to them. Of course, the playing field isn't level, since the Chinese DO subsidize their solar companies...

It's the same issue as a state government here offering an incentive to build a plant in Oregon rather than New Mexico. If Oregon gives tax breaks to Intel to build a fab here, is it 'picking winners'? And if so, should it stop doing so, even if New Mexico doesn't stop? Is it better to be ideologically pure, or to have a new fab in Hillsboro?

barfo
 
business as usual...will we ever have leaders that arent slaves to outside interests?
 
Like I said, I like your plan. I've got no problem with it whatsoever.

But if you go asking why Obama didn't implement your plan instead of what he's currently doing, the answer is simple: he does not have the power to enact your plan.

barfo

You mean they have to pass the bill to find out what's in the plan.

Actually, he's never been the type of president who seems to have a plan.
 
You mean they have to pass the bill to find out what's in the plan.

Actually, he's never been the type of president who seems to have a plan.

Oh, is it non sequitur day? In that case. Libertarians are extremists, and Ron Paul is old.

barfo
 
Solyndra Employee: "Everyone Knew The Plant Wouldn't Work"

An ex-Solyndra employee calls in to the Mark Levin radio program: "While we were out there, while we were building it – cause it is a half a billion dollar plant – everyone already knew that China had developed a more inexpensive way to manufacture these solar panels. Everyone knew that the plant wouldn’t work. But they still did it. They still built it."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...yee_everyone_knew_the_plant_wouldnt_work.html
 
Of course the company was doomed to fail. It's selling a product that isn't very good, and at a price that's less than it costs to make.
 
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/09/solyndra-gets-more-scandalous/245130/

The worst bit is when the Federal Government agreed to suboordinate the public loan to try to save the company. The responsible move would have been to push it into bankruptcy and be first in line, but that looked bad politically. Now the Democratic bundler will get his money before the American taxpayer.

This isn't just a scandal; this is borderline criminal.
 
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/09/solyndra-gets-more-scandalous/245130/

The worst bit is when the Federal Government agreed to suboordinate the public loan to try to save the company. The responsible move would have been to push it into bankruptcy and be first in line, but that looked bad politically. Now the Democratic bundler will get his money before the American taxpayer.

This isn't just a scandal; this is borderline criminal.

And literally fascist.
 
What is most troubling about this, other than the loan that seemed guaranteed to default, is that OMB seemed more concerned about the 2012 elections than they did losing $535 million in taxpayer funds.

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-admin-ignored-warnings-solyndra-221851842.html

WASHINGTON (AP) — White House officials discussed the political ramifications of a possible default by a troubled solar energy company that received more than $500 million in federal loans, newly released emails show. Emails released Thursday night show that Obama administration privately worried about the effect of a default by Solyndra Inc. on the president's re-election campaign. "The optics of a Solyndra default will be bad," an official from the Office of Management and Budget wrote in a Jan. 31 email to a senior OMB official. "The timing will likely coincide with the 2012 campaign season heating up." The email, released by the House Energy and Commerce Committee as part of its investigation into the Solyndra loan, showed that Obama administration officials were concerned about Solyndra's financial health even as they publicly declared the solar panel maker in good shape.

The Silicon Valley company was the first renewable-energy company to receive a loan guarantee under the 2009 stimulus law, and the Obama administration frequently touted Solyndra as a model for its clean energy program. President Barack Obama visited the company's Fremont, Calif., headquarters last year.

Even as Obama praised the company's plans to hire more than 1,000 workers, warning signs were being sent from within the government and from outside analysts who questioned Solyndra's viability as a "going concern."

At least three reports by federal watchdogs over the past two years warned that the Energy Department had not fully developed the controls needed to manage the multibillion-dollar loan program that provided more the loan to Solyndra Inc., a now-bankrupt solar panel manufacturer.

Emails obtained by The Associated Press show that a White House official dismissed reports about Solyndra's gloomy future. An email from Greg Nelson, a White House official who had been involved in the planning of Obama's May 2010 trip to Solyndra's headquarters, to a Solyndra executive downplayed a July 2010 news story in a trade publication that criticized the company's financial health.

"Seems B.S.," Nelson wrote.



...continued at link...
 
After what the Obama Administration did to the GM bondholders (by stripping them of their legal rights), do you expect different?

So, you are in favor of bondholder rights in the case of GM, but against bondholder rights in the case of Solyndra?

barfo
 
So, you are in favor of bondholder rights in the case of GM, but against bondholder rights in the case of Solyndra?

barfo

What? I am confused. When did I say I was against bondholder rights?

And to be clear, I am not "for" bondholders, or "against" workers, or stockholders, or executives, etc.

I am for, the rule of law. The GM bailout/bankruptcy was not done according to established law (ie, the existing rules of the game). The losers were bondholders and taxpayers. The winners were the GM employees and unions and the current group of executives.
 
LOL barfo. The govt. picks losers and taxes the winners into the ground. Add to that the notion it can create wealth out of thin air by printing money and borrowing like it's going out of style -- you have a recipe for the new normal.

Lol, so true. What a disgrace.
 
Probably a wise idea for these execs to lawyer up prior to going under oath.

Nothing to see here ... move along now folks...

http://dailycaller.com/2011/09/20/solyndra-execs-to-plead-fifth-in-hearing/

The chief executive and chief financial officer of Solyndra will invoke their Fifth Amendment rights and decline to answer any questions at a congressional hearing on Friday.

According to letters obtained by Reuters, Solyndra attorneys have advised CEO Brian Harrison and CFO W. G. Stover to not testify at a hearing of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. (RELATED: Rahm Emanuel on Solyndra: I don’t remember)

“I have advised Mr. Harrison that he should decline to answer questions put to him by this subcommittee based on his rights under the Fifth Amendment,” Harrison’s attorney, Walter F. Brown Jr., wrote to the the committee. “This is not a decision arrived at lightly, but it is a decision dictated by current circumstances.”

The House Energy and Commerce Committee opened an investigation into Solyndra after the solar panel manufacturing company — which received a $535 million loan from the Department of Energy — announced it would be declaring bankruptcy earlier this month.
 
Solyndra Execs to Plead the Fifth Before Congress

It's reported the executives from Solyndra are going to plead the Fifth before Congress in order to not incriminate themselves. Why hide if you have nothing to hide?
 
Re: Solyndra Execs to Plead the Fifth Before Congress

well, it is their right...
 
Re: Solyndra Execs to Plead the Fifth Before Congress

well, it is their right...

Yes it is. And I suppose I can see why they might want to not say something that can be spun and even possibly bring lying to Congress charges. But when the collective group is hiding...
 
Re: Solyndra Execs to Plead the Fifth Before Congress

well, it is their right...

Probably a good move as well considering that there is a half-billions dollars that somehow got spent in under two years, and that doesn't even include the private investors who are first in line to get their money back. The execs can't claim executive privilege regarding all of their trips to the White House, either, so it's best to just say nothing and plead the fifth. It clearly leaves the impression that they're hiding something, but that's better than both a perjury charge and a potential fraud case against them.
 
Last edited:
what's the line? Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool (liar?) than to open it and remove all doubt.
 
what's the line? Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool (liar?) than to open it and remove all doubt.

Yep. There is nothing to be gained by these execs answering questions. It was kind of shitty of them to ask for another week to "prepare", and then renege on their promise to fully cooperate, but I'm sure their legal counsel told them they would be crazy to talk without an immunity deal protecting them from any potential legal issues arising from this bankruptcy.
 
what's the line? Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool (liar?) than to open it and remove all doubt.

Well, only a fool would open his mouth under oath when the whole point is to find incriminating testimony.
 
So Wall Street should not take gambles with our money, but Barry can? What a punk lol.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top