Investigators Probe White House Role in Massive Energy Loan

Karl · Sep 19, 2011

j-mac said:
[...] It was people like you that during the eight years of the Bush administration railed against Halliburton and the contracts they got to supply the troops as 'no bid', and tried to hang the yoke of 'crony capitalism' around the neck of Bush, even to the point of screaming that he and Cheney be "frog marched" out of the WH. [...]

It could be argued that the point of the war itself was to make money for Halliburton, or at least a prime reason. Alternative reasons for the war would be oil profiteering, again by companies like Halliburton (had the war gone the way that the neo-cons originally intended and we now had a puppet govt in Iraq with Exxon and Halliburton controlling the oil fields).

So... I'd suggest a different tack, since I doubt Obama invented solar power just to line the pockets of some monied supporter.

By the way, Fast and Furious appears to be an outgrowth of a Bush-era program:

The BATF began Project Gunrunner as a pilot project in Laredo, Texas, in 2005 and expanded it as a national initiative in 2006. Project Gunrunner is also part of the Department’s broader Southwest Border Initiative, which seeks to reduce cross-border drug and firearms trafficking and the high level of violence associated with these activities on both sides of the border.[2] However, multiple agents within the ATF (whistleblowers) have publicly stated they were ordered to allow assault-style weapons to sold to straw purchasers who then transported the weapons to Mexico to resell to Mexican drug cartels.[3]

Project Gunrunner - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Perhaps you can get Obama nailed on parking tickets....

teamosil · Sep 19, 2011

1Perry said:
If it meant nothing it wouldn't be in the news

LOL. You can't seriously believe that... That's mostly what the news reports- hype.

teamosil · Sep 19, 2011

j-mac said:
Why are you making the main capital venture raiser, George Kaiser, just some investor? You are down playing the importance of this man, all so you can ignore, and dismiss what this means pointing to the corruption of the current administration.

Maybe you're assuming that "Obama fundraiser" means something different than it does? A huge percentage of major businesspeople could be considered fundraisers for one of the presidential candidates, or even both. That one of the investors, even a major investor, is a fundraiser is not in any way unusual. Presumably that would always be the case with just about any company. It's just spin.

j-mac said:
It was people like you that during the eight years of the Bush administration railed against Halliburton and the contracts they got to supply the troops as 'no bid', and tried to hang the yoke of 'crony capitalism' around the neck of Bush, even to the point of screaming that he and Cheney be "frog marched" out of the WH. Now YOUR guy does the same thing in directing OUR money to his political friends, and you want to downplay it as 'ah well, everyone does it...' pathetic.

You're really going to compare Halliburton to a renewable energy company? Seriously, you don't see the world of difference between the two?

Regardless, look at the differences. Halliburton actually got their CEO to become Vice President of the United States. That is an infinitely stronger connection than that some investor raised some money for the president's campaign. Not even remotely in the same league.

Secondly, Halliburton and KBR got $20 BILLION in NO BID contracts. You can't possibly compare that to a LOAN for 2% of that amount that was awarded after a legitimate competitive process...

BWG · Sep 19, 2011

j-mac said:
....railed against Halliburton and the contracts they got to supply the troops as 'no bid',...

Speaking personally, my argument was against the ones that said they were the ONLY company that could do the job.

Sometimes knowing the capability and being comfortable with a company works best in some situations.

BWG · Sep 19, 2011

Karl said:
Alternative reasons for the war would be oil profiteering, again by companies like Halliburton (had the war gone the way that the neo-cons originally intended and we now had a puppet govt in Iraq with Exxon and Halliburton controlling the oil fields).

And some thought the 'war for oil' was to get them cheap gas...:lol:

Just because you're on their side, doesn't mean they're on your side.

1Perry · Sep 19, 2011

teamosil said:
LOL. You can't seriously believe that... That's mostly what the news reports- hype.

If it's nothing you shoudn't feel any need to try and defend or explain it.

Grant · Sep 19, 2011

Karl said:
Karl said:

It could be argued that the point of the war itself was to make money for Halliburton, or at least a prime reason.

Click to expand...

And it could be argued that sun could rise in the west tomorrow morning, but we know that this would be the ravings of a loon. Leftists will fire charges in every direction, hoping some of them might stick, but the more rational folk should realize the source and recognize these charges for what they are.

Alternative reasons for the war would be oil profiteering, again by companies like Halliburton (had the war gone the way that the neo-cons originally intended and we now had a puppet govt in Iraq with Exxon and Halliburton controlling the oil fields).

Click to expand...

So the war didn't go as intended? Did Barrack Obama make sure of that?

So... I'd suggest a different tack, since I doubt Obama invented solar power just to line the pockets of some monied supporter.

Click to expand...

With Al Gore inventing the Internet and Barrack Obama inventing solar power, it seems the Democrats are really are on a roll. In fact 'inventing' appears to be their strongest suit.

teamosil · Sep 19, 2011

1Perry said:
If it's nothing you shoudn't feel any need to try and defend or explain it.

You're playing silly games.

You're a giraffe
No I'm not
Then why are you denying it?

It's just weird koolaide drinker thinking. You assume the only reason somebody would deny something is because it is true, when obviously that is not a logical conclusion.

Karl · Sep 19, 2011

Grant said:
Karl said:

It could be argued that the point of the war itself was to make money for Halliburton, or at least a prime reason. [...]

Click to expand...

And it could be argued that sun could rise in the west tomorrow morning, but we know that this would be the ravings of a loon. [...]

Indeed it would. But are you insinuating that Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower is a loon?

On January 17, 1961, Eisenhower gave his final televised Address to the Nation from the Oval Office.[80] In his farewell speech to the nation, Eisenhower raised the issue of the Cold War and role of the U.S. armed forces. He described the Cold War saying: "We face a hostile ideology global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose and insidious in method..." and warned about what he saw as unjustified government spending proposals and continued with a warning that "...we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military–industrial complex." Though he said that "we recognize the imperative need for this development", he cautioned that "...the potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist... Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."

Dwight D. Eisenhower - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Grant · Sep 20, 2011

Karl said:
Karl said:

Indeed it would. But are you insinuating that Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower is a loon?

Click to expand...

Eisenhower said the war was to make money for Haliburton? You have communicated with him on this issue?

Gill · Sep 20, 2011

teamosil said:
You're playing silly games.

You're a giraffe
No I'm not
Then why are you denying it?

It's just weird koolaide drinker thinking. You assume the only reason somebody would deny something is because it is true, when obviously that is not a logical conclusion.

And you are denying the obvious.

Two months before Obama’s visit, accounting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP warned that Solyndra, the recipient of $535 million in federal loan guarantees, had financial troubles deep enough to “raise substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern.”

The Obama administration stood by Solyndra through the auditor’s warning, the abandonment of a planned initial public offering and a last-ditch refinancing where taxpayers took a back seat to new investors. That unwavering commitment has come under increasing scrutiny since the company’s travails culminated in its filing for bankruptcy protection on Sept. 6 and a raid on its headquarters by the Federal Bureau of Investigation….

Obama Team Backed $535 Million Solyndra Aid as Auditor Warned on Finances - Bloomberg

and...

In addition, as Andrew Stiles relates, OMB had figured out that there was no economic sense in restructuring: Solyndra was heading for bankruptcy anyway, and an immediate liquidation would net the government a better deal — about $170 million better. The case for leaving things where they stood was so palpable that OMB openly feared “questions will be asked” if DOE proceeded with an unjustifiable restructuring. So, with numbing predictability, the Obama administration proceeded with an unjustifiable restructuring. In exchange for lending some of their own money and thus buying more time, Solyndra officials were given priority over taxpayers with respect to the first $75 million in the event of a bankruptcy — the event all the insiders and government officials could see coming from the start, and that hit the rest of us like a $535 [m]illion thunderbolt last week.

The Solyndra Fraud - Andrew C. McCarthy - National Review Online

and....

“Solyndra’s downfall puts a spotlight on the kind of taxpayer-funded cronyism this White House said it would eliminate. After bundling tens of thousands of dollars for President Obama and his campaign, company officials were granted at least 20 visits to the White House and had Energy Department officials sitting in on company board meetings,” said Priebus last week.

Read more: Smith asks DOJ to probe Solyndra - Tim Mak - POLITICO.com

teamosil · Sep 20, 2011

Gill said:
And you are denying the obvious.

Huh? That's just a bunch of links explaining that they were high risk. That isn't a scandal or something. That's the point of government backed loans- to try to prop up companies that the market won't on its own.

Gill · Sep 20, 2011

teamosil said:
Huh? That's just a bunch of links explaining that they were high risk. That isn't a scandal or something. That's the point of government backed loans- to try to prop up companies that the market won't on its own.

So it's the government's business to pay out a half of billion dollars to companies with no chance of survival ????

You must be in the Obama administration, or at least a high ranking democrat.

teamosil · Sep 20, 2011

Gill said:
So it's the government's business to pay out a half of billion dollars to companies with no chance of survival ????

That's a policy question. You're certainly free to say no. I would say no in most situations, but I think renewable energy is such an essential national interest that it is worth taking some risks. Either way, that's not a scandal. That isn't unethical or something. It's just a policy disagreement.

Karl · Sep 21, 2011

Gill said:
So it's the government's business to pay out a half of billion dollars to companies with no chance of survival ???? [...]

Generally speaking, it is the business of gov't guaranteed loans to provide money to businesses that would otherwise be unable to obtain it via usual commercial lending.

Now that I've aired that well-known fact, the only thing the detractors have to work with is that the loan was supposedly restructured to put private investors ahead of the gov't (taxpayers). There is perhaps some usable scandal in that, if the right can resist their inherent impulse to contaminate their case with hyperbole.

Grant · Sep 21, 2011

Karl said:
Generally speaking, it is the business of gov't guaranteed loans to provide money to businesses that would otherwise be unable to obtain it via usual commercial lending.

Now that I've aired that well-known fact, the only thing the detractors have to work with is that the loan was supposedly restructured to put private investors ahead of the gov't (taxpayers). There is perhaps some usable scandal in that, if the right can resist their inherent impulse to contaminate their case with hyperbole.

I certainly hope it's not the sort of hyperbole that suggested Dwight Eisenhower felt the reason for the Iraq War was in order to make money for Haliburton.
Government should not be in the loan guaranteeing business.

The possibility that this practice might lead to bad loans, risky ventures, vast bureaucratization, crony capitalism or wide-spread corruption, seems to have been overlooked by the leftists.

teamosil · Sep 21, 2011

Grant said:
I certainly hope it's not the sort of hyperbole that suggested Dwight Eisenhower felt the reason for the Iraq War was in order to make money for Haliburton.
Government should not be in the loan guaranteeing business.

The possibility that this practice might lead to bad loans, risky ventures, vast bureaucratization, crony capitalism or wide-spread corruption, seems to have been overlooked by the leftists.

You can't simultaneously be mad at Obama for not making more private sectors jobs and at the same time be mad at him for efforts to create private sector jobs. You gotta pick one.

Now, in general, I think government loans to businesses should be very rare and only used when there is a really strong justification. But this is a two-fer. Developing a strong renewable energy sector is absolutely crucial to our national interests and we're in the midst of an unemployment problem. I think that loans to stimulate growth and hiring in the renewable energy sector right now is about the strongest case you're ever going to see for government loans to private companies. If our economy was booming, I would oppose it. If the loans were going to just random businesses, I would oppose it. But when you have both those interests aligned and you're both getting the immediate return of jobs today and securing our economic prospects for tomorrow, I think that's a good investment. Does it carry risk? Of course. It's an emerging market. That's the whole point, to push the boundary and get out in front. That means some of the companies will go bankrupt, but some of them will become the next generation's GE. That's just how it works. You don't win every bet you put down on the table, but if you're betting on the right sector, you win in the long run, and renewable energy is clearly the right sector.

1Perry · Sep 21, 2011

teamosil said:
You're playing silly games.

You're a giraffe
No I'm not
Then why are you denying it?

It's just weird koolaide drinker thinking. You assume the only reason somebody would deny something is because it is true, when obviously that is not a logical conclusion.

I said no such thing. I said that if it's nothing you have no reason to try and explain it.

teamosil · Sep 21, 2011

1Perry said:
I said no such thing. I said that if it's nothing you have no reason to try and explain it.

You're a giraffe
No I'm not
Then why are you denying it?

Gill · Sep 21, 2011

teamosil said:
That's a policy question. You're certainly free to say no. I would say no in most situations, but I think renewable energy is such an essential national interest that it is worth taking some risks. Either way, that's not a scandal. That isn't unethical or something. It's just a policy disagreement.

It most certainly is NOT a policy question. Is it a policy question if a Republican Senator channels 1/2 billion dollars to a company with majority ownership from a major campaign contributor that has already been declared a failure by a respectable accounting firm??? Is it a policy question if the government rules that the majority ownership, including the aforementioned major campaign contributor gets their money back before taxpayers??? Is it a policy question if the company ownership, including the aforementioned major campaign contributor make 20 trips to plead their case??

Here's the facts:

1. Solyndra asked the Bush administration for money but were turned down.
2. Solyndra wanted to go public to increase capital because they were bleeding money faster than they could find it.
3. A review was required before the public offering. PriceWaterhouseCooper concluded that “The company has suffered recurring losses from operations, negative cash flows since inception, and has a net stockholders’ deficit,”
4. Obama campaign contributors pleaded with the administration to bail them out in multiple visits to the White House.
5. Obama game them the $500 million loan guarantee.
6. The OMB recommended immediate liquidation because that would net the taxpayers $175 million more than if the company was restructured.
7. Obama ignored the OMB and proceeded with restructuring.
8. Resulting in his campaign contributors being given priority over taxpayers in recouping their money.

It is the duty of government officials and employees to protect taxpayers' money. Obama and his minions protected their campaign contributors.

This WILL turn into a major scandal and could be the end for him. There's also another scandal brewing about one of his contributors trying to market a system that interfered with gps signals and the administration tried to talk a general into lying about its affects.

Grant · Sep 21, 2011

teamosil said:
You can't simultaneously be mad at Obama for not making more private sectors jobs and at the same time be mad at him for efforts to create private sector jobs. You gotta pick one.

I'm not mad at him at all. He is clearly incompetent, of questionable character, and in a situation well over his head. But it was a majority of the American people who voted for him, a man of no worthwhile experience whatsoever, who bear the ultimate blame for electing him. What could they seriously expect?

Now, in general, I think government loans to businesses should be very rare and only used when there is a really strong justification.

I can not ever see justification.

But this is a two-fer. Developing a strong renewable energy sector is absolutely crucial to our national interests and we're in the midst of an unemployment problem.

The private sector has been working on the problem, just as they have always done. Why should they get money from the government when, if they are successful, they will be justifiably be rewarded for their efforts?

I think that loans to stimulate growth and hiring in the renewable energy sector right now is about the strongest case you're ever going to see for government loans to private companies. If our economy was booming, I would oppose it. If the loans were going to just random businesses, I would oppose it. But when you have both those interests aligned and you're both getting the immediate return of jobs today and securing our economic prospects for tomorrow, I think that's a good investment. Does it carry risk? Of course. It's an emerging market. That's the whole point, to push the boundary and get out in front. That means some of the companies will go bankrupt, but some of them will become the next generation's GE. That's just how it works. You don't win every bet you put down on the table, but if you're betting on the right sector, you win in the long run, and renewable energy is clearly the right sector.

That's great in theory and I've heard that well meaning argument hundreds of times, but inevitable greed, corrupton, and cronyism comes into play. Thats just what 'free' government money does. It has a corrupting influence on all society when its being doled out by bureacracies to political favorites and oet causes.

Naturally if you are not going to drill for oil or build pipelines, there is going to be an energy crisis looming but it will be of your own making. There is no reason why looking for alternative sources for energy and drilling for oil and building pipelines can't be dome simultaneously.

I tend to be suspicious of this 'energy crisis' thing anyway, and that it is largely being manufactured. We can see already that millions of dollars, borrowed dollars, with nothing to show for it, has changed hands. Just grand announcements and then disillusionment.

Grant · Sep 21, 2011

Gill said:
This WILL turn into a major scandal and could be the end for him. There's also another scandal brewing about one of his contributors trying to market a system that interfered with gps signals and the administration tried to talk a general into lying about its affects.

While what you say is absolutely true but it is unlikely that the mainstream media will report this at any great length. And his fans will support him no matter what he does.

Boo Radley · Sep 21, 2011

Grant said:
While what you say is absolutely true but it is unlikely that the mainstream media will report this at any great length. And his fans will support him no matter what he does.

As the media has reported this now, as it is warranted, there is no reason to believe they won't report any findings. Now, you may HOPE it is more, but no one can honestly report that it is more until it actually is. But don't worry, political entertainers are all to often willing to make the leaps you want and you are quite free to eat that up.

:coffeepap

teamosil · Sep 21, 2011

Grant said:
I'm not mad at him at all. He is clearly incompetent

Well, whatever you want to call it. You can't simultaneously argue that not creating jobs is incompetence and at the same time argue that creating jobs is incompetence. You need to pick one.

Grant said:
The private sector has been working on the problem, just as they have always done. Why should they get money from the government when, if they are successful, they will be justifiably be rewarded for their efforts?

The private sector isn't the right tool for all tasks. Private companies look at next quarter profits almost exclusively. Sometimes particularly long sighted ones look a year out. Renewable energy returns are farther out than that, so the private sector isn't as interested as the opportunity merits.

Grant said:
That's great in theory and I've heard that well meaning argument hundreds of times, but inevitable greed, corrupton, and cronyism comes into play. Thats just what 'free' government money does. It has a corrupting influence on all society when its being doled out by bureacracies to political favorites and oet causes.

Can I ask, were you proportionally more upset by the money given to Halliburton and KBR? They had a much, much, closer tie to the administration and received radically more money. And that money was in the form of no-bid contracts instead of loans, which is obviously much worse.

Grant said:
I tend to be suspicious of this 'energy crisis' thing anyway, and that it is largely being manufactured. We can see already that millions of dollars, borrowed dollars, with nothing to show for it, has changed hands. Just grand announcements and then disillusionment.

The views of scientists and experts are a more reliable source of information than the gut feelings of a poster on the internet with no actual information about the topic, so your suspicion doesn't change my views.

teamosil · Sep 21, 2011

Gill said:
Solyndra asked the Bush administration for money but were turned down.

Indeed. The Bush administrations abject failure to tackle what is obviously the primary problem we need to be addressing over the next 20 years if we're going to remain a first world country is appalling. They did practically nothing to progress towards a solution despite the fact that the clock is rapidly ticking down.

Gill said:
2. Solyndra wanted to go public to increase capital because they were bleeding money faster than they could find it.
3. A review was required before the public offering. PriceWaterhouseCooper concluded that “The company has suffered recurring losses from operations, negative cash flows since inception, and has a net stockholders’ deficit,”
4. Obama campaign contributors pleaded with the administration to bail them out in multiple visits to the White House.
5. Obama game them the $500 million loan guarantee.
6. The OMB recommended immediate liquidation because that would net the taxpayers $175 million more than if the company was restructured.
7. Obama ignored the OMB and proceeded with restructuring.
8. Resulting in his campaign contributors being given priority over taxpayers in recouping their money.

I don't think you understand the purpose here. This wasn't a money making gambit for the federal government... The government is trying to push renewable energy along FASTER than the market would on its own. Just behaving like a private sector investment firm obviously wouldn't accomplish that, right?