• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Investigators Probe White House Role in Massive Energy Loan

Boo Radley said:
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
Click to expand...

A few posts back there is a poster making the claim that the dishonesty, and incompetence, is a "policy" question.

This is presented as fact despite all the evidence to the contrary. Now isn't time you and others began asking why this is so? Why there is not only a willingness to defend political chicanery and corruption but to define it as 'policy'?

If there was an honest media in the US this sort of corruption would be trumpeted from every street corner and governments might be forced to be honest again. And at the very least they would not be re-elected and in the best case scenario is they they were put behind bars.
 
teamosil said:
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.
Click to expand...

Ahhh, so it is Bush's fault that he did not jump at the chance to throw taxpayer's money down the drain...........

What took you so long ???

Idon'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?
Click to expand...

Oh, I understand completely. You on the other hand don't have a clue. It is NOT the role of government to wantonly waste taxpayers money. In fact there are laws against it.

You are right about one thing........it was NOT a money making gambit by Obama and his crew, it was a vote and campaign money ploy that has now backfired in their face. They will now have to face the music. I can't wait to see your response when indictments begin to be handed down.
 
Grant said:
A few posts back there is a poster making the claim that the dishonesty, and incompetence, is a "policy" question.

This is presented as fact despite all the evidence to the contrary. Now isn't time you and others began asking why this is so? Why there is not only a willingness to defend political chicanery and corruption but to define it as 'policy'?

If there was an honest media in the US this sort of corruption would be trumpeted from every street corner and governments might be forced to be honest again. And at the very least they would not be re-elected and in the best case scenario is they they were put behind bars.
Click to expand...

Please, media loves a good scandle. Always has and always will. No difference here. You also see through the biased lense of your own eye. You want to see the worse, and so you will, unless of course it is with your guy.
 
Gill said:
Ahhh, so it is Bush's fault that he did not jump at the chance to throw taxpayer's money down the drain...........

What took you so long ???
Click to expand...

It is largely Bush's fault that we're 8 years behind where we should be today in energy policy, yeah.

Gill said:
Oh, I understand completely. You on the other hand don't have a clue. It is NOT the role of government to wantonly waste taxpayers money. In fact there are laws against it.
Click to expand...

Wantonly waste? It's a program designed to jump start the renewable energy sector and boost jobs. That isn't a waste. Obviously not every company will succeed... And that certainly is not illegal. In fact, the program IS A LAW. It was passed by Congress and whatnot... Not sure where you're getting the idea that to try to jump start a sector that is obviously key to our national interest is illegal...
 
Last edited:
teamosil said:
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.
Click to expand...

Explain how giving a half billion dollars to an already established company that is going down the crapper, creates jobs.
 
1Perry said:
Explain how giving a half billion dollars to an already established company that is going down the crapper, creates jobs.
Click to expand...

Well, even in this worst case scenario it would have keep the company afloat for more months, meaning more jobs. $500 million more was paid to people in salaries who in turn spent it on things which required employees to make those things. But, this is the worst case scenario. You can't judge the whole program just based on the one worst case outcome obviously.
 
teamosil said:
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.
Click to expand...

Where were the jobs created? Handing out money to individuals is no more creating jobs than is giving out food stamps. They are both net drains on the public treasury.


The private sector isn't the right tool for all tasks. Private companies look at next quarter profits almost exclusively.
Click to expand...

While the government is in the business of losing money. They know how to spend but that's where their talents end. They do not contribute to the public wealth.
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.
Click to expand...

the government is hobbling the private sector in drilling for oil, importing and refining oil. Barrack Obama has said he'll spend money on roads and bridges but where will th gas come from? Over 20,000 full time jobs are being lost because of the Administrators stalling of an oil pipeline,
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.
Click to expand...

These companies were being paid for their services. What services did Solyndra render?
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.
Click to expand...

My suspicions? It seems very clear what happened. Where is there any dispute in the facts?
 
teamosil said:
Well, even in this worst case scenario it would have keep the company afloat for more months, meaning more jobs. $500 million more was paid to people in salaries who in turn spent it on things which required employees to make those things. But, this is the worst case scenario. You can't judge the whole program just based on the one worst case outcome obviously.
Click to expand...

Perhaps the ideal stimulus program would be for the government to give everyone in the United States one million dollars. This wealth would be spread around the nation, everyone would be spending it on cars, clothing, fine foods etc. and the economy would recover. Do you see anything wrong with this plan?
 
samsmart said:
A year or two ago I did a Google search for no-bid government contracts. At especially the state and local levels you will find both Democrats and Republicans criticizing both Republicans and Democrats for committing crony capitalism.

And everybody doing nothing but pointing fingers at the other party for the kickbacks they dole out to their own corporate patrons does little to actually address the problems of this issue.
Click to expand...
Democrats complain the most loudly about the largest no-bid contract awarded...a little firm known as Haliburton. Contract awarded of course by that evil republican...Bill Clinton.
 
teamosil said:
Well, even in this worst case scenario it would have keep the company afloat for more months, meaning more jobs. $500 million more was paid to people in salaries who in turn spent it on things which required employees to make those things. But, this is the worst case scenario. You can't judge the whole program just based on the one worst case outcome obviously.
Click to expand...

Based upon what the government knew, this was an obvious "no". They were told that this company was a poor risk......but let's argue it anyway.....Let's say someone in the government decides they really believe in this company and is willing to help them. Now this company is basically bankrupt already. They are going down. Their only hope (even if very slim) is for a taxpayer bail out. In that case, the interests of the taxpayers must ALWAYS be placed first.

If the "investors" balk at that, fine, file bankruptcy.
 
VanceMack said:
Democrats complain the most loudly about the largest no-bid contract awarded...a little firm known as Haliburton. Contract awarded of course by that evil republican...Bill Clinton.
Click to expand...

Bush did more than his fair share of that also.
 
BWG said:
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.
Click to expand...
When IDIQs are awarded they are first offered for a general bid. The government doesnt contact contract bidders...they place the IDIQ requirement out for companies to bid against. The government uses IDIQs on a very regular basis.
 
1Perry said:
Bush did more than his fair share of that also.
Click to expand...
IDIQs are in place and have been for quite a while. They are usually used when there isnt enough time to walk new contracts through the contracting and bid process. They awarded for government convenience...not for the business convenience.
 
VanceMack said:
IDIQs are in place and have been for quite a while. They are usually used when there isnt enough time to walk new contracts through the contracting and bid process. They awarded for government convenience...not for the business convenience.
Click to expand...

Absolutely correct. IDIQ contracts have been used by all government agencies for many years under both Dems and Republicans. They are indispensable. I get a huge laugh when liberals start crying about "no bid contracts" because its obvious they don't have a clue how they work. Like you said, they are always bid out to as many qualified firms as want to place bids.
 
VanceMack said:
IDIQs are in place and have been for quite a while. They are usually used when there isnt enough time to walk new contracts through the contracting and bid process. They awarded for government convenience...not for the business convenience.
Click to expand...

I don't believe it. It's the excuse the government gives. But all the same.......Bush did his fair share of it.
 
1Perry said:
I don't believe it. It's the excuse the government gives. But all the same.......Bush did his fair share of it.
Click to expand...
Dont care if you believ it or not. Its a reality. Do you realize how much it COSTS the US taxpayer is you have to bid out every job as opposed to having in-place IDIQs? Many of those IDIQs are used for the 30-60k$ jobs that come up on federal installations on a daily basis. If you follow a contracting process you have to write a proposal, submit it, rework it. Contracting office reviews. Site visits. Engineering designs and reviews. Printing costs. Proposal. Bid reviews. Alibis and second site visits. Contract award. 3-5 months later and thousands of manhours later, you have awarded a contract to have 65 feet of 72 strand fiber, trenching costs, hardware, cable trays, incidentals, etc. Its cost you around 60k$ to award a 20k$ contract. And you still have to pay the 20k$. Major facility construction takes years to work through that process.

Imagine that on a grand scale. Imagine a separate contract for every building. Every road. Every new job (you cant bundle jobs...every single job has to go through a separate contracting process. Any project over 750k$ requires a CONZGRESSIONAL approval and oversight. Any major revision or modification that adds to the cost has to be stopped, REsubmitted to congress for review and approval. Use that snapshot and rebuild Serbia. Rebuild New Orleans. Rebuild Afghnaistan. Rebuild Iraq. You think your costs are high now? You think there are delays?

OH...By the way...when you independently bid EACH job you have to factor in EACH company and their separate administartive costs including travel, clearances, billeting, insurance, etc.

There IS a reason why they do what they do.
 
Last edited:
VanceMack said:
Dont care if you believ it or not. Its a reality. Do you realize how much it COSTS the US taxpayer is you have to bid out every job as opposed to having in-place IDIQs? Many of those IDIQs are used for the 30-60k$ jobs that come up on federal installations on a daily basis. If you follow a contracting process you have to write a proposal, submit it, rework it. Contracting office reviews. Site visits. Engineering designs and reviews. Printing costs. Proposal. Bid reviews. Alibis and second site visits. Contract award. 3-5 months later and thousands of manhours later, you have awarded a contract to have 65 feet of 72 strand fiber, trenching costs, hardware, cable trays, incidentals, etc. Its cost you around 60k$ to award a 20k$ contract. And you still have to pay the 20k$.

Imagine that on a grand scale. Imagine a separate contract for every building. Every road. Every new job (you cant bundle jobs...every single job has to go through a separate contracting process. Any project over 750k$ requires a CONZGRESSIONAL approval and oversight. Any major revision or modification that adds to the cost has to be stopped, REsubmitted to congress for review and approval. Use that snapshot and rebuild Serbia. Rebuild New Orleans. Rebuild Afghnaistan. Rebuild Iraq. You think your costs are high now? You think there are delays?

OH...By the way...when you independently bid EACH job you have to factor in EACH company and their separate administartive costs including travel, clearances, billeting, insurance, etc.

There IS a reason why they do what they do.
Click to expand...

Halliburton was granted huge no bid contracts. Not 30-60k contracts. Multi millions. They were slapped on the wrist over and over for screwing over the government and then still granted more and more no bid contracts.

That it no way saved taxpayers anything. We would not be having this discussion if the problem was the government awarding a company a no bid contract to install new signs at the Washington monument.
 
1Perry said:
Based upon what the government knew, this was an obvious "no". They were told that this company was a poor risk......but let's argue it anyway.....Let's say someone in the government decides they really believe in this company and is willing to help them. Now this company is basically bankrupt already. They are going down. Their only hope (even if very slim) is for a taxpayer bail out. In that case, the interests of the taxpayers must ALWAYS be placed first.

If the "investors" balk at that, fine, file bankruptcy.
Click to expand...

Again, you don't seem to understand the point of the program. It is to boost the renewable energy sector BEYOND what private sector investors would do. The hope is that they give them a loan, they round a corner and investors take over from there. To make it a less attractive investment for private investors would be the opposite of what they're trying to do.
 
Grant said:
Perhaps the ideal stimulus program would be for the government to give everyone in the United States one million dollars. This wealth would be spread around the nation, everyone would be spending it on cars, clothing, fine foods etc. and the economy would recover. Do you see anything wrong with this plan?
Click to expand...

Certainly that would create jobs, but like I said, I don't support just boosting up companies at random, I think we can only justify it when it is in a sector that is particularly key to our national interests. That's why I do support it for renewable energy. But, they didn't give them money, they gave them a loan.
 
Grant said:
Where were the jobs created?
Click to expand...

Again, the jobs are the jobs of the people who worked there during the extra time they were able to stay afloat or that they were able to hire because they got the loan, plus the jobs created at companies selling things to those people.

Grant said:
Handing out money to individuals is no more creating jobs than is giving out food stamps. They are both net drains on the public treasury.
Click to expand...

Handing out money? To individuals? What are you talking about?

Grant said:
the government is hobbling the private sector in drilling for oil, importing and refining oil. Barrack Obama has said he'll spend money on roads and bridges but where will th gas come from? Over 20,000 full time jobs are being lost because of the Administrators stalling of an oil pipeline,
Click to expand...

Obviously just consuming what oil we have in the ground more quickly is not in the national interest... We need to be slowing consumption as much as possible first so we don't cause as much global warming and second so we don't run out as quickly.

Grant said:
These companies were being paid for their services. What services did Solyndra render?
Click to expand...

Solyndra developed solar power. That is way more valuable to the country than anything Halliburton did.

Grant said:
My suspicions? It seems very clear what happened. Where is there any dispute in the facts?
Click to expand...

The facts are that we're going to run out of oil. It's going to become too expensive for most uses and if we aren't ready to switch on to renewables by then, we're totally screwed. The fact is that burning oil increases the temperature of the earth and the consequences of that are dire.
 
1Perry said:
Halliburton was granted huge no bid contracts. Not 30-60k contracts. Multi millions. They were slapped on the wrist over and over for screwing over the government and then still granted more and more no bid contracts.

That it no way saved taxpayers anything. We would not be having this discussion if the problem was the government awarding a company a no bid contract to install new signs at the Washington monument.
Click to expand...
Did you not understand any of what i wrote? the government HAD to award a no bid contract. There is NO WAY the government could manage the rebuilding of cities. You have to at least have a LITTLE understanding of a process before you declare something right or wrong. Think about it. Every building that was to be built would go through a contracting process. Since each organization would be managed separately, every bid would have greater management and administrative costs. Multiplied not by hundreds but by thousands. Every road. every school. Every facility. Every sewer system. Every individual project. I dont think you can even fathom the scope of what you are talking about...but try this...count every building in your neighborhood. Count every road. Count every type of utility. Thats 1 block. Imagine a separate contract for every one of those. Imagine the scheduling...the coordination. The requirements. We arent talking about building a house....we are talking about building cities. Now...imagine awarding separate contracts for all of them. Imagine the conflict with independent crews fightiong for space, access, even clearances. Are you getting the picture?
 
VanceMack said:
Did you not understand any of what i wrote? the government HAD to award a no bid contract. There is NO WAY the government could manage the rebuilding of cities. You have to at least have a LITTLE understanding of a process before you declare something right or wrong. Think about it. Every building that was to be built would go through a contracting process. Since each organization would be managed separately, every bid would have greater management and administrative costs. Multiplied not by hundreds but by thousands. Every road. every school. Every facility. Every sewer system. Every individual project. I dont think you can even fathom the scope of what you are talking about...but try this...count every building in your neighborhood. Count every road. Count every type of utility. Thats 1 block. Imagine a separate contract for every one of those. Imagine the scheduling...the coordination. The requirements. We arent talking about building a house....we are talking about building cities. Now...imagine awarding separate contracts for all of them. Imagine the conflict with independent crews fightiong for space, access, even clearances. Are you getting the picture?
Click to expand...

Yes, you are argueing hyperbole. One could bid all that out to one entity just like it's awarded to Halliburton with no bid process. The facts are Halliburton has screwed over the taxpayers countless times because they know they are going to get the business regardless.

These roads don't have to be built tomorrow. They can be built in 6 weeks.
 
teamosil said:
Again, the jobs are the jobs of the people who worked there during the extra time they were able to stay afloat or that they were able to hire because they got the loan, plus the jobs created at companies selling things to those people.
Click to expand...

This is lame reasoning and you know it. If this was a valid model we would simply keep every failing business afloat.
 
1Perry said:
Yes, you are argueing hyperbole. One could bid all that out to one entity just like it's awarded to Halliburton with no bid process. The facts are Halliburton has screwed over the taxpayers countless times because they know they are going to get the business regardless.

These roads don't have to be built tomorrow. They can be built in 6 weeks.
Click to expand...
They wouldnt be built in 6 years. If you understood the government system and contracting process, you would understand why it must be the way it is. Thats not a dem or a republican thing. Its a reality thing.
 
1Perry said:
This is lame reasoning and you know it. If this was a valid model we would simply keep every failing business afloat.
Click to expand...

Why do I have to keep repeating myself... I don't support boosting up businesses just purely for the jobs effect, I support it when there are double purposes that combine to make a good balance. In this case, stimulating renewable energy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom