Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 52

Thread: Romney-backed solar firm flops, Dems pounce

  1. #31
    Sage
    mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    DC Metro
    Last Seen
    11-13-16 @ 12:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    22,499

    Re: Romney-backed solar firm flops, Dems pounce

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba View Post
    different order of magnitude of failed investment, but otherwise, absolutely the same

    No, it's not the same...Konarka repaid it's loan after having lasted significantly longer, post-loan. The $535 to solyndra is simply gone.
    ”People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.” --- Ben Franklin

    Quote Originally Posted by The German View Post
    Sterotypes are mostly based on truths.

  2. #32
    long standing member
    justabubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:08 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    36,124

    Re: Romney-backed solar firm flops, Dems pounce

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    You have a failure to translate, Sir.

    Here is the proper translation:

    MA, it's citizens, it's legislature decide to provide state money to green businesses. Romney delivers the check. What MA does with their own money...and the risks they take with it...doesn't concern me since I don't live in MA and it's not MY money they are using. Furthermore, since they are a State, they are required to actually HAVE the money they are giving away.

    On the other hand...

    Obama and his administration, without the approval of the nation's citizens or legislators, gives away half a billion dollars to one company...money the federal government DOESN'T have...and must borrow.

    If Obama were the governor of some state and did what Romney did...I wouldn't give a rat's ass...as long as it's not in Colorado.

    If Romney were President and did what Obama did...I'd try to boot him out of Office.
    your ignorance of fundamental economics is showing
    both governments had the money to lend
    otherwise solyndra would have received nothing for it to have lost
    we are negotiating about dividing a pizza and in the meantime israel is eating it
    once you're over the hill you begin to pick up speed

  3. #33
    Gone

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    10-16-16 @ 03:15 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    8,585

    Re: Romney-backed solar firm flops, Dems pounce

    Quote Originally Posted by mac View Post
    Ok, the Massachusets legislature (while romeny was Governor) funded 1.5 mil to a company that lasted years afterwards, and President Obama funded $535 million to a company that lasted less than a year afterwards....that's the same thing to you?
    Got it....not apples and oranges...but, apples and younger less expensive apples.

    Hmmm...The smaller state of Mass. spends less money than the larger country they are a part of...who'd a thunk it.

    For your consideration:
    "


    Solyndra, schmolyndra: The Obama administration’s hit rate is better than the private market’s


    By Jess Zimmerman

    Making loans is a tricky business — sometimes you bet on the wrong horse. For example, there's the Obama administration, which doled out 1.4 percent of its Recovery Act cleantech investments to failed solar company Solyndra, in a move that everyone and their uncle is now calling a giant embarrassment. And then there's private venture capital, which invests in green energy companies that fail at least 30 percent of the time.

    According to Susan Kraemer at CleanTechnica, the Obama admin's hit rate far outperforms venture capitalists:

    The US government guarantee of a private loan to Solyndra, at $535 million, represented a minuscule 1.4% of the Department of Energy investment in all renewable technologies. By contrast — VCs (who were out $1 billion to Solyndra, for example) expect much higher failure rates. Richard Stuebi, who advises VCs on expected green energy failure rates, says that just 3 in 10 successes represents a successful VC investment strategy. That is 70% losers — not 1.4%.

    It's not an apples-to-apples comparison, because the 1.4 percent is based on how much money went to Solyndra, whereas Stuebi's figures are about number of ventures. DOE lists 38 guaranteed loans; one failure out of 38 investments would be closer to 2.6 percent. And while Stuebi shows only 30 percent of investments being successful, there's another 40 percent that just drag along, not failing but not providing sufficient return on investment. Still, it looks like private investments go belly-up at a much higher rate than the government's.

    So, are we still calling this a "scandal"?


    .....Just Sayin'......

  4. #34
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Where they have FOX on in bars and restaurants
    Last Seen
    09-14-14 @ 02:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    14,700

    Re: Romney-backed solar firm flops, Dems pounce

    Here is the really big difference between obama giving money to Solyndra and Romney trying to help a local green energy firm, here is the apple vs the orange.

    Why Solyndra?
    Top Obama bundler George Kaiser made multiple visits to the White House in the months before the company was granted a $535 million loan from the government. And top Solyndra officials also made numerous visits — 20 — to the White House, according to logs and reporting by The Daily Caller. Solyndra officials in the logs included chairman and founder Christian Gronet and board members Thomas Baruch and David Prend. The company secured the $535 million loan despite the fact that it was widely known Solyndra was in deep economic trouble and had negative cash flows since its inception.

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011...us-cash-video/

  5. #35
    Sage
    Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    25,811

    Re: Romney-backed solar firm flops, Dems pounce

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba View Post
    your ignorance of fundamental economics is showing
    both governments had the money to lend
    otherwise solyndra would have received nothing for it to have lost
    sigh...

    My understanding of economics is fine.

    The federal government can't spend ANY money unless it borrows almost half of it first. That's because they DON'T have the money...but they lend it anyway...and the Obama administration did it just because THEY wanted to. Not because Congress...or the citizens...told them to.
    TANSTAAFL

    “An armed society is a polite society.”
    ― Robert A. Heinlein, Beyond This Horizon

  6. #36
    Sage
    Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    25,811

    Re: Romney-backed solar firm flops, Dems pounce

    Quote Originally Posted by tecoyah View Post
    Got it....not apples and oranges...but, apples and younger less expensive apples.

    Hmmm...The smaller state of Mass. spends less money than the larger country they are a part of...who'd a thunk it.

    For your consideration:
    "


    Solyndra, schmolyndra: The Obama administration’s hit rate is better than the private market’s


    By Jess Zimmerman

    Making loans is a tricky business — sometimes you bet on the wrong horse. For example, there's the Obama administration, which doled out 1.4 percent of its Recovery Act cleantech investments to failed solar company Solyndra, in a move that everyone and their uncle is now calling a giant embarrassment. And then there's private venture capital, which invests in green energy companies that fail at least 30 percent of the time.

    According to Susan Kraemer at CleanTechnica, the Obama admin's hit rate far outperforms venture capitalists:

    The US government guarantee of a private loan to Solyndra, at $535 million, represented a minuscule 1.4% of the Department of Energy investment in all renewable technologies. By contrast — VCs (who were out $1 billion to Solyndra, for example) expect much higher failure rates. Richard Stuebi, who advises VCs on expected green energy failure rates, says that just 3 in 10 successes represents a successful VC investment strategy. That is 70% losers — not 1.4%.

    It's not an apples-to-apples comparison, because the 1.4 percent is based on how much money went to Solyndra, whereas Stuebi's figures are about number of ventures. DOE lists 38 guaranteed loans; one failure out of 38 investments would be closer to 2.6 percent. And while Stuebi shows only 30 percent of investments being successful, there's another 40 percent that just drag along, not failing but not providing sufficient return on investment. Still, it looks like private investments go belly-up at a much higher rate than the government's.

    So, are we still calling this a "scandal"?


    .....Just Sayin'......
    What does the rate of success on private investments have to do with this topic?
    TANSTAAFL

    “An armed society is a polite society.”
    ― Robert A. Heinlein, Beyond This Horizon

  7. #37
    long standing member
    justabubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:08 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    36,124

    Re: Romney-backed solar firm flops, Dems pounce

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    sigh...

    My understanding of economics is fine.

    The federal government can't spend ANY money unless it borrows almost half of it first. That's because they DON'T have the money...but they lend it anyway...and the Obama administration did it just because THEY wanted to. Not because Congress...or the citizens...told them to.

    yes, you really nailed it with that retort [/s]
    mass was so well off and able to loan its state taxpayer money that it only required $5.5 Billion in stimulus money ... received from the federal government
    we are negotiating about dividing a pizza and in the meantime israel is eating it
    once you're over the hill you begin to pick up speed

  8. #38
    Sage
    Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    25,811

    Re: Romney-backed solar firm flops, Dems pounce

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba View Post
    yes, you really nailed it with that retort [/s]
    mass was so well off and able to loan its state taxpayer money that it only required $5.5 Billion in stimulus money ... received from the federal government
    So what?

    That doesn't change the facts in either situation. Or the fact the neither situation is comparable to the other.
    TANSTAAFL

    “An armed society is a polite society.”
    ― Robert A. Heinlein, Beyond This Horizon

  9. #39
    long standing member
    justabubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:08 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    36,124

    Re: Romney-backed solar firm flops, Dems pounce

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    So what?

    That doesn't change the facts in either situation. Or the fact the neither situation is comparable to the other.
    it's an apples to apples comparison
    small apple to large apple
    small apple bought by mass and large apple bought by the feds
    but a direct comparison

    stay tuned for the debates. Obama will teach you (and romney) this similarity better than i
    we are negotiating about dividing a pizza and in the meantime israel is eating it
    once you're over the hill you begin to pick up speed

  10. #40
    Gone

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    10-16-16 @ 03:15 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    8,585

    Re: Romney-backed solar firm flops, Dems pounce

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    What does the rate of success on private investments have to do with this topic?
    Seriously?....now you are simply being silly, still I will explain.

    You blame Obama for investing in Solyndra (along with venture capitalists)...because it failed as a venture. You ignore the other successful 30 some odd companies that did not fail, so I assume you wish to focus on this failure. I then point out the risk involved in venture capital as well as the ratio of success, to which you respond that it has no bearing on your focus. Likely due to the fact that the VC failure rate is far above the Gov't failure rate....thus making it hard to defend your stance. The only comparison that actually DOES work here it indeed Venture Capital, as that is exactly what the Government was doing with the recovery act.

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •