• 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!

Another Energy Company Goes Bankrupt, $39 Million Borrowed From Taxpayers

MaggieD said:
This thread was about a specific project that went belly up. Let me know when you're sober. You're making absolutely no sense at all.
Click to expand...

Or you need to hone your discussion skills better in order to follow the very plainly explained posts I've made.
 
drz-400 said:
Just like morgages, student loans, FDIC, etc... I wonder why they call it a subsidy, by god you must be a genius.
Click to expand...


The governments involvement in mortgages went over well didn't it? Why are we subsidizing failure?
 
samsmart said:
Or you need to hone your discussion skills better in order to follow the very plainly explained posts I've made.
Click to expand...

I won't be honing them to discuss this thread with you. Come back when you want to discuss the OP. You've done nothing but criticize me and added absolutely nothing to the subject of this post. Go away.
 
MaggieD said:
No more 9/11's
No shopping center bottle bombs
Osama Bin Deader

And this, you little brat:
Click to expand...

Let me put it to you this way.

There are many ways of doing things.

It costs a fair bit to get a house and maintain one.

If I have a wife and two kids.

And Bill across the street has a wife and two kids.

And Bill sneaks over one night and kills my wife and two kids.

I go over there and kill Bill and for arguments sake we live in a world where an eye for an eye is acceptable. But I don't kill Bills wife and two kids cause I'm better then Bill.

Why does it then make sense for me to occupy Bills house for 10 years, decorating it, paying for Bills wife and kids to eat whilst at the same time trying to renovate my own house...

A long drawn out analogy I know. But the simple answer is you could have done all you listed without all that cost of lives, equipment and money and time.

And while we;re on the subject Bin Laden was killed in Pakistan not Afghanistan.

And I'm not a brat.

Bad spending is bad spending. If you're worried about 39 million, well I'm afraid you're missing the ****ing point.
 
MaggieD said:
I won't be honing them to discuss this thread with you. Come back when you want to discuss the OP. You've done nothing but criticize me and added absolutely nothing to the subject of this post. Go away.
Click to expand...

How many times does it take you to understand very simple statements?

You seem to advocate the GOP going against wasteful government spending. You especially seem to advocate the GOP going against wasteful spending done during the Obama administration.

My question is that if the GOP loves going against wasteful government spending, why don't they do so during the administrations in which they control the Presidency? And do you condone the GOP going against wasteful government spending when they control the Presidency.

Now, if you are incapable or too scared to answer those very simple questions, okay then. I can accept that.

But it's very relevant to the original post, as it is quite hypocritical of the GOP to go after wasteful government spending during a Democratic President but refuse to go after wasteful government spending during a Republican President, especially when the wasteful government spending they do gets soldiers killed.
 
1Perry said:
The governments involvement in mortgages went over well didn't it? Why are we subsidizing failure?
Click to expand...

Your right, how many people actually owned a home prior to the governments involvement? How many people got a college education? How many bank runs were there?

Now, back on topic, we have some rather large utility companies that are investing in projects that DOE refused to insure due to these sensationalized failures. PG&E and other companies will be taking it to the bank in 3 years and the solar companies that made it possible probably won't make any news for a job well done.
 
Jetboogieman said:
Let me put it to you this way.

There are many ways of doing things.

It costs a fair bit to get a house and maintain one.

If I have a wife and two kids.

And Bill across the street has a wife and two kids.

And Bill sneaks over one night and kills my wife and two kids.

I go over there and kill Bill and for arguments sake we live in a world where an eye for an eye is acceptable. But I don't kill Bills wife and two kids cause I'm better then Bill.

Why does it then make sense for me to occupy Bills house for 10 years, decorating it, paying for Bills wife and kids to eat whilst at the same time trying to renovate my own house...

A long drawn out analogy I know. But the simple answer is you could have done all you listed without all that cost of lives, equipment and money and time.

And while we;re on the subject Bin Laden was killed in Pakistan not Afghanistan.

And I'm not a brat.

Bad spending is bad spending. If you're worried about 39 million, well I'm afraid you're missing the ****ing point.
Click to expand...

What is it with you and Sam? Why are you derailing the thread?? Is this how the left silences criticism of its own? Ridiculous. If you don't want to discuss the OP, why are you here??
 
MaggieD said:
What is it with you and Sam? Why are you derailing the thread?? Is this how the left silences criticism of its own? Ridiculous. If you don't want to discuss the OP, why are you here??
Click to expand...

We are discussing the OP.

The OP is obviously about how the GOP attacks wasteful government spending.

And how it does so quite selectively.

And how you're okay with that.
 
samsmart said:
How many times does it take you to understand very simple statements?

You seem to advocate the GOP going against wasteful government spending. You especially seem to advocate the GOP going against wasteful spending done during the Obama administration.
Click to expand...

I advocate CONGRESS going against wasteful government spending. What in my OP indicated otherwise? I'm sick to death of people blaming each side. We should be blaming both sides.

My question is that if the GOP loves going against wasteful government spending, why don't they do so during the administrations in which they control the Presidency? And do you condone the GOP going against wasteful government spending when they control the Presidency.
Click to expand...

Both sides should be going after wasteful government spending. I never condone wasteful spending. It all oughta' stop...especially when the taxpayers are burdened like they are today.

But it's very relevant to the original post, as it is quite hypocritical of the GOP to go after wasteful government spending during a Democratic President but refuse to go after wasteful government spending during a Republican President, especially when the wasteful government spending they do gets soldiers killed.
Click to expand...

Why are you talking about the GOP? Both sides are at fault. Or are you so partisan you don't see that?
 
MaggieD said:
I advocate CONGRESS going against wasteful government spending. What in my OP indicated otherwise? I'm sick to death of people blaming each side. We should be blaming both sides.
Click to expand...

Then just as you took the Democrats to task for this wasteful spending, you should have understood why I would take the GOP to task for their wasteful spending.



MaggieD said:
Both sides should be going after wasteful government spending. I never condone wasteful spending. It all oughta' stop...especially when the taxpayers are burdened like they are today.
Click to expand...

I agree.

MaggieD said:
Why are you talking about the GOP? Both sides are at fault. Or are you so partisan you don't see that?
Click to expand...

If you'll note, I mentioned this far earlier in this thread, and you dismissed it.

The reason why I keep talking about the GOP is, as I've said in my first post, that I wish they would go after the wasteful spending that was done on construction contracts that got soldiers killed with the same enthusiasm that they went after this spending on energy research.

If the GOP is going to prioritize attacking wasteful government spending, I think they should hold to account those who did so in a way that got soldiers killed first.
 
samsmart said:
Then just as you took the Democrats to task for this wasteful spending, you should have understood why I would take the GOP to task for their wasteful spending.

I reread the OP several times trying to figure out what I said that was so partisan. What was partisan was the article itself by quoting the Republicans. I guess that's what set you off. I never thought a thing about it because I think they're all crooks. ;)
Click to expand...
 
samsmart said:
We are discussing the OP.

The OP is obviously about how the GOP attacks wasteful government spending.

And how it does so quite selectively.

And how you're okay with that.
Click to expand...

Shouldn't everyone be concerned about wasteful government spending?

And we have to deal in specifics with these blunders because generalities would serve no purpose.

Now, back to the topic. Do you think Barrack Obama will be allowed a Day Pass to participate in the Presidential debates or will they have to hold them behind prison walls?
 
What if...? said:
Has NOTHING to do with green energy, except as a balancing factor for intermittent sources like wind.

Frequency regulation is a key component of oir electrical grid system. It has traditionally been performed by generators, which must be kept turning at all times at a fraction of their output. Flywheels are kinetic batteries, and require no fuel input to perform this function.

Sometimes a new thing is just a good new thing and not some evil conspiracy to put you out of a job.

And sometimes a business experiences difficulties due to the economy at large, not because it is actually unviable.

Hatred af anything "green" just because its "green" is ridiculous.

I happen to know a bit aboht flywheels as I had hoped they would be a viable vehicle energy source. Weight of containment and shock sensitivity at this point in time render them unsuitable for vehicles. But they work great for UPS and frequency regulation purposes.

An estimated 2-4% of additional generation could be obtained without building new plants by freeing turbines from their role in FR and replacing them with flywheels. Allowing the turbines to operate at full power for generation.
Click to expand...


As a vehicle power source they are being used in the most intense manner possible. F1 has KERS for many of its cars, and a more intense development programs I doubt exists. A few automakers are looking into it including Volvo.

Given the weight of it, and probably lower cost it does have a possible future
 
These sorts of energy companies are a high risk, high reward proposition. No one realistically thinks that ALL of these companies are going to succeed. It isn't a scandal if one or two of them fail.
 
AdamT said:
These sorts of energy companies are a high risk, high reward proposition. No one realistically thinks that ALL of these companies are going to succeed. It isn't a scandal if one or two of them fail.
Click to expand...

It isn't a scandal anymore, though it once would have been.

It seems that a large segment of the American public has become accustomed to their tax dollars being used by their president as venture capital, despite his well known lack of experience in either business or management. Why this is so is difficult to say but it's definitely there.

Of course, now that the precedent has been set and the people approve these wildcat investments, all presidents will feel they can use public money for their pet projects and will never have to face the consequences. Even if they are not re re-elected they and their associates will still be set for life.
 
Grant said:
It isn't a scandal anymore, though it once would have been.

It seems that a large segment of the American public has become accustomed to their tax dollars being used by their president as venture capital, despite his well known lack of experience in either business or management. Why this is so is difficult to say but it's definitely there.

Of course, now that the precedent has been set and the people approve these wildcat investments, all presidents will feel they can use public money for their pet projects and will never have to face the consequences. Even if they are not re re-elected they and their associates will still be set for life.
Click to expand...

You mean like, Halliburton?
 
AdamT said:
These sorts of energy companies are a high risk, high reward proposition. No one realistically thinks that ALL of these companies are going to succeed. It isn't a scandal if one or two of them fail.
Click to expand...

Something that the government has no business being involved in.
 
MaggieD said:
Here we go again . . .


This is out-and-out theft from the taxpayers. When do the prosecutions start??
Click to expand...


This is getting real suspicious...and needs to be investigated...I dont care if its dems or gop all crooks look alike....and this energy company crap is starting to stink to high heaven
 
Grant said:
Did the government supply venture capital to Haliburton?

If so how many millions were involved and do you agree with them doing that??
Click to expand...

Well, let's see. Halliburton could never have set up shop in Iraq if the American military didn't pacify Iraq first.

So...

How does $757.8 billion grab you?
Financial cost of the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The report disavowed previous estimates of the Iraq War's cost as being under $1 trillion, saying the Department of Defense's direct spending on Iraq totaled at least $757.8 billion, but also highlighting the complementary costs at home, such as interest paid on the funds borrowed to finance the wars and a potential nearly $1 trillion in extra spending to care for veterans returning from combat through 2050
Click to expand...

And since I'm a generous guy, I'll give you that 80% of that cost from American taxpayer money went towards freeing the world of a dangerous tyrant and spreading the concept of freedom and democracy to another nation.

So then the remaining 20% of 757.8 Billion = $151.56 Billion outlayed by the American taxpayer so companies like Halliburton are free to do their business. Should I be expecting my dividend check from Halliburton anytime soon? I mean my taxes helped pay for their contracts, right?
 
I think the difference between these two projects is that loans were guaranteed. That's completely different from "funding research." Here's the Master Government List of Federally Funded Research and Development: Master Government List of Federally Funded Research and Development Centers

Covers these areas:

Department of Defense
Department of Energy
Department of Health and Human Services
Department of Homeland Security
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
National Science Foundation
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Department of Transportation
Department of the Treasury

In all of this research, almost every single project is managed by a nonprofit, university, or government agency. I could find only three industrial companies receiving research money from the U.S. Government:

Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory -- (Battelle Energy Alliance, LLC [7]), Idaho Falls, ID
Sandia National Laboratories -- (Sandia Corporation, a subsidiary of Lockheed Martin Corp.), Albuquerque, NM
Savannah River Technology Center -- Westinghouse Savannah River Co.), Aiken, SC

So. The research program is by-passed and industrial winners/losers are picked. With -- so far -- two losers standing tall. I'm not blaming this on one party or the other, but if the Executive Branch hand-picked these firms, then we have to look at the wisdom of allowing that to happen. Waaay too much room for political payback, stock market investment gains, etc.

In the early 2000's, Beacon's share price was around $20. In August, 2010, when our government guaranteed their loans, their stock price was under $5.00. In just over one year, with that wonderful influx of capital, this company's stock is now trading at just over 8 cents per share. Who picked it? Who shorted it??
 
Last edited:
The Fed plowed billions into Wall Street. Did they use it to invest in these high risk/high rewards companies? No. They used it to invest in oil and other commodities.

Seems fair doesn't it? We pay higher prices so Wall Street can pick off the low hanging fruit and then we get to lose who knows how much more on the ventures they won't touch.

And some people still believe that people have nothing to be pissed over.
 
AdamT said:
These sorts of energy companies are a high risk, high reward proposition. No one realistically thinks that ALL of these companies are going to succeed. It isn't a scandal if one or two of them fail.
Click to expand...

You gotta be kidding, right? Any company that can't realistically succeed shouldn't be gettng a government loan.

"high reward"! :lamo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom