• 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

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...

If people are used to it maybe it's because they already saw George W. Bush spend over $25 billion in support of hybrid vehicles and over $1 billion in support of hydrogen fuel cell businesses. Now I've gotta go gas up my fuel cells....

Certainly Bush had a lot of experience in failed businesses. :lol:
 
apdst said:
You gotta be kidding, right? Any company that can't realistically succeed shouldn't be gettng a government loan.

"high reward"! :lamo
Click to expand...

Hindsight is 20/20, my friend. At the time the loan was approved, Solyndra was widely thought to be a promising venture. They cratered because the cost of competing technology (polysilicon) dropped 800% in a few short years. It was predictable that the price would fall, due to increased production, but I don't think anyone thought it would fall that far. As a consequence Solyndra lost it's competitive advantage.

In other words, most people thought that Solyndra could realistically succeed. Unfortunately the government did not react fast enough to the changed outlook.
 
AdamT said:
Hindsight is 20/20, my friend. At the time the loan was approved, Solyndra was widely thought to be a promising venture.
Click to expand...

Re-read the facts. They were not. The administration was told that they were a pretty crappy bet.
 
AdamT said:
Hindsight is 20/20, my friend. At the time the loan was approved, Solyndra was widely thought to be a promising venture. They cratered because the cost of competing technology (polysilicon) dropped 800% in a few short years. It was predictable that the price would fall, due to increased production, but I don't think anyone thought it would fall that far. As a consequence Solyndra lost it's competitive advantage.

In other words, most people thought that Solyndra could realistically succeed. Unfortunately the government did not react fast enough to the changed outlook.
Click to expand...

So, what does the regime do? They invest in another turd just like Solyndra.
 
EagleAye said:
Well, let's see. Halliburton could never have set up shop in Iraq if the American military didn't pacify Iraq first.
Click to expand...

So is it your contention that the Coalition countries invaded Iraq in order to create jobs and money for Haliburton? Didn't the left claim it was "all about oil"? Is this the most recent theory?

Well, if that makes sense to you, I guess it's okay though I doubt you work on Wall Street.
 
AdamT said:
If people are used to it maybe it's because they already saw George W. Bush spend over $25 billion in support of hybrid vehicles and over $1 billion in support of hydrogen fuel cell businesses. Now I've gotta go gas up my fuel cells....

Certainly Bush had a lot of experience in failed businesses. :lol:
Click to expand...

So because George Bush invested taxpayer dollars in ventures private investors wouldn't touch, Barrack Obama did it as well?

I thought George Bush was the idiot and Barrack Obama the smart guy and yet poor BHO seems to be following all the Bush policies, and even building on them.

If pointing to George Bush and saying "he did it too" is the best excuse you have for this lame duck President then you should vote for someone with more business experience in the next presidential election. Two idiots in a row is too much.

So which successful businessman and administrator will it be? Mitt Romney or Herman Cain?
 
Last edited:
AdamT said:
Hindsight is 20/20, my friend. At the time the loan was approved, Solyndra was widely thought to be a promising venture. They cratered because the cost of competing technology (polysilicon) dropped 800% in a few short years. It was predictable that the price would fall, due to increased production, but I don't think anyone thought it would fall that far. As a consequence Solyndra lost it's competitive advantage.

In other words, most people thought that Solyndra could realistically succeed. Unfortunately the government did not react fast enough to the changed outlook.
Click to expand...

If most people thought Solyndra would succeed, which is not true at all btw, don't you think they could have raised private capital?
 
Grant said:
So because George Bush invested taxpayer dollars in ventures private investors wouldn't touch, Barrack Obama did it as well?

I thought George Bush was the idiot and Barrack Obama the smart guy and yet poor BHO seems to be following all the Bush policies, and even building on them.

If pointing to George Bush and saying "he did it too" is the best excuse you have for this lame duck President then you should vote for someone with more business experience in the next presidential election. Two idiots in a row is too much.

So which successful businessman and administrator will it be? Mitt Romney or Herman Cain?
Click to expand...

Your contention was that Obama has inured the American people to wasteful investments. I was simply pointing out that Bush did the same thing ... times 10. But Bush wasn't the first, either. All Presidents in my lifetime have invested government funds in fledgling industries. Some have produced game changing results, and others have not.

My point is that it is a good thing for our government to foster new and important technologies, even if all of the bets don't pay off. I applaud Bush for what he did. Fuel cells have come a long way and I thik they may in fact be the way of the future. Hybrid vehicle sales have grown immensely over the last 10 years.

Businesses are generally short sighted. They often won't invest in new technology unless there is a pay off right around the corner. Government can take a longer view.
 
Last edited:
Grant said:
So is it your contention that the Coalition countries invaded Iraq in order to create jobs and money for Haliburton? Didn't the left claim it was "all about oil"? Is this the most recent theory?

Well, if that makes sense to you, I guess it's okay though I doubt you work on Wall Street.
Click to expand...

You're right, I don't work on Wall Street.

The Iraq war was about a LOT of things. I think Bush honestly believed WMDs were there (where lefties and I disagree). We were removing a destabilizing force from the ME. We were freeing the Iraqi people from a tyranny and introducing a democratic society. These things I truly believe in and I catch a lot of flack for it. So what. BUT there was the additional motivation of securing access to oil. This wasn't to "steal" the oil as many claim, but to insure that the US had access to pay for it, without being denied. Lastly, Bush's friends at Halliburton and other companies were granted access to lucrative contracts. Everybody wins...or so it was thought.

So the oil companies and companies like Halliburton can thank the US Military and the American taxpayer for subsidizing their industries by removing a blockage to their expansion...absolutely free of charge.
 
1Perry said:
And yet you advocate giving them millions of taxpayers dollars.
Click to expand...

Either that or government owned, funded, and subsidised research and development if we want to see major advances on the new form of energy front.
 
nonpareil said:
Either that or government owned, funded, and subsidised research and development if we want to see major advances on the new form of energy front.
Click to expand...

Huge difference.
 
AdamT said:
Your contention was that Obama has inured the American people to wasteful investments. I was simply pointing out that Bush did the same thing ... times 10. But Bush wasn't the first, either. All Presidents in my lifetime have invested government funds in fledgling industries. Some have produced game changing results, and others have not.
Click to expand...

It's not clear that you know what "inured" means, which is why the quote system works best. Then my 'contentions' will remain clear.

If you have evidence that "that Bush did the same thing ... times 10" then please post it. But I think it's safe to assume that this is just more Leftist hyperbole.

My point is that it is a good thing for our government to foster new and important technologies, even if all of the bets don't pay off.
Click to expand...

What indication is there that Barrack Obama, or any of his "Czars", knows how to pick winners in areas of investment? He has had no experience whatsoever and now you think he can spend millions of dollars deciding which company he should open the public wallet to? Was that one of his campaign promises? I would never trust this guys "bets" at all. He is a lying machine.

I applaud Bush for what he did. Fuel cells have come a long way and I think they may in fact be the way of the future. Hybrid vehicle sales have grown immensely over the last 10 years.
Click to expand...

if you think something is "the wave of the future" you should invest in it. You certainly have as much experience as Barrack Obama and it won't cost the taxpayer a nickel.
Businesses are generally short sighted.
Click to expand...

And which businesses are those?
They often won't invest in new technology unless there is a pay off right around the corner.
Click to expand...

Again, which business are you referring to?
Government can take a longer view.
Click to expand...

The Presidency is for eight years max and BHO is already campaigning. If he is re-elected do you have any idea what the American debt might be? Has he ever hinted, after he became President, at presenting a budget or even balancing one? this is one time the Americans have to put their country first and their ideology last, otherwise you can kiss it all goodbye.
Click to expand...
 
EagleAye said:
You're right, I don't work on Wall Street.

The Iraq war was about a LOT of things. I think Bush honestly believed WMDs were there (where lefties and I disagree). We were removing a destabilizing force from the ME. We were freeing the Iraqi people from a tyranny and introducing a democratic society. These things I truly believe in and I catch a lot of flack for it. So what. BUT there was the additional motivation of securing access to oil. This wasn't to "steal" the oil as many claim, but to insure that the US had access to pay for it, without being denied. Lastly, Bush's friends at Halliburton and other companies were granted access to lucrative contracts. Everybody wins...or so it was thought.

So the oil companies and companies like Halliburton can thank the US Military and the American taxpayer for subsidizing their industries by removing a blockage to their expansion...absolutely free of charge.
Click to expand...

Haliburton was a success before Iraq is a success after Iraq. Many companies performed services there, and still do, and are paid for them. There is nothing unusual in that.
 
Grant said:
Haliburton was a success before Iraq is a success after Iraq. Many companies performed services there, and still do, and are paid for them. There is nothing unusual in that.
Click to expand...

Haliburton was caught ripping off the government more times than anyone can ever justify in 4 lifetimes.
 
Grant said:
Haliburton was a success before Iraq is a success after Iraq. Many companies performed services there, and still do, and are paid for them. There is nothing unusual in that.
Click to expand...

Very nice. Could Halliburton have established contracts is a hostile Iraq? The correct answer is "no." Halliburton's expansion into Iraq was still subsidized and made possible by the actions of the US military. Thus, the US government, with tax payer monies, provided de facto venture capital for Halliburton. Just like the government is now providing monies to support alternative energies. So why complain only about solar companies and not oil companies? Both are subsidized and supported by taxpayer money, except that the monetary support for oil is provided for in the form of services rendered by the US Military. And the cost of US Military support runs into the Hundreds Of Billions. And after all this, you complain about 53 Million? Pocket change.
 
Last edited:
Grant said:
Haliburton was a success before Iraq is a success after Iraq. Many companies performed services there, and still do, and are paid for them. There is nothing unusual in that.
Click to expand...

Halliburton had a mountain of debt left over fro the Texas oil bust before Iraq. Iraq pretty much saved that company.
 
EagleAye said:
Very nice. Could Halliburton have established contracts is a hostile Iraq? The correct answer is "no." Halliburton's expansion into Iraq was still subsidized and made possible by the actions of the US military. Thus, the US government, with tax payer monies, provided de facto venture capital for Halliburton. Just like the government is now providing monies to support alternative energies. So why complain only about solar companies and not oil companies? Both are subsidized and supported by taxpayer money, except that the monetary support for oil is provided for in the form of services rendered by the US Military. And the cost of US Military support runs into the Hundreds Of Billions. And after all this, you complain about 53 Million? Pocket change.
Click to expand...

Halliburton performed services for the American government in Iraq and were paid for those services.

Solyndra performed no services whatsoever for the government yet their management were paid $535,000,000. Chump change? I think there are a lot of Americans, in fact American communities, who wouldn't mind having this "chump change" in their pockets.

Solyndra Went on a Spending Spree After Getting Loan
 
Grant said:
Halliburton performed services for the American government in Iraq and were paid for those services.

Solyndra performed no services whatsoever for the government yet their management were paid $535,000,000. Chump change? I think there are a lot of Americans, in fact American communities, who wouldn't mind having this "chump change" in their pockets.

Solyndra Went on a Spending Spree After Getting Loan
Click to expand...

Solyndra is an embarresing saga for this administration to be sure.

And many people say it shows how the government shouldnt be in the business of giving these kinds of companies loans and that it shows they're incapable of making good calls on investments.

There's evidence of cronyism involved in the deal, and that's something that'll have to be looked into. But the governments job is to look out for the well being of the people, and everyone agrees that the country needs to ween itself off foreign oil, but things like this have less to do with proving green technology doesn't work well, rather it's about attacking the administration.

Private companies make bad calls too, the private sector isn't perfect and not every invesment it makes becomes a flourishing business that changes the world.


Investments in the private sector oftentimes especially in R&D only succeeds around 5% of the time which if its an amazing idea makes up for the other 95%.

The investment in Solyndra is ultimately embarresing, why because Obama went to the damn factory and called it a success... yeah that's a bit of egg in his face, but the money was a drop in the bucket for the entire program...
 
Last edited:
Good grief.

This isn't about Halliburton, The Iraq War, or any of that nonsense

Its about an Energy Company....


7 pages of derailment, you people should be ashamed of yourselves.
 
Caine said:
Good grief.

This isn't about Halliburton, The Iraq War, or any of that nonsense

Its about an Energy Company....

7 pages of derailment, you people should be ashamed of yourselves.
Click to expand...

What this is about is attacking the President. If it was only about his wasting the taxpayer money, it would be justified. But unfortunately - I'm not necessarily accusing you of this, MaggieD - it's attacking the President for no other reason than he is a Democrat.

These widely publicized failures of Solyndra and Beacon are intended to attack the reputation of the Democratic Party. For me, I don't give a s**t about that. What I don't like, what I absolutely hate, is that this attack has the effect of undermining an essential energy policy. Government support of alternative energies is important for updating an antiquated energy system that is doomed to fail at some time in the future. I don't know when that will happen but waiting until it happens is waiting far too long. This energy update makes the US immune to the political and economic foibles of the middle-east and unstable, but oil-rich nations. That makes this update critical to the future stability and integrity of the United States.

So when people who make a big toodoo about the failure of Solar companies, they think they're only attacking the Democrats and undermining their efforts. What they're really doing is undermining the future security and integrity of the entire country. I consider these attacks as attacks on the United States, and I'm sorry but I get just a bit pissy about it when someone attacks my country. I realize people don't think they're attacking the US and maybe that wasn't the intent, but it has the effect of a domestic attack.

If anyone should feel shame it's those who attack the future of all Americans just to play childish and stupid political games.
 
Other than financing the development of awesometastic weapon systems, the federal government has no Constitutional power to use taxpayer monies to fund ANY R&D. Shut all of it down. Let the market place allocate the capital to R&D projects it thinks may be economically viable. I am sick and tired of reading about the massive waste spent on R&D projects at the federal level. Nobody has ever done a ROI on the hundreds of billions, maybe trillions of dollars, the federal government has poured into R&D.
 
conservativeguy said:
Other than financing the development of awesometastic weapon systems, the federal government has no Constitutional power to use taxpayer monies to fund ANY R&D. Shut all of it down. Let the market place allocate the capital to R&D projects it thinks may be economically viable. I am sick and tired of reading about the massive waste spent on R&D projects at the federal level. Nobody has ever done a ROI on the hundreds of billions, maybe trillions of dollars, the federal government has poured into R&D.
Click to expand...

Thank God you weren't an adviser to JFK.

There would be no internet, no GPS...no TANG! For God's sake man...no TANG!!!!

But seriously, government investment in research and infrastructure has created BILLIONS in private capital and profit when private companies were able to blossom from the fertile ground laid by government research.

No internet - you get no EBay, no Google, no Amazon.com nor any other successful private company. And the internet came from our government and investment in research.

If profit is the sole motive for successful research, then you essentially make the claim that TWO AND HALF MEN is equivalent to DON GIOVANNI, or that a McDonald's cheeseburger is the same as Maine lobster and Kobe beef. TWO AND A HALF MEN and McDonald's are highly profitable. But they don't do anything to improve humanity or raise our standards.

Good research is about improving us as a species - not about a buck. You call for the McDonaldsization of the world; while I see a place for McDonald's, but call for a nation that continually attempts to improve life for its people through investment in grand ideas - ideas that will succeed and ideas that will sometimes fail.
 
FilmFestGuy said:
Thank God you weren't an adviser to JFK.

There would be no internet, no GPS...no TANG! For God's sake man...no TANG!!!!

But seriously, government investment in research and infrastructure has created BILLIONS in private capital and profit when private companies were able to blossom from the fertile ground laid by government research.

No internet - you get no EBay, no Google, no Amazon.com nor any other successful private company. And the internet came from our government and investment in research.

If profit is the sole motive for successful research, then you essentially make the claim that TWO AND HALF MEN is equivalent to DON GIOVANNI, or that a McDonald's cheeseburger is the same as Maine lobster and Kobe beef. TWO AND A HALF MEN and McDonald's are highly profitable. But they don't do anything to improve humanity or raise our standards.

Good research is about improving us as a species - not about a buck. You call for the McDonaldsization of the world; while I see a place for McDonald's, but call for a nation that continually attempts to improve life for its people through investment in grand ideas - ideas that will succeed and ideas that will sometimes fail.
Click to expand...

Those are assumptions just like you are assuming without the government R&D funding none of that stuff would have been developed.....on that point I strongly disagree with you. Humans have been inventing for thousands of years and most of those inventions did not receive any government funding.

BTW - you almost had me backpeddling on the no TANG comment. I then realized someone would have eventually spilled some sugar and vitamin C in a glass and figurde out that one.:lol:
 
EagleAye said:
What this is about is attacking the President. If it was only about his wasting the taxpayer money, it would be justified. But unfortunately - I'm not necessarily accusing you of this, MaggieD - it's attacking the President for no other reason than he is a Democrat.
Click to expand...

No. It's not about attacking the President. Well, I guess it is, since Obama made the decisions. But it's much more than that. It's the whole darned system. Doesn't someone/anyone have to account for having flushed $100 million taxpayers dollars down the toilet within a year? (Both companies) What are we doing as a nation? Rolling the dice? Putting it all on black? And I'd be putting this thread up regardless of who was president, Dem or Rep. Obama just happened to luck out on these two.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom