Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Examiner)   You know your Green-screen company is about to go bankrupt and pay off its execs with taxpayer-funded golden parachutes when this happens   (campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com) divider line 142
    More: Obvious, Vice President Joe Biden, chroma key, golden parachutes  
•       •       •

4069 clicks; posted to Politics » on 27 Jan 2012 at 11:26 AM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



142 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-01-27 10:12:24 AM  
Another "bash the job creators" thread?
 
2012-01-27 11:28:52 AM  
Bain Capital invests?
 
2012-01-27 11:29:09 AM  
I guess this means this is the first time in history companies have failed in new fields.

Oh, it isn't?

Well, it's definitely the first time the government has tried to invest in new techn-

Oh?

Well.
 
2012-01-27 11:32:22 AM  
this is why when you are looking to develop new tech, you don't fund private efforts, you fund public efforts. a public effort does not have to be profitable to continue. get the tech figured out, then let the private companies commercialize it and spread it. RND is not profitable.
 
2012-01-27 11:34:25 AM  

LasersHurt: I guess this means this is the first time in history companies have failed in new fields.

Oh, it isn't?

Well, it's definitely the first time the government has tried to invest in new techn-

Oh?

Well.


LasersHurt's thought process - omg this looks bad on the administration, so lets justify it by saying other administrations did the same, so that its still okay...

No, its wrong, and wrong is wrong.
 
2012-01-27 11:35:26 AM  

burndtdan: this is why when you are looking to develop new tech, you don't fund private efforts, you fund public efforts. a public effort does not have to be profitable to continue. get the tech figured out, then let the private companies commercialize it and spread it. RND is not profitable.


But we're cutting the military's R&D budget, too.

Military tech is what gives us most of the stuff, correct? Cell phones, the internet, space travel, synthetic fabrics, kevlar...?
 
2012-01-27 11:36:38 AM  

DozeNutz: LasersHurt's thought process - omg this looks bad on the administration, so lets justify it by saying other administrations did the same, so that its still okay...

No, its wrong, and wrong is wrong.


Where did I mention this administration, or any others? New technologies and new fields are hard to break into and start up. But for every failure there are a myriad of successes. That's simply how progress works.
 
2012-01-27 11:37:01 AM  

burndtdan: this is why when you are looking to develop new tech, you don't fund private efforts, you fund public efforts. a public effort does not have to be profitable to continue. get the tech figured out, then let the private companies commercialize it and spread it. RND is not profitable.


This.

But shhhh, apparently liberals never heard of this secret.
 
2012-01-27 11:37:55 AM  

MyRandomName: burndtdan: this is why when you are looking to develop new tech, you don't fund private efforts, you fund public efforts. a public effort does not have to be profitable to continue. get the tech figured out, then let the private companies commercialize it and spread it. RND is not profitable.

This.

But shhhh, apparently liberals never heard of this secret.


Wait doing things in the Private Sector instead of Public is now a "Liberals" thing?'

MIND BLOWN
 
2012-01-27 11:38:11 AM  
Such knee-jerk BS. Of cource they are getting paid. They were given contracts on the way that stated they would get this money.
 
2012-01-27 11:39:54 AM  
Does anyone know what pecentage of the total loan program the Solyndra loans was? From the best numbers I could find, Solyndra amounted to less than 1% of the total program.

Which means a 99% success rate. In most universes, that would be pretty darn great.

jus sayin.
 
2012-01-27 11:40:28 AM  
Biden seemed to acknowledge that the administration was taking a gamble on ENER1. "We know sometimes, when you're looking for breakthroughs, where you got to take a new chance, businesses aren't always ready to roll the dice," he told the company employees. "We're providing seed money, [a] one-time deposit, man, so we can spur additional investment."

What?
 
2012-01-27 11:40:43 AM  
Biden predicted that "there's going to be a thousand people" working at this facility by the end of the year."

It takes a lot of people to catalog all the desks, computers, etc the company will have to liquidate...
 
2012-01-27 11:41:09 AM  

MyRandomName: burndtdan: this is why when you are looking to develop new tech, you don't fund private efforts, you fund public efforts. a public effort does not have to be profitable to continue. get the tech figured out, then let the private companies commercialize it and spread it. RND is not profitable.

This.

But shhhh, apparently liberals never heard of this secret.


wat?

Are you saying liberals prefer to out-source to the private sector and conservatives prefer government works?
 
2012-01-27 11:41:57 AM  

MyRandomName: burndtdan: this is why when you are looking to develop new tech, you don't fund private efforts, you fund public efforts. a public effort does not have to be profitable to continue. get the tech figured out, then let the private companies commercialize it and spread it. RND is not profitable.

This.

But shhhh, apparently liberals never heard of this secret.


Nice try, but it's Republicans saying we need to cut higher education spending (which by extension is R&D spending), not Democrats.
 
2012-01-27 11:42:07 AM  
Think of the wars we could've started with that money
 
2012-01-27 11:43:16 AM  

urbangirl: Does anyone know what pecentage of the total loan program the Solyndra loans was? From the best numbers I could find, Solyndra amounted to less than 1% of the total program.


10. Solyndra was three percent of the DOE portfolio. This number has been bandied about before, but worth mentioning again. Solyndra represented three percent of the DOE's entire loan guarantee portfolio.

And failures were planned for.

2. An insurance fund covers the losses (and then some). The DOE allocated $2.47 billion in credit subsidies to act as insurance to cover project losses, and the fund more than covers both Solyndra and Beacon losses (and Beacon is selling its plant to pay back the loan). Bloomberg found that even if all of the eight remaining high-risk manufacturing and fuel production projects default, the insurance fund would cover all of them. In addition, the DOE actually budgeted for a failure of 15 percent of the total value of the loan guarantees, which is pretty high for a federal program, and in comparison, Bloomberg notes that commercial banking projects set aside 2.8 percent of the value of loans.

Link (new window)
 
2012-01-27 11:44:08 AM  

Wendy's Chili: MyRandomName: burndtdan: this is why when you are looking to develop new tech, you don't fund private efforts, you fund public efforts. a public effort does not have to be profitable to continue. get the tech figured out, then let the private companies commercialize it and spread it. RND is not profitable.

This.

But shhhh, apparently liberals never heard of this secret.

wat?

Are you saying liberals prefer to out-source to the private sector and conservatives prefer government works?


They are now that Taxbongo is investing in the private sector. It's Opposite Day every day for the right as long as Fartwrongo is in office.
 
2012-01-27 11:44:52 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: urbangirl: Does anyone know what pecentage of the total loan program the Solyndra loans was? From the best numbers I could find, Solyndra amounted to less than 1% of the total program.

10. Solyndra was three percent of the DOE portfolio. This number has been bandied about before, but worth mentioning again. Solyndra represented three percent of the DOE's entire loan guarantee portfolio.

And failures were planned for.

2. An insurance fund covers the losses (and then some). The DOE allocated $2.47 billion in credit subsidies to act as insurance to cover project losses, and the fund more than covers both Solyndra and Beacon losses (and Beacon is selling its plant to pay back the loan). Bloomberg found that even if all of the eight remaining high-risk manufacturing and fuel production projects default, the insurance fund would cover all of them. In addition, the DOE actually budgeted for a failure of 15 percent of the total value of the loan guarantees, which is pretty high for a federal program, and in comparison, Bloomberg notes that commercial banking projects set aside 2.8 percent of the value of loans.

Link (new window)

 
2012-01-27 11:44:54 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Factual information


So, this was completely expected, planned for, and will be completely covered through standard insurance practices used in commercial banking.

Well, I can definitely see where all the outrage comes from.
 
2012-01-27 11:45:10 AM  

urbangirl: Does anyone know what pecentage of the total loan program the Solyndra loans was? From the best numbers I could find, Solyndra amounted to less than 1% of the total program.

Which means a 99% success rate. In most universes, that would be pretty darn great.

jus sayin.


Solyndra isn't exactly the only failure here.

Venture capital simply isn't within the proper scope of government. Too much moral hazard.

/prizes with pre-set rules would be far more OK in my book
 
2012-01-27 11:45:45 AM  
Whenever a Republican gets all up in arms over these types of "stunts", I always ask them how the Timken plant in Canton is doing.
 
2012-01-27 11:45:51 AM  

bulldg4life: Dusk-You-n-Me: Factual information

So, this was completely expected, planned for, and will be completely covered through standard insurance practices used in commercial banking.

Well, I can definitely see where all the outrage comes from.


Exactly my point.
 
2012-01-27 11:46:08 AM  
Why is this a bad thing? Isn't public risk for private profit the cornerstone of our new economy?
 
2012-01-27 11:47:22 AM  

bulldg4life: Dusk-You-n-Me: Factual information

So, this was completely expected, planned for, and will be completely covered through standard insurance practices used in commercial banking.

Well, I can definitely see where all the outrage comes from.


The legitimate outrage comes from this program being wrong even if every single investment succeeded. The problem isn't that one of the companies failed, it was obvious from the beginning that would happen; the problem is that the government is investing in startups at all.

Please do not respond to me by saying "WELL THIS GUY WHO'S PISSED OFF DISAGREES WITH YOU." And yes, I know Bush started this program, and it was wrong.
 
2012-01-27 11:48:10 AM  

YixilTesiphon: Solyndra isn't exactly the only failure here.

Venture capital simply isn't within the proper scope of government. Too much moral hazard.


Another Republican revelation that occurred about mid January, 2009
 
2012-01-27 11:48:16 AM  

YixilTesiphon: Solyndra isn't exactly the only failure here.

Venture capital simply isn't within the proper scope of government. Too much moral hazard.


However, it's just right for companies like Bain, when a failure in most people's eyes is a success for Bain. In fact, a success in most people's eyes is a failure for Bain. That's why the government needs to butt out of venture capital; it just doesn't get what success and failure really are.
 
2012-01-27 11:49:55 AM  

IXI Jim IXI: Another Republican revelation that occurred about mid January, 2009


I am not a Republican. Address substance.
 
2012-01-27 11:50:04 AM  

YixilTesiphon: he legitimate outrage comes from this program being wrong even if every single investment succeeded. The problem isn't that one of the companies failed, it was obvious from the beginning that would happen; the problem is that the government is investing in startups at all.


Then who should? The only entities that have equivalent power to the federal government to fund startups are entities that I wouldn't want anywhere near my startup.
 
2012-01-27 11:50:31 AM  

burndtdan: this is why when you are looking to develop new tech, you don't fund private efforts, you fund public efforts. a public effort does not have to be profitable to continue. get the tech figured out, then let the private companies commercialize it and spread it. RND is not profitable.


R&D is profitable. My wife works for a prototype PCB design, layout and assembly company. All they do is prototypes and have been in business for 35 years. The problem is, when government gives money, efficiency goes out the window.
 
2012-01-27 11:50:36 AM  

Grand Architect: Fartwrongo


ooooooooooOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooooooo that one's AWESOME.
 
2012-01-27 11:52:32 AM  

YixilTesiphon: the problem is that the government is investing in startups at all.


So, you would be ok if the stimulus money had been invested in stable and well-known alternate energy companies?

Given the preparation and analysis of the loans, it looks like a calculated risk to invest in some needed tech at a time when the economy could really use that boost.
 
2012-01-27 11:53:32 AM  

YixilTesiphon: I am not a Republican. Address substance.


Substance is that you're going to have right-wingers squealing about this assuming, like everything else, that this originated early January, 2009.
 
2012-01-27 11:53:33 AM  
Ener1 was also backed by Mitch Daniels and Dick Lugar.

Link (new window)

but no, this is all Obama's fault
 
2012-01-27 11:54:05 AM  

YixilTesiphon: I am not a Republican.


get real, as to your misplaced derision, China is investing 30 billion in 'startups' and that's why we're losing -- we're not making the commitments we need to win the future at the cost of neoliberal ideology.
 
2012-01-27 11:56:59 AM  

YixilTesiphon: IXI Jim IXI: Another Republican revelation that occurred about mid January, 2009

I am not a Republican. Address substance.


What substance? All you've said is "moral hazard", ignoring the countless break-throughs and innovations that have come from government funds given to businesses and universities.
 
2012-01-27 11:57:09 AM  

bulldg4life: Dusk-You-n-Me: Factual information

So, this was completely expected, planned for, and will be completely covered through standard insurance practices used in commercial banking.

Well, I can definitely see where all the outrage comes from.


They're probably biatching and moaning over the Corporate Will plan, too. Responsibility is for poor people.
 
2012-01-27 11:59:32 AM  

DarnoKonrad: YixilTesiphon: I am not a Republican.

get real, as to your misplaced derision, China is investing 30 billion in 'startups' and that's why we're losing -- we're not making the commitments we need to win the future at the cost of neoliberal ideology.


If China wants to invest a huge amount of money in gaining the comparative advantage in producing solar panels, we should take advantage of that and put up their stupidly cheap solar panels all over the place. In the meantime we are heading for a budget crisis that neither major party cares to address and there isn't room for economic micromanagement.

IXI Jim IXI: YixilTesiphon: I am not a Republican. Address substance.

Substance is that you're going to have right-wingers squealing about this assuming, like everything else, that this originated early January, 2009.


And those people are stupid. Move on.
 
2012-01-27 11:59:57 AM  

DarnoKonrad: neoliberal


Which ones are the neoliberals?

We toss so many labels anymore about I'm lost in label hell.
 
2012-01-27 12:01:03 PM  
The first rule of innovation is: If at first you don't succeed, quit.
 
2012-01-27 12:01:44 PM  

YixilTesiphon: IXI Jim IXI: Another Republican revelation that occurred about mid January, 2009

I am not a Republican. Address substance.


But your substance is wrong entirely. The government has been funding startups for over 30 years through the SBIR program. 5% of all government granst have to go to small businesses for development and commercialzation.

We literally are the envy of the rest of the world in regards to using government capital to encourage business growth, Europe and China have been aping us on this front.

Google "SBIR success stories" end you will find literally hundreds of successful companies that have come out of the program.
 
2012-01-27 12:03:01 PM  

meat0918: DarnoKonrad: neoliberal

Which ones are the neoliberals?

We toss so many labels anymore about I'm lost in label hell.


Milton Friedman and his acolytes. The Chicago School.

There motto is "Private sector all the time, every time. Gub'mint bad."
 
2012-01-27 12:03:11 PM  

YixilTesiphon: If China wants to invest a huge amount of money in gaining the comparative advantage in producing solar panels, we should take advantage of that and put up their stupidly cheap solar panels all over the place. In the meantime we are heading for a budget crisis that neither major party cares to address and there isn't room for economic micromanagement.


I disagree. We're not going to expand our own GDP buying cheap stuff from China anymore. And if you don't want to be accused of being a Republican, don't toss in some red herring about a "budget crisis." Because it makes you sound like a boilerplate republican
 
2012-01-27 12:03:47 PM  
*Their
 
2012-01-27 12:03:53 PM  

Wendy's Chili: YixilTesiphon: IXI Jim IXI: Another Republican revelation that occurred about mid January, 2009

I am not a Republican. Address substance.

What substance? All you've said is "moral hazard", ignoring the countless break-throughs and innovations that have come from government funds given to businesses and universities.


troll tactic #21415: "Address the facts and data I didn't provide, not my hollow opinions!"
 
2012-01-27 12:04:26 PM  

meat0918: DarnoKonrad: neoliberal

Which ones are the neoliberals?

We toss so many labels anymore about I'm lost in label hell.


Chicago School supply side monetarist republican neoliberals.
 
2012-01-27 12:05:08 PM  
At least the money was not wasted. ENER1 spent 1/3 of a million dollars on lobbying and donated exclusively to democrats. Link (new window)

Over in the XL pipeline comment someone ask how much energy companies donated to the GOP for backing XL. Those energy companies want to spend their own money to build a pipeline. Green companies on the other hand lobby for tax dollars to piss away and donate to democrats.

One seems like a much bigger conflict of interest than the other.
 
2012-01-27 12:06:37 PM  

pdee: ENER1 spent 1/3 of a million dollars


That's some big bucks, there. Almost as much as Mitt Romney made in speaking fees.
 
2012-01-27 12:08:23 PM  

burndtdan: this is why when you are looking to develop new tech, you don't fund private efforts, you fund public efforts. a public effort does not have to be profitable to continue. get the tech figured out, then let the private companies commercialize it and spread it. RND is not profitable.


someone gets it. FFS, if we're gonna spend the money to develop new technology, then fund some public labs and universities to do the research and come up with prototypes. Then let private companies bid on licenses to produce the commercial product to recoup those costs. If the government is gonna advance a technology, socialism is the way to do it. Not fascism.
 
2012-01-27 12:08:43 PM  

pdee: One seems like a much bigger conflict of interest than the other.


This is a great comment if only because Boehner has invested in the companies that would be directly involved in building the XL pipeline and people like Cantor made investments that would increase in value through the debt crisis of last year.

Those damn democrats and their conflicts of interests from companies lobbying and donating money.

They should really turn down the donations for the betterment of the country.
 
Displayed 50 of 142 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report