Dancin_In_Anson: MithrandirBooga: But yeah, if you completely ignore reality, I suppose it doesn't make any sense whatsoever to invest in solar energy.

Sounds to me like a slam dunk. maybe you can get some investors together and get a company started.

So you got nothing, then. Gotcha.

mrshowrules: I really don't understand the controversy behind Solyndra.

a) Government wishes to promote US renewable energy companies
b) Government backs loans of companies based on transparent process while risk managing (expecting) a certain number of those companies to fail
c) less companies fail than expected
d) by backing loans (instead of giving money to companies) the Government has created a huge return on investment, effectively a multiplier effect where $1 of US investment has created $10 in private sector growth in an area with enormous societal benefits

Is the controversy that Government invests in the energy sector at all or just renewable energy?

You're missing several key elements.

1.) Solyndra's business model was not even remotely workable, and a reasonable amount of due diligence should have discovered that.
2.) The Bush Administration looked at Solyndra in late 2008/2009 and declined to guarantee their loans because the company had provided too little information for the government to adequately guarantee the loans.
3.) The Obama Administration went ahead with the loan guarantees anyway, despite not having gone through the legal process for advancing the money.
4.) Solyndra's owners were also major Obama campaign donors and "bundlers" with a great deal of sway within the Administration.
5.) Administration officials emailed Solyndra and tried to make sure that they didn't run through layoffs until after the 2010 elections - all this time the company continued to hemmorhage money.
6.) Had the proper proceedures been complied with, the loan would never have been made.

So yes, there's a lot more to Solyndra than just that...

Christ. Anymore, Fark headlines should come with Cliffs Notes for all the sped kids who can't figure shiat out.

Dancin_In_Anson: MithrandirBooga: So you got nothing, then. Gotcha.

Well, no, I don't when it comes to investing in solar. I'm not as positive that it will be nearly as wildly successful as you do. You on the other hand have total faith in the industry. I wish you the best of luck. I really do. I'm all about people making money.


This is utterly hilarious. What, exactly, do you think is going to replace oil when it's gone? Keep in mind that literally the only source of energy feeding our planet is the sun, ie, "Sol", where the word "solar" comes from. It's not a hard concept to understand.

Dancin_In_Anson: when it comes to investing in solar. I'm not as positive that it will be nearly as wildly successful as you do.

That's probably why the government is involved in grants and loans and whatnot.

palladiate: OMG the press secretary fumbled a loaded question.

It wasn't a loaded question, just one that he didn't want to answer.

MithrandirBooga: This is utterly hilarious. What, exactly, do you think is going to replace oil when it's gone?

You could picture an energy economy based on NG for personal vehicles and bio-fuels for jet fuel and farm equipment and trains and stuff. They also have those bloomboxes that run on NG or propane for electricity. Solar is the best idea for society but to make the most money you'd probably have a better return getting people hooked on fossil fuels again.

Dancin_In_Anson: Headso: That's probably why the government is involved in grants and loans and whatnot.

Not the job of government.

says you... but government money is already going to fund this kinda stuff, like it went to fund other forms of infrastructure that supports commerce in the past.

Dancin_In_Anson: Headso: says you... but government money is already going to fund this kinda stuff, like it went to fund other forms of infrastructure that supports commerce in the past

Calling Solyandra "infrastructure" now are we? Heh.

You can't run a modern economy without electricity...

Dancin_In_Anson: Headso: You can't run a modern economy without electricity...

Or transportation. How about we pony up some cash for Keystone instead of quashing it all together...

Like we already don't spend trillions of taxpayer money protecting our oil based energy infrastructure across the globe.

Dancin_In_Anson: Headso: You can't run a modern economy without electricity...

Or transportation. How about we pony up some cash for Keystone instead of quashing it all together...

Why would we spend money to RAISE the price of oil in a large part of the US for no overall gain in oil supply??

Debeo Summa Credo: bulldg4life: Dancin_In_Anson: Some of those companies actually succeeded too! Damn the luck.

I would assume some of the companies that were provided loan guarantees from the same 2005 energy bill as Solyndra succeeded too.

Again, the comparison seems silly unless you expand past just Solyndra. Unless, of course, we are going to assume that every Bain Capital investment has succeeded.

True, but Bain's winning percentage is higher than govt investment/guarantees in risky ventures.

Why? Because if the investments in companies like
Solyndra on the terms the govt got were worthwhile, private investors would have funded them.

Um no it really wasn't. Also most of Solyndra's funding came from private investors.

mrshowrules:

Read The Washington Post's investigation into the Solyndra affair for the background.

And responding to every argument with a "citation needed" is cute every so often but it's not a replacement for doing your own research, especially not on something that's factual and can be easily located with about 30 seconds of Googling.

The loan guarantees for Solyndra were pushed through for political reasons, even though the OMB process hadn't been completed. If the President's campaign wants to try to compare and contrast Solyndra with what Bain Capital did, I suspect that the Romney campaign would welcome that comparison.

Dancin_In_Anson: 12349876: Making money, but not at the price of pawning off pension funds to taxpayers like you and me, and not by firing employees that absolutely have to be fired for the company to stay alive.

As opposed to just putting a match to taxpayer money, achieving the same result and no one making a profit.

Hell of a business model.

Are you... Are you retarded? Just checking. Cause I don't like making fun of retarded people.

WombatControl: mrshowrules:

Read The Washington Post's investigation into the Solyndra affair for the background.

And responding to every argument with a "citation needed" is cute every so often but it's not a replacement for doing your own research, especially not on something that's factual and can be easily located with about 30 seconds of Googling.

The loan guarantees for Solyndra were pushed through for political reasons, even though the OMB process hadn't been completed. If the President's campaign wants to try to compare and contrast Solyndra with what Bain Capital did, I suspect that the Romney campaign would welcome that comparison.

Hmmm it seems to be missing the part about how the Bush team wanted to conditionally approve the loan prior to Obama taking office or that one of the largest investors in the project were the Walton family.

You can Google them if you don't know who they are.

Aldon: Republicans loosing taxpayer money: $9 Billion dollars lost in Iraq, nobody can account for where that money has gone to and what it was used for specifically, basically it could be anywhere used by anyone in Iraq.

Democrats loosing taxpayer money: $155 million lost on Solyndra, one of many companies the US government guaranteed loans for solar power technology to boost America's energy independence. Overall the far majority of loan guarantees worked out, this one didn't due to the failure of the American company. The Republican presidential candidate wants to continue with these kinds of subsidized loans to American ethanol companies to boost America's energy independence.

So, both sides are the same.

The weird thing is I haven't heard any success stories about the US loans. Then again, I haven't been looking.
I would say the Obama campaign should point to those success stories as return fire against the Solyndra accusations, but then again, if one of those stories eventually fails, it would be ammunition for the GOP to attack and claim fraud on the part of Obama's administration.
Heads I lose, tails you win seems to be the name of the game here when it comes to trying to prove the GOP talking points wrong.

Headso: was that headline hard to read or what?

I felt like Ronald McDonald after reading that headline.

WombatControl: 2.) The Bush Administration looked at Solyndra in late 2008/2009 and declined to guarantee their loans because the company had provided too little information for the government to adequately guarantee the loans.

When even Politifact thinks you're full of shiat. You know you're lying.

bulldg4life: What's the point of comparing Bain Capital and Solyndra anyway? I mean, other than being able to connect a candidate to one or the other.

Does there need to be any other point in an election year?

WombatControl: mrshowrules:

Read The Washington Post's investigation into the Solyndra affair for the background.

And responding to every argument with a "citation needed" is cute every so often but it's not a replacement for doing your own research, especially not on something that's factual and can be easily located with about 30 seconds of Googling.

The loan guarantees for Solyndra were pushed through for political reasons, even though the OMB process hadn't been completed. If the President's campaign wants to try to compare and contrast Solyndra with what Bain Capital did, I suspect that the Romney campaign would welcome that comparison.

That is all MrShowRules has. Its a shame the user is such a shill, because the show, Mr. Show, does rule.

Mrtraveler01: WombatControl: 2.) The Bush Administration looked at Solyndra in late 2008/2009 and declined to guarantee their loans because the company had provided too little information for the government to adequately guarantee the loans.

When even Politifact thinks you're full of shiat. You know you're lying.


The article didn't exactly say that. It said that the Energy Department wanted to do more due diligence, essentially, on the loan, but ran out of time. Based on the information it was provided, the Energy Dept believed Solyndra had "merit", but as is quite obvious to everyone, the information provided was sorely lacking.