Anonymous
10/26/2011 20:09
Subject: Should there be legal recourse against Stimulus Fund beneficiaries?
10.24 18:59 here
.... still waiting for your legal theory of liability ... or are you getting the frequency in your dental fillings retuned today? ;-o
.... still waiting for your legal theory of liability ... or are you getting the frequency in your dental fillings retuned today? ;-o
Anonymous
10/26/2011 16:23
Subject: Should there be legal recourse against Stimulus Fund beneficiaries?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Solyndra took $537 million...
Yes, how dare a company go belly-up. The upper-management should be lined up and shot. Are all conservatives this stupid, or just the rubes that make up the base?
Best quote about Solyndra:
"Watching this unfold over the last week, I keep thinking back to "Climategate." When it first broke back in late 2009, lefties and bloggers and Dem lawmakers just ignored it, because it was obviously dumb. This left the field entirely open to a massive attack from the right, coordinated among ideological media, staffers, lobbyists, and pols. When the left finally stirred itself to action, all that emerged were a bunch of long, boring investigations into the details and good-faith efforts to be fair about how both sides a point. By the time five separate investigations had cleared the scientists of all wrongdoing, the damage was done. Now we're seeing the same script play out again."
Bottom line is, the GOP base will basically believe anything that comes out of the "trusted" news outlets. This doesn't work both ways, because most folks on the left are hugely skeptical of their political "representation". But, man, the folks who drive policy and messaging on the right really can convince the true-believers of anything.
One more:
Basically, Solyndra was working on a solar technology that promised to be cheaper than silicon, and at the time of the loan it looked really promising both to DOE and to private investors. But then the market turned: Silicon prices dropped, and China started producing super low-cost silicon PV. That spelled doom for Solyndra. They had a good idea, but it didn't work out.
In any case, Solyndra is a tiny fraction of DOE's green-energy loan program, and Solyndra's loan guarantees are dwarfed by those of both fossil fuel and nuclear companies, which range into the multiple billions. There was no scandal in the loan process, and there's nothing unusual about having a certain fraction of speculative programs like this fail. It's all part of the way the free market works.
http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2011/09/how-talk-about-solyndra
http://www.grist.org/renewable-energy/2011-09-14-solyndra-is-the-next-climategate
Anonymous
10/26/2011 16:18
Subject: Should there be legal recourse against Stimulus Fund beneficiaries?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Solyndra took $537 million...
Yes, how dare a company go belly-up. The upper-management should be lined up and shot. Are all conservatives this stupid, or just the rubes that make up the base?
Best quote about Solyndra:
"Watching this unfold over the last week, I keep thinking back to "Climategate." When it first broke back in late 2009, lefties and bloggers and Dem lawmakers just ignored it, because it was obviously dumb. This left the field entirely open to a massive attack from the right, coordinated among ideological media, staffers, lobbyists, and pols. When the left finally stirred itself to action, all that emerged were a bunch of long, boring investigations into the details and good-faith efforts to be fair about how both sides a point. By the time five separate investigations had cleared the scientists of all wrongdoing, the damage was done. Now we're seeing the same script play out again."
Bottom line is, the GOP base will basically believe anything that comes out of the "trusted" news outlets. This doesn't work both ways, because most folks on the left are hugely skeptical of their political "representation". But, man, the folks who drive policy and messaging on the right really can convince the true-believers of anything.
Anonymous
10/26/2011 16:07
Subject: Should there be legal recourse against Stimulus Fund beneficiaries?
Anonymous wrote:Solyndra took $537 million...
Yes, how dare a company go belly-up. The upper-management should be lined up and shot. Are all conservatives this stupid, or just the rubes that make up the base?
TheManWithAUsername
10/25/2011 17:18
Subject: Should there be legal recourse against Stimulus Fund beneficiaries?
Anonymous wrote:Not sure why this thread became us vs. them?
Because OP said, "Every red cent should be returned to american people who paid for this crap and I'm being told I should pay more taxes? once the government gets billion plus dollars back they can come ask me for more."
Anonymous
10/25/2011 15:05
Subject: Should there be legal recourse against Stimulus Fund beneficiaries?
Not sure why this thread became us vs. them? It's just one example of a serious abuse of the system. These companies should be required to at the very least, return the money. It was given out to serve a very specific purpose with specific terms, once these companies realized they could not satisfy these terms they should have given the oney back.
Anonymous
10/25/2011 11:37
Subject: Should there be legal recourse against Stimulus Fund beneficiaries?
legal recourse....it is called an election. Just fair warning, the ow'ers are out polling the tp'ers.
TheManWithAUsername
10/25/2011 11:30
Subject: Should there be legal recourse against Stimulus Fund beneficiaries?
Anonymous wrote:I think a lot of people have been outraged for a long time. It's just that we're really pretty helpless. The American people will keep electing these self-serving idiots. That's how democracy works.
If the TPers were outraged during Bush, they were awfully quiet about it.
I think it's funny that Cain criticizes the 99%s for not shouting at Obama. They are, to my ear - at him and many others. I bet the overwhelming majority voted for Obama, but they're not pretending that he's been their champion.
Anonymous
10/25/2011 10:44
Subject: Should there be legal recourse against Stimulus Fund beneficiaries?
Anonymous wrote:I love all of this newfound outrage. Such hypocrisy.
Where were you when we decided to invade the country with the largest standing army in the middle east? The one that did not attack us? Where were you when no-bid contracts then went to companies closely tied with the administration officials who sent us to war? Are you outraged that when we build a jet plane, we have to pay for a second jet engine to be developed, one that the Pentagon doesn't want? Because it's in John Boehner's district? And he's the guy who is supposed to be against earmarks! Price tag? $3 Billion (that's a B).
I think a lot of people have been outraged for a long time. It's just that we're really pretty helpless. The American people will keep electing these self-serving idiots. That's how democracy works.
Anonymous
10/24/2011 22:36
Subject: Should there be legal recourse against Stimulus Fund beneficiaries?
I love all of this newfound outrage. Such hypocrisy.
Where were you when we decided to invade the country with the largest standing army in the middle east? The one that did not attack us? Where were you when no-bid contracts then went to companies closely tied with the administration officials who sent us to war? Are you outraged that when we build a jet plane, we have to pay for a second jet engine to be developed, one that the Pentagon doesn't want? Because it's in John Boehner's district? And he's the guy who is supposed to be against earmarks! Price tag? $3 Billion (that's a B).
Where were you when we decided to invade the country with the largest standing army in the middle east? The one that did not attack us? Where were you when no-bid contracts then went to companies closely tied with the administration officials who sent us to war? Are you outraged that when we build a jet plane, we have to pay for a second jet engine to be developed, one that the Pentagon doesn't want? Because it's in John Boehner's district? And he's the guy who is supposed to be against earmarks! Price tag? $3 Billion (that's a B).
TheManWithAUsername
10/24/2011 19:00
Subject: Should there be legal recourse against Stimulus Fund beneficiaries?
jsteele wrote:Are you aware of how much US taxpayer money has gone missing in Iraq and Afghanistan? According to this article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/30/military-spending-waste_n_942723.html
as much as $60 billion. Are you outraged about that? Let's worry about $537 million or a measly $7.2 millions after we put some people in prison for that missing $60 billion.
Beat me to it. As I've said before, I would be marching with the TP on some issues, if they weren't such ridiculous hypocrites.
Anonymous
10/24/2011 18:59
Subject: Should there be legal recourse against Stimulus Fund beneficiaries?
what is your theory of liability?
as noted, any losses/damages would pale in comparison to the waste in/via the military/Pentagon and wars, both on and off the books.
as noted, any losses/damages would pale in comparison to the waste in/via the military/Pentagon and wars, both on and off the books.
jsteele
10/24/2011 16:36
Subject: Should there be legal recourse against Stimulus Fund beneficiaries?
Anonymous wrote:Am I the only one outraged about the misuse of hundreds of millions of stimulus dollars? Seriously, Solyndra took $537 million and now we hear about $7.2 million to the loggers that only hired TWO americans and then hired 245 foreign workers and brought them into the states and Fisker Automotive that've sieved $529 million only to take it all to Finland? Come on people, where is the outrage? Every red cent should be returned to american people who paid for this crap and I'm being told I should pay more taxes? once the government gets billion plus dollars back they can come ask me for more.
Are you aware of how much US taxpayer money has gone missing in Iraq and Afghanistan? According to this article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/30/military-spending-waste_n_942723.html
as much as $60 billion. Are you outraged about that? Let's worry about $537 million or a measly $7.2 millions after we put some people in prison for that missing $60 billion.
Anonymous
10/24/2011 16:27
Subject: Should there be legal recourse against Stimulus Fund beneficiaries?
Anonymous wrote:Am I the only one outraged about the misuse of hundreds of millions of stimulus dollars? Seriously, Solyndra took $537 million and now we hear about $7.2 million to the loggers that only hired TWO americans and then hired 245 foreign workers and brought them into the states and Fisker Automotive that've sieved $529 million only to take it all to Finland? Come on people, where is the outrage? Every red cent should be returned to american people who paid for this crap and I'm being told I should pay more taxes? once the government gets billion plus dollars back they can come ask me for more.
Fisker contends the following: "Fisker Automotive, which plans to build a hybrid plug-in electric vehicle at the former GM plant on Boxwood Road, says "not a single dollar" from Department of Energy loans has been, or will be spent, overseas." Is there a source that refutes this?
Anonymous
10/24/2011 15:17
Subject: Should there be legal recourse against Stimulus Fund beneficiaries?
Am I the only one outraged about the misuse of hundreds of millions of stimulus dollars? Seriously, Solyndra took $537 million and now we hear about $7.2 million to the loggers that only hired TWO americans and then hired 245 foreign workers and brought them into the states and Fisker Automotive that've sieved $529 million only to take it all to Finland? Come on people, where is the outrage? Every red cent should be returned to american people who paid for this crap and I'm being told I should pay more taxes? once the government gets billion plus dollars back they can come ask me for more.