Well ideally yes, but I think that is a utopian view. I'm not happy with it, but even more curious as to how many solyndras there are out there, hopefully we can get on top of them and solyndra is more of a wake up call than anything else. Unfortunately in terms of politics we all know each party is out to get the other so the GOP will capitalize while the Dems try and minimize the error in applying the finances.

Yes, the point you make, which was also made by someone earlier in the thread, is very valid. If this one exists, there are probably others, hopefully to a lesser magnitude.

Regardless of ones political leanings, they should be appalled at this and any other such government ventures that are wasting money that we don't have.

He's twisted and bunched more liberal panties tighter and longer than any man alive or dead!

The real question is, Are ANY of the green energy companies viable, or are they simply profit centers for Friends of Obama?

Why did you leave out Bush? The saga starts with Dubya.

Exactly how again?

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-solyndra-donor-20110917,0,440510.story?track=rss


According to wiki, which can be wrong, Obama assumed the office on 01/20/2009. Program was created by Bush and they received a conditional commitment in March of 2009. A little after Bush's term was over.

Edit: Still, if your point is that govt should keep their noses out of affairs like this, regardless of party, you could have a point. After all, they can't even do their own jobs so perhaps this is a little too much for them.

How? Program was created during the Bush admin. Solyndra filed for aid and got a conditional commitment in March of 09. OMB was assessing the deal. Even in Aug of 09, risk assessment was still underway. They could have cut and run at any time.

Haliburton subcontracted nearly everything that they provided. I have never bought that they were the only company capable of providing the services.

Though you say he left on bad terms (I never heard this before) he did not sell his stock in it and made millions as VP of the us on his holdings each year. (Am I not correct?)

To me the way we waged war was an outrage in Iraq and Afganistan. It was a thinly disguised way to channel huge contracts to private contracors like Haliburton. Privatizing things like trucking, and the food services inside the two countries. The big US company gets a huge cost plus contract, hires a local company to do the work.

The local company in turn to get the trucks safely through areas not completely secure yet (we have this "lean" military presence now) have to pay "security" payments to the local war lords. The money goes right into the insurgent purse to finance the anti american fighters. We are (were) finincing the people killing our military personell.

In this was the administration was allowed to speak of our presence in Iraq for example as (what was the number?) 140,000 troops, when if you counted all the privatized contracting presence the number was probably really 500,000 people there doing what in previouis wars (like ww2) would have all been done by men and women in the us uniform.

Of course these contractors funneled huge contributions to their political allies.

When I was on the local school board we could not even take school items like desks and file cabinets to the dump when we bought new ones, we had to offer them for bid. No such rules or anything close hampered the war efforts in the middle east.

I was NOT referring to Solyndra but to the 12 billion in cash spread around Iraq and Afganistan.

Why does it have to be " either-or"?
Can't we demand that the media expose corruption regardless of the political party involved? IMO, the media is way too aware guided by their political bent, wanting to help one party and destroy the other.

Corruption? What does Solyndra have to do with corruption? I have only read a few of the news reports about Solyndra, so I could have missed something.

This is a VERY good suggestion. The $12 Billion dollars should be investigated and if it's illegal or impropriety, there should be convictions. Corruption is corruption and illegal activity is illegal activity. It makes no difference what political party the offender might be identified with.

Honus made the first response to this thread and made a very good point. The three examples I cited all involved alleged criminal activity. ANY criminal activity or misappropriation of dollars for political reasons should be INVESTIGATED and any guilty party should be prosecuted.

Since I began this thread, I have seen that General Jumper was uirged by the Whitehouse to change his testimony in the Light Squared proceedings. Urging someone to commit purgery, I THINK but I'm not a lawyer, is illegal.

ALL illegal actions and impropriety, REGARDLESS of party should be investigated and punished to the fullest extent of the law IMHO.

Yep.

I mostly agree, but would offer a friendly amendment. Given the imperfections in the law, prosecutors need some leeway to exercise their discretion about which cases are pursued balls to the wall and which are allowed to slide. I know that that is exactly the sort of thing that gets abused and gives an advantage to people with the right connections, but I think it is inevitable. The law is too blunt an instrument to be able to properly address all the different scenarios humans concoct. Sometimes the system relies on the good faith of those in charge.

Your basic point is dead on, though. Howard Baker exemplified the principle when he said that we needed to know what President Nixon knew and when he knew it. Other Watergate figures - Archibald Cox, Elliott Richardson, and William Ruckelshaus come to mind - also stood up for principle and are now well-regarded as a result. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_Night_Massacre

"The Obama administration restructured a half-billion dollar federal loan to a troubled solar energy company in such a way that private investors — including a fundraiser for President Barack Obama — moved ahead of taxpayers for repayment in case of a default, government records show."

"We have incurred significant net losses since our inception, including a net loss of $114.1 million in 2007, $232.1 million in 2008 and $119.8 million in the first nine months of fiscal 2009, and we had an accumulated deficit of $505 million at Oct. 3, 2009," the company said in a December 2009 filing to the SEC. "We expect to continue to incur significant operating and net losses and negative cash flow from operations for the foreseeable future."

"Without DOE's agreement to restructure Solyndra's loan, the company likely would have faced bankruptcy much earlier — in December 2010" or soon after, Silver said. "Restructuring gave them a fighting chance to compete and succeed, and kept approximately 1,000 workers from losing their jobs."

http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/obama-admin-reworked-solyndra-1182334.html

Let's see how the Obamanomic Obamamathamatics works out $528,000,000/1000 Solyndra workers = $366.67 per hour, $2933.33 per day, $14,667 per week, $58,667 per month, for a total of $528,000 per nine month long job saved.

Every worker could have been give a $100,000 severance payout and the boondoggle doors shut for a mere $100,000 000 of confiscated taxpayer wealth.

On a side note, the Obamunista "Brain Trust" even now consistently argues that the fundamental failure is that the "Dear Leader" has not been given enough money to "invest"!