Will the Name Solyndra be Remembered? - Page 4 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Honus · #46 09-17-2011, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billybob

...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"!

As well it should. I'm no economist, but I believe that argument is pretty much main stream at this point. This guy makes the argument much better than I ever could: http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2011/06/we-need-to-bury-the-shovel-ready-objection-to-infrastructure-spending.html

t walgamuth · #47 09-17-2011, 05:37 PM

private investors — including a fundraiser for President Barack Obama —

Can anybody explain what this means? I cannot imagine any way that a fundraiser would have loaned the company money. Does this mean an individual who loaned the company money?

Billybob · #48 09-17-2011, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

private investors — including a fundraiser for President Barack Obama —

Can anybody explain what this means? I cannot imagine any way that a fundraiser would have loaned the company money. Does this mean an individual who loaned the company money?

Well if you can't imagine then........

Read the article!

"Argonaut is an investment vehicle of the George Kaiser Family Foundation of Tulsa, Okla. The foundation is headed by billionaire George Kaiser, a major Obama campaign contributor and a frequent visitor to the White House. Kaiser raised between $50,000 and $100,000 for Obama's 2008 campaign, federal election records show. Kaiser has made at least 16 visits to the president's aides since 2009, according to White House visitor logs."

Billybob · #49 09-17-2011, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Honus

As well it should. I'm no economist, but I believe that argument is pretty much main stream at this point. This guy makes the argument much better than I ever could: http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2011/06/we-need-to-bury-the-shovel-ready-objection-to-infrastructure-spending.html

By what criteria have you assigned "main stream" status, by what measure do you calculate that you and the individual you've quoted/linked to find yourself in the main stream of thought on this?

I mean claiming that you/he/it is, is one thing but substantiating the "main stream"edness is supported by what evidence?

P. S. isn't that a link to something in the NYTimes? Is that the basis of the "main stream" criteria? So you where referring to the "main stream" of the "Obamunista Brain Trust" at the NY office of the Whitehouse Propaganda Organ, where Krugman and Freidman define the "main stream", I don't care who you are that there is pretty funny!

P. P. S. Any guess as to roughly how many more $528,000/9 month long jobs the country can afford to save? How many more jobs can the country save or create at the cost of $228,055 at minimum each as with the original Obama stimulis (CBO numbers - http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cbo-jobs-created-and-saved-stimulus-cost-minimum-average-228055-each )

Lowest estimate 16 Million unemployed at the minimum $288,055 per Obamajob, comes out to $4,608,880,000,000 per year! You think the ChiComs have that money to lend us, you think the global credit markets as a whole do? Who's going to pay that bill when it comes due?

panZZer · #50 09-17-2011, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billybob

Well if you can't imagine then........

Read the article!

"Argonaut is an investment vehicle of the George Kaiser Family Foundation of Tulsa, Okla. The foundation is headed by billionaire George Kaiser, a major Obama campaign contributor and a frequent visitor to the White House. Kaiser raised between $50,000 and $100,000 for Obama's 2008 campaign, federal election records show. Kaiser has made at least 16 visits to the president's aides since 2009, according to White House visitor logs."

Too bad george doesn't have a brother--then we would have the Kaiser Brothers!

Honus · #51 09-17-2011, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billybob

By what criteria have you assigned "main stream" status, by what measure do you calculate that you and the individual you've quoted/linked to find yourself in the main stream of thought on this?

I mean claiming that you/he/it is, is one thing but substantiating the "main stream"edness is supported by what evidence?

P. S. isn't that a link to something in the NYTimes? Is that the basis of the "main stream" criteria?

I didn't intend my characterization of this line of thinking as main stream to be authoritative. It's just what I gather from reading bits and pieces here and there. Perhaps someone can correct me on that point. I also don't mean to say that "main stream" = "correct." I'm just saying that the Obamanistas, as I think you called them, are not way out on some limb with their thinking.

I don't know whether that link has any connection to the New York Times, but this one does:

Quote:

Between Friday’s US job report and today’s economic news from the rest of the world, it’s hard to avoid the sense that things are going bust all over. Austerity is really biting, and the global economy is sputtering.

Plus, Europe! Spreads are widening out drastically, again — and where is the ECB? Still unwilling to concede that its move toward monetary tightening was exactly the wrong thing. And Munchau is right: if all of Europe is going to be engaged in fiscal austerity, with the ECB adding to the downdraft instead of fighting it, there’s no way the peripheral countries can make it.

What gets me, always, is that there is nothing mysterious about this crisis; nothing is happening that someone who read Paul Samuelson’s original, 1948 edition of his textbook would find puzzling. And old-fashioned textbook analysis tells us quite clearly what we should be doing about it. Hint: not austerity.

But much of the economics profession has turned its back on what it used to know, and policy makers have chosen to go with fantasies about expansionary contraction rather than macroeconomics 101.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/05/1937/

I know it's fashionable to reject Krugman, but he always makes sense to my simple mind.

Billybob · #52 09-17-2011, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Honus

I didn't intend my characterization of this line of thinking as main stream to be authoritative. It's just what I gather from reading bits and pieces here and there. Perhaps someone can correct me on that point. I also don't mean to say that "main stream" = "correct." I'm just saying that the Obamanistas, as I think you called them, are not way out on some limb with their thinking.

I don't know whether that link has any connection to the New York Times, but this one does:I know it's fashionable to reject Krugman, but he always makes sense to my simple mind.

See Pauline Kael!

Honus · #53 09-17-2011, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billybob

See Pauline Kael!

The movie critic?

Billybob · #54 09-17-2011, 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Honus

The movie critic?

Yeah she's known for that also! She's probably more well known for her comments related to Nixon's 1972 landslide.

t walgamuth · #55 09-17-2011, 09:45 PM

You refer to the election which Nixon won after lying cheating and putting out false statements on his opponent's stolen stationary?

The excesses of his sleazy campaign, if you remember, are what took him down in the end.

Billybob · #56 09-17-2011, 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

You refer to the election which Nixon won after lying cheating and putting out false statements on his opponent's stolen stationary?

The excesses of his sleazy campaign, if you remember, are what took him down in the end.

And this relates to Pauline Kael how?

MS Fowler · #57 09-17-2011, 11:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Honus

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.

Alleged corruption.
Bush administration and the WH financial office under Obama warned of dangers with this loan. Obama pushed it. The principle involved was a "bundler" of campaign funds. He set up the deal so he gets paid even if Solyndra goes bankrupt. He also has priority WH access.
Connect the dots--maybe it is corruption; maybe not, but it needs investigation.