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

t walgamuth · #1 09-16-2011, 12:34 PM

So a government insured loan went bad. So what?

The solyndra loan to a company hoping to provide a reasonable alternative to petroleum. The petroleum companies enjoy some pretty sweet handouts courtesy of our government, I understand and they are making billions.

I am also a lot more upset about all the sweet, no competitive bids, cost plus contracts that went to Haliburton in the middle east wars. (Cheney's company).

JollyRoger · #2 09-16-2011, 12:36 PM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/feb/08/usa.iraq1

....

t walgamuth · #3 09-16-2011, 12:50 PM

Yikes! 12 Billion in cash spread around Iraq and Afganistan.

Where is the outrage on the political right about this?

Air&Road · #4 09-16-2011, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

Yikes!

Where is the outrage on the political right about this?

From what I've seen, the only outrage about the Solyndra issue is COMING from what you call the right.

t walgamuth · #5 09-17-2011, 06:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LarryBible

From what I've seen, the only outrage about the Solyndra issue is COMING from what you call the right.

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

MS Fowler · #6 09-17-2011, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

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.

Honus · #7 09-17-2011, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

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.

Air&Road · #8 09-17-2011, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

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

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.

t walgamuth · #9 09-17-2011, 12:43 PM

Yep.

Honus · #10 09-17-2011, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LarryBible

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

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

Air&Road · #11 09-16-2011, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

So a government insured loan went bad. So what?

The solyndra loan to a company hoping to provide a reasonable alternative to petroleum. The petroleum companies enjoy some pretty sweet handouts courtesy of our government, I understand and they are making billions.

I am also a lot more upset about all the sweet, no competitive bids, cost plus contracts that went to Haliburton in the middle east wars. (Cheney's company).

I always was amazed at the mainstream medias reporting of the Halliburton issues. Dick Cheney left Halliburton on unfriendly terms before all these contracts ended up at Halliburtons steps. Also Halliburton was the only company in a position to deliver on most of the various contracts.

The mainstream media framed it up to get even a savvy guy like you, Tom, to believe it.

Larry

aklim · #12 09-16-2011, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LarryBible

Dick Cheney left Halliburton on unfriendly terms before all these contracts ended up at Halliburtons steps.

What happened again? He got booted out or "asked to seek other opportunities"? I heard something about it but not sure. Got a link?

t walgamuth · #13 09-17-2011, 05:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LarryBible

I always was amazed at the mainstream medias reporting of the Halliburton issues. Dick Cheney left Halliburton on unfriendly terms before all these contracts ended up at Halliburtons steps. Also Halliburton was the only company in a position to deliver on most of the various contracts.

The mainstream media framed it up to get even a savvy guy like you, Tom, to believe it.

Larry

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.

Air&Road · #14 09-19-2011, 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

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.

Had you been hearing Texas local news back in those days, you would not have missed the goings on over Halliburtons purchase of Dresser. It turned out to be a bad acquisition and who else to blame besides the CEO.

Cheney was an attack dog. Who in any opposition party likes an attack dog? The perceived attachment of Halliburton and Cheney while he was VP was a natural for the mainstream media. If there was favoring of Halliburton that is indeed a bad deal, but Cheney, if anything was seen in bad light by Halliburton during that time period.

Maybe you should reevaluate your news sources.

t walgamuth · #15 09-19-2011, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LarryBible

Had you been hearing Texas local news back in those days, you would not have missed the goings on over Halliburtons purchase of Dresser. It turned out to be a bad acquisition and who else to blame besides the CEO.

Cheney was an attack dog. Who in any opposition party likes an attack dog? The perceived attachment of Halliburton and Cheney while he was VP was a natural for the mainstream media. If there was favoring of Halliburton that is indeed a bad deal, but Cheney, if anything was seen in bad light by Halliburton during that time period.

Maybe you should reevaluate your news sources.

Do you deny he still held significant stock in Haliburton and made something like 30 million from his holdings in his first year as VP?