Will the Name Solyndra be Remembered? - Page 7 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Air&Road · #91 09-19-2011, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RichC

Government bad, corporations good?

Seems to be the battle cry of republicans that want to dismantel our democracy.

Is there anything less patriotic than trying to destroy our democracy.

I thought our government was the envy of the world and we needed to
spend billions to invade other countries so we could spread it to them.

WOW! You're kind of "out there" aren't you?

If you want to do away with, or stifle the coporations, please propose where the money will come from to run this government that you seem to love so much.

chilcutt · #92 09-19-2011, 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LarryBible

WOW! You're kind of "out there" aren't you?

If you want to do away with, or stifle the coporations, please propose where the money will come from to run this government that you seem to love so much.

I think you missed his point.

Air&Road · #93 09-19-2011, 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

The government is in the business of encouraging people to do things which need doing but are too risky to do without assistance.

The government encourages folks through tax breaks, guaranteed loans and in many other ways I am sure.

Just making business expenses tax deductable is an encouragement. Meals being deductable supports our food industry. Mortgage interest being deductable supports loans......and so forth.

WOW! The government should NOT be in ANY business. Business should run on it's own WITHOUT government involvement. The ONLY government involvement in business should be what it takes to see that they do not break any laws.

When the government starts picking the winners and losers as opposed to the free market making that choice then the wheels start coming off. Wait a minute, that's already happeniing and the wheels are indeed coming off.

Examples are Frank, Dodd and GW Bush saying that everyone has a right to a mortgage. Where did that get us?

Air&Road · #94 09-19-2011, 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

Well ethanol, as you well know is a total bust. It costs MORE than the gasoline its supposed to save, AND it is harmful to the rubber components of fuel systems, AND it drives up the price of food.
Bad, bad and worse.

I can almost see helping a fledgling industry get started. But if it fails, cut off the support.

VERY WELL STATED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Air&Road · #95 09-19-2011, 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Honus

I'm sure we can count on the GOP to turn over every stone and stretch every fact to find corruption. Rep. Garder (R - Colorado) tried a bit too hard on Wednesday and wound up looking like a fool: http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/LoanGuaran [Gardner is at 2:29:50 to 2:34:00.] Rep. Bilbray (R - California) was doing a much better job for the GOP side just before yielding back to Gardner.

Based on a bit of googling on Rep. Gardner, I'm guessing this isn't the first time he's made a fool of himself. I'm sure it won't be the last.

Sigh.

So is this a bad thing? Shouldn't ALL government officials regardless of party, be dilligent in making sure that law is being enforced? After all, they pass the laws, why is it a bad thing that they try to enforce them?

Air&Road · #96 09-19-2011, 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

"Honus" Are you so blinded by your partisanship that you fail to see the same farcical pretension is played, regardless of party is or principal?

In this instance it is entirely appropriate that the congress exercise it's constitutional prerogative. If there's no "there" there, well that's good, too. Regardless, it keeps the administration jumping to dot 'i's' and cross 't's' and to stay within the parameters of the law and good sense.

I hope more congressional investigations follow. I'd like to see one get into defense contracting. Also union activities in gov installations. Etc.

More, please.

Absolutely! It makes you wonder why more investigations DON'T happen. Maybe some of them are afraid of stepping on their own toes, or those attached to the body of someone else in congress that owes them a favor or something.

The vast majority of elected officials in DC, REGARDLESS of their party move carefully to protect themselves and those they are CONNECTED with.

Air&Road · #97 09-19-2011, 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Honus

Sometimes it's obvious, IMO. Honesty in this context goes hand-in-hand with fairness and good faith. Congressional oversight would be much better if the majority party would deal in good faith with the minority, the witnesses, and the subjects of their investigations. I don't see much good faith in the way Rep. Gardner dealt with that witness. Or maybe he's just not very smart. At any rate, his performance in the linked video is an embarrassment.

I like the first sentence above. Where the thought process goes astray IMHO is that it is one parties duty to compromise with the other.

I find compromise to be a ridiculous request, but understandable why it is begged for by politicians because almost none of them have any core principles. If you believe in a core principle, then compromise on that principle should be IMPOSSIBLE.

I will use an example that is not something that anyone would compromise on. The reason is that if I were to use a more real world example, the conversation would skew to that specific principle as opposed to the subject of compromise.

As the example let's say that someone goes to Washington with part of their core principles being that it's not okay to rob banks. In the course of their congressional dealings they are asked to take part in the repeal of the law preventing bank robbery. So they compromise and say that bank robbery on Wednesdays will be okay. That person just compromised their principle.

SO, when ANY politician on either side of an issue COMPROMISES, they show just how much lack of commitment they have to their core principles.

To take that one step further, if that congressman believes that bank robbery is bad but his constituency firmly believes that it should be okay, how should he vote on the issue?

Air&Road · #98 09-19-2011, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billybob

No man's life, liberty or property are safe while the legislature is in session. Judge Gideon J. Tucker

Yes, every day that the congress is not in session is a good day for America.

Air&Road · #99 09-19-2011, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

As a comparison, I wonder how many dollars are passed out (or pissed away if you prefer) to the Petroleum industry, a well proven money maker, or to the ethanol industry (a well proven money loser)?

IMHO the Federal government should be subsidizing EITHER of them in ANY way. That's just more of the government picking winners and losers. They need to STAY OUT and as long as laws are not being broken, let them run on their own.

Honus · #**100** 09-19-2011, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LarryBible

So is this a bad thing? Shouldn't ALL government officials regardless of party, be dilligent in making sure that law is being enforced? After all, they pass the laws, why is it a bad thing that they try to enforce them?

Oversight is good. My objection is to members of Congress grandstanding and acting like jackasses. Gardner is a prime example of that. Check out the video in my link.

Honus · #**101** 09-19-2011, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LarryBible

I like the first sentence above. Where the thought process goes astray IMHO is that it is one parties duty to compromise with the other.

I find compromise to be a ridiculous request, but understandable why it is begged for by politicians because almost none of them have any core principles. If you believe in a core principle, then compromise on that principle should be IMPOSSIBLE.

I will use an example that is not something that anyone would compromise on. The reason is that if I were to use a more real world example, the conversation would skew to that specific principle as opposed to the subject of compromise.

As the example let's say that someone goes to Washington with part of their core principles being that it's not okay to rob banks. In the course of their congressional dealings they are asked to take part in the repeal of the law preventing bank robbery. So they compromise and say that bank robbery on Wednesdays will be okay. That person just compromised their principle.

SO, when ANY politician on either side of an issue COMPROMISES, they show just how much lack of commitment they have to their core principles.

To take that one step further, if that congressman believes that bank robbery is bad but his constituency firmly believes that it should be okay, how should he vote on the issue?

I disagree with you about compromise, but that is a different issue. My problem with Gardner is that he is either (a) stupid or (b) not acting in good faith.

EDIT: I re-read your post. You seem to have equated good faith with compromise. Those are two different things entirely. Compromise is where each side gives up something in return for something that side believes is more important. A good compromise is where neither side is happy, but a solution is achieved. You apparently don't like compromise. I see it as essential, but that is not what I meant to discuss. I was talking about good faith in the processes used in the course of Congressional oversight. Good faith in that context means to give both sides, the witnesses, and the subject of the investigation a fair opportunity to be heard. It also means not being selective in the evidence presented and not blindsiding witnesses with documents they have never seen before. Perhaps Gardner sincerely misunderstood the January 26 email mentioned in that video. If so, then I think his intellect was overpowered by his partisan zeal. It seems more likely, though, that he knew the email didn't say what he claimed it said. That's why he sprung it on the witness without giving him a copy before the hearing. If that was his plan, then he is dishonest and stupid because anyone could see that he was misreading the email.

t walgamuth · #**102** 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?

Jim B. · #**103** 09-19-2011, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LarryBible

I am not trying to enflame. I'm just curious about the predictions about the name Solyndra.

Will this name be remembered along with terms like:

Watergate
Iran Contra
Monica Lewinski

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaulC

You forgot Whitewater.

*You* forgot Blackwater

Air&Road · #**104** 09-19-2011, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

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?

Nope, don't deny it at all. It is quite common for jettisoned execs to get great golden parachute deals. Benefitting from such activity and having a hand in it are two different things. Do you have any evidence that he had his hand in it?

Air&Road · #**105** 09-19-2011, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Honus

I disagree with you about compromise, but that is a different issue. My problem with Gardner is that he is either (a) stupid or (b) not acting in good faith.

EDIT: I re-read your post. You seem to have equated good faith with compromise. Those are two different things entirely. Compromise is where each side gives up something in return for something that side believes is more important. A good compromise is where neither side is happy, but a solution is achieved. You apparently don't like compromise. I see it as essential, but that is not what I meant to discuss. I was talking about good faith in the processes used in the course of Congressional oversight. Good faith in that context means to give both sides, the witnesses, and the subject of the investigation a fair opportunity to be heard. It also means not being selective in the evidence presented and not blindsiding witnesses with documents they have never seen before. Perhaps Gardner sincerely misunderstood the January 26 email mentioned in that video. If so, then I think his intellect was overpowered by his partisan zeal. It seems more likely, though, that he knew the email didn't say what he claimed it said. That's why he sprung it on the witness without giving him a copy before the hearing. If that was his plan, then he is dishonest and stupid because anyone could see that he was misreading the email.

I understand your very good description of what you see as compromise. We just see compromise as something different. If you and I were to "compromise" on something like the price of a car that we were selling to each other, then I can go for that kind of compromise. If you were, on the other hand, trying to get me to "compromise" and violate one of my core principles I would not let that happen.

In other words, some things you CAN compromise on and some things you CAN NOT. Although our core principles are probably different, I expect that you have some ideologies on which you would refuse to compromise, just as I do.