«

»

Perspective…

This WSJ on Canada’s Oil sands producing a plethora of jobs deals real well with the difference between us and them when you get information like this:

Yet Canada has outperformed the U.S. since then. In 2010, according to the International Monetary Fund, Canada grew at 3.2% versus 2.9% in the U.S. In 2011, the IMF estimates Canada will grow at 2.9%; unemployment is now 7.3%. The IMF’s U.S. growth forecast is 2.5% this year, and U.S. unemployment is 9.1%.

But something else cought my eye in this article which I found far more damning. I will bold the relevant part:

Alberta’s oil and gas industry supports more than 271,000 direct jobs and hundreds of thousands of indirect jobs in sectors such as construction, manufacturing and financial services. The province has an unemployment rate of 5.6%. There are also some 960 American companies involved in Alberta energy, supplying equipment and technology, among other things. As an example, Mr. Liepert says, “dozens of Caterpillar tractors, made in Illinois and Michigan and costing $5 million a piece” work the oil sands. He says the region is on track to create more than 400,000 direct American jobs by 2035. The Bakken region of North Dakota, where private land ownership gives drillers relief from federal obstructionism, shares a similar, if smaller, story. Oil production there is booming, and North Dakota unemployment is 3.3%.

Let that sink in: wherever the Feds and their watermellon regulators have not been allowed to come in to pick the winners & losers, the economy has been doing beyond fine. Contrast the employment numbers for ND with those of California, then the oil industry there with the winners our own WH picked – Solyndra for example – and you should get a feel of why we need a lot less government “help” than we currently have.

Please spare me the “evil capitalist corporations will kill Gaia” stories. These people have to breathe the same air, drink the same water, and live in the mess they would create, and the last 2 decades have all but made sure that the corporations that succeed are the ones that actually keep that in mind. Don’t wait for the LSM to put out any of this information, though. They are too busy kissing O’s ass.

72 comments

No ping yet

  1. Hal_10000 says:

    Please spare me the “evil capitalist corporations will kill Gaia” stories. These people have to breathe the same air, drink the same water, and live in the mess they would create

    The oil execs live in the redneck riviera? I don’t think so.

    Oil permits are going out at about the same rate they were under Bush. And he’s getting screamed at by the enviros for allowing an oil sands pipeline through the US. I don’t think this is that big an issue.

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jun/15/rick-santorum/rick-santorum-says-barack-obama-has-raised-stop-si/

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  2. Poosh says:

    For your consideration: How Canada avoided America’s economic and financial problems.
    Poosh recently posted..Bad Bad Atheist ThinkingMy Profile

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  3. AlexInCT says:

    The oil execs live in the redneck riviera? I don’t think so.

    So your argument is that these guys are not smart enough to realize that if they dump it where the rednecks live it will get in their water anyway? Or is it that somehow if they dump it where the rednecks live, that they think it will never come back to affect them personally? Either way, that’s the “They have their own water/air supply” inconsistent logic I was referring to make believe that this is going on, Hal. You need to lay off the B rated horror movies with all the rednecks that become canibal-rapists that eat all the angsty teenagers that go camping movies for a while.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  4. Hal_10000 says:

    Do you think the BP executives live anywhere near the Gulf Coast? It is possible to do immense amounts of damage to the local environment while leaving your area perfectly clean.

    Even if it weren’t, we’ve seen this kind of tragedy of the commons many times. Lead manufactures knew their products was dangerous from the 1920′s on but kept pumping it into our air, our water and our food. Car manufacturers knew their cars were spewing filth but resisted tooth and nail putting catalytic converters in them.

    Lake Erie was so badly polluted it was almost dead. The Cayahoga caught fire. These were local polluters.

    It’s not that they’re evil. It’s just human nature. When there’s so much money at stake, it’s just so damned easy to listen to the voice telling you everything is fine, the opposition are a bunch of watermelons, it’s not really our fault, everyone’s doing it, it’ll be too expensive, etc. We’ve *seen* this happen and we’ve seen how it was stopped — by regulation. This is one place — one of the few — where the market doesn’t function well. In principle, yeah, people should shun polluters and the market should fix it. In practice, I doubt you could name where any of the parts in your car were made, let alone where the oil came from. Greens — liberal environmental fruitcakes — often have no idea where the batteries in their little electric cars came from or how much pollution is made creating them.

    Someone has to protect the air and the water. And it’s just not feasible for me to run around to every business and sue them.

    (And redneck riviera isn’t a slur; it’s a nickname for the gulf coast. And perfectly in keeping with how many business — and their regulatory captured agencies — think about the rest of us.)

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

      
  5. Poosh says:

    In the same way tobacco/cigarette manufacturers produce their products, knowing full well their products will kill a great number of their users.
    Poosh recently posted..Bad Bad Atheist ThinkingMy Profile

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  6. JimK says:

    Well said, Hal. I think you’ve nailed the central problem(s). Humans are humans, so mistakes will be made and doubled down on.

    In addition, in some cases, it is a legitimate role of the state to regulate environmental matters. It *is* an area in which the free market fails often enough that I see the need for oversight.

    The battle is then to keep the oversight from becoming onerous, because just as people will pollute when they know it’s harmful, regulators gonna regulate – by which I mean over-regulate beyond what is needed – if we let ‘em.
    JimK recently posted..DEAR EVERY AUTHOR IN THE WORLDMy Profile

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  7. AlexInCT says:

    Do you think the BP executives live anywhere near the Gulf Coast? It is possible to do immense amounts of damage to the local environment while leaving your area perfectly clean.

    So now the Gulf accident was done on purpose? Lets differnentiate between the two please. And is that why we are now letting the Chinese do the drilling in the Coast waters instead of BP? Your original accusation was that these people would purposfully do damage to the environment elsewhere while keeping theirs clean, if we had less government picking what industries where allowed and which not. I certainly hope you are not pulling a page out of the liberal handbook and saying that since I am advocating drastically reduced government powers – no more picking the winners & losers – that I am advocating for no government oversight (or government period) whatsoever. Anarchy is for stupid people, just like the argument that anyone that doesn’t like the fact government has become a nice little racket where those in power now can pick and choose whom succeeds and who doesn’t, at a premium, is asking for anarchy.

    And if this practice of dumping on other people’s land is happening, it happens in the third world, and then with full support of those governments I add, which is also the only way it happens here. And yes, it is quite possible to still do things that could result in damage to the environment, instead of advocating for zero tollerance for it. Especially when that same intollerance seems absent in the endeavors the assholes in government like. We still drive cars, ride trains, fly planes, swim, and gamble with sex partners, despite the huge number of deaths these risky behaviors produce annualy, albeit with a lot of government meddling. It is called assessing risk.

    And I should point out that willingly destroying the environment these days is tantamount to suicide for any corporation that isn’t owned by China.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  8. CM says:

    I’ll add another “well said Hal”.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

      
  9. CM says:

    ….with the winners our own WH picked – Solyndra for example….

    The Solyndra loan guarantee was a multi-year process that the Bush Administration launched in 2007. The Bush team tried to conditionally approve the Solyndra loan just before President Obama took office. One of the earliest and largest investors, Madrone Capital Partners, is funded by the family that started Wal-Mart, the Waltons. The Waltons have donated millions of dollars to Republican candidates over the years.

    In fact, rather than rushing the loan for Solyndra through, the Obama Administration restructured the original Bush-era deal to further protect the taxpayers’ investment.

    Also, the loan comprises just 1.3% of DOE’s overall loan portfolio. To date, Solyndra is the only loan that’s known to be troubled.

    So the narrative you and others are still pushing on this is relies on only half the story.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  10. AlexInCT says:

    The Solyndra loan guarantee was a multi-year process that the Bush Administration launched in 2007

    Actually CM, Solyndra sought that loan from the DOA during the Bush administration, and that’s a completely different animal than what you are trying to skin. The DOE, like the EPA and a ton of other big government bureaucracies, is replete with career leftwing types that actually kept this thing alive when it should have been sunk from the start. BTW, the Bush administration did not give Solyndar the loan, despite heavy lobbying. Solyndra didn’t get the loan until AFTER they went to the Obama WH in 2009, where the lobbyed Obama and then got him to give the OK. And that came against the advice of those looking at Solyndra’s financial status, so the WH could pretend they where building a green economy with all that money they where flushing down the toilet in their stimuluspartonage bill..

    In fact, rather than rushing the loan for Solyndra through, the Obama Administration restructured the original Bush-era deal to further protect the taxpayers’ investment.

    Oh man, that gave me one heck of a laugh, CM. I am sorry but the farce is strong with you libs. This is the talking points coming from the WH as it is desperatly doing damage control in the aftermath of this failure. The fact is that the Bush admin denied the DOE request to give Solyndra the loan because they saw Solyndra was going down the tubes. Then team Obama actually went ahead and gave them the half a billion dollar loan, despite having that same knowledge, anyway. Everything else is just smoke & mirrors now that it blew up in their face. All the talking points in the world will not change the fact that Obama’s people where blinded by their green jobs bullshit, and that they screwed the tax payer for the umpteenth time.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  11. CM says:

    BTW, the Bush administration did not give Solyndar the loan

    Nobody claimed they did.
    The company was one of 16 clean-tech companies deemed ready to move forward in the due diligence process. The Bush Administration’s DOE moved forward to develop a conditional commitment in late 2007.
    The Bush Administration then tried to take Solyndra before a DOE credit review committee just one day before President Obama was inaugurated. The committee, consisting of career civil servants with financial expertise, remanded the loan back to DOE because it wasn’t ready for conditional commitment.
    The same credit committee approved the strengthened loan application. The deal passed on to DOE’s credit review board. Career staff (not political appointees) within the DOE issue a conditional commitment setting out terms for a guarantee
    The DOE has apparently verified this timeline.

    On the other hand, you appear to be 100% convinced that this is all the fault of the Obama administration. Which is clearly ludicrous. The process took 3 years.

    You need to demonstrate that this is false:

    Selection of companies to receive U.S. backing are “merit- based decisions made by career staffers at the Department of Energy, and the process for this particular loan guarantee began under President George W. Bush,” Eric Schultz, a White House spokesman, said in an e-mailed statement Sept. 1. “Every project that receives financing through the Energy Department goes through a rigorous financial, legal and technical review process.”

    What evidence do you have that these career staffers were leaned on, to the point where they went against their own judgement?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  12. CM says:

    Solyndra didn’t get the loan until AFTER they went to the Obama WH in 2009, where the lobbyed Obama and then got him to give the OK. And that came against the advice of those looking at Solyndra’s financial status

    From your own link:

    Solyndra, identified during Bush’s administration as a promising applicant, received the Energy Department’s first loan guarantee after Obama took office. Solyndra was given conditional approval in March 2009 and the award became final that September.

    The company disclosed the “going concern” warning by PricewaterhouseCoopers, its accounting firm, in a Securities and Exchange Commission filing on March 16, 2010.

    In February 2011, due to a liquidity crisis, investors provided $75 million to help restructure the loan guarantee. The DOE rightly assumed it was better to give Solyndra a fighting chance rather than liquidate the company – which was a going concern – for market value, which would have guaranteed significant losses.

    Anyway,Solyndra certainly seemed like a solid investment for a president trying to put a dent in record high unemployment. The company’s solar panel technology was cutting edge, eminently marketable, and required a significant amount of semi-skilled workers. Not every investment works out. But that doesn’t mean government investments don’t work, or even that ‘Advanced Research Projects Agency- Energy’ don’t work.

    According to the DOE, over the past 18 months six ARPA-E-funded companies have gone on to raise over $100 million in venture capital financing. High profile ARPA-E alumnae include GE-backed solar wafer maker 1366 Technologies, energy storage company SunCatalix, which is backed by Polaris Venture Partners, and turbine maker FloDesign Wind Turbine, which last year raised $35 million in a round of venture financing led by Kleiner, Perkins, Caufield and Byers. Predictably, companies that have received ARPA-E backing have high praise for the program.

    “Support and funding from the ARPA-E program has been a critical component of our research efforts over the past eighteen months,” FloDesign CEO Lars Andersen emailed G.E.R. “Thanks to ARPA-E, we’re now much closer to delivering on (the) promise (of) developing a fundamental mindset that seeks to test conventional boundaries and strive for truly disruptive technologies.”

    Mark Barnett, VP of Business Development at Sun Catalytix Corporation, also credits ARPA-E for his company’s ability to eventually attract significant interest from private investors. “Support from ARPA-E played a vital role in the company’s development because it allowed us to pursue a potential breakthrough without the pressure of delivering a product within a year or two to satisfy investors,” he says. “The ARPA-E grant enabled us to continue pursuing our breakthrough research that enabled a much larger round of venture funding.”

    http://www.greenenergyreporter.com/features/the-week-in-green-energy/the-week-in-green-energy-house-republicans-attack-the-foundation-of-obama%E2%80%99s-green-energy-plans/

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  13. CM says:

    Nearly $1 trillion – that’s the total profit earned by the top five multi-national oil companies over the first decade of the new millennium. $36.5 billion – that’s the total in tax subsidies the American public will provide to the oil industry over the next decade. $53 billion – that’s the value that oil companies could receive from not paying royalties on some Gulf of Mexico production over the next 25 years. And 1916 – the oldest tax subsidy the oil companies still utilize.

    Why not attack the variety of subsidies handed out to oil companies - (after all, the assistance provided to the non-renewable sector is larger than the assistance provided to the renewable sector)?

    Two of the main tax breaks have been on the books since 1916 and 1926. The 1916 tax break was put on the books just three years after the 16th amendment established the power of the government to levy direct income taxes. Ending just these two subsidies would raise $18 billion over the next decade for the American people.

    Unless the problem is just ideological of course…..

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  14. CM says:

    Oil permits are going out at about the same rate they were under Bush. And he’s getting screamed at by the enviros for allowing an oil sands pipeline through the US. I don’t think this is that big an issue.

    Total U.S. coal exports jumped to 82 million tons in 2010 from 60 million in 2009, said Simmons & Co. analyst Brian Gamble: “We’re looking for 92-94 million” in 2011 .

    Apparently it was just 50 million in 2006.

    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/US-Export-Coal-Boom-Fuels-ibd-821129669.html?x=0

    Not exactly something that would happen with an envirotard President.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  15. Mississippi Yankee says:

    If we were to equate Obama to Max Bialystok
    Solyndra to “Springtime for Hitler”
    And this whole adventure to “The Producers” in an off, off off Broadway play would you comprehend it any better CM?

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  16. Mississippi Yankee says:

    I miss typed . it should read Solyndra IS NOT “Springtime for Hitler”

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  17. CM says:

    Your post was Springtime for Hitler.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  18. Mississippi Yankee says:

    Springtime for Hitler was not only a hit but a success too.
    So ya I agree.

    And hopefully Obama will end in prison just like Max Bialystok did too.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  19. CM says:

    I thought you’d realise I got that wrong on purpose to hassle you…..ah well, nevermind.

    Miss Typed – was she your typing teacher at school?

    Not sure what the point is of assessing this issue based on only a selection of relevant facts.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  20. CM says:

    I think Krugman has it all pretty much correct here.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  21. AlexInCT says:

    On the other hand, you appear to be 100% convinced that this is all the fault of the Obama administration. Which is clearly ludicrous. The process took 3 years.

    Here are the facts CM.

    1) Solyndra lobbied the bureaucrats at the DOE, which then lobbied the Bush admin for several years, and despite DOE approval of Solyndra, they didn’t get the loans they wanted. The point is Solyndra has been looking for a bailout for a long time, and despite backing from the DOE career bureaucrats, they never got it while Bush was president. That’s because the people handling the money saw that Solyndra was in deep shit BTW.

    2) Obama is a huge green energy/green jobs proponent. In fact, back in 2009 he was telling us that it was companies like Solyndra that would save us from the damage evil Bush – not the imploding lending market that had so many bad loans given to homeowners at the point of a government gun which then necessitated the creation of many schemes to filter these bad loans and make investors think they where all gold, which everyone else with some economic background understood to be the problem, and had come from his party starting back in the Carter years, mind you – had done to the economy.

    3) “Career staffers” is basically pretty lingo for left wing life-long bureaucrats, and man do we have a ton of those everywhere and anywhere you have government. And it’s a rarity to find a left wing credentialed bureaucrat that doesn’t buy into this green jobs/green energy nonsense.

    4) Then comes the whole “Stimulus” program which is well documented as anything but. Free cash for companies pushing green anything galore! And that was because, as I already pointed out, Obama and the left where all telling us that they where following the “oh so” successful Spanish model – that was sarcasm BTW – and that green energy investments was the job creation engine of the future.

    Mind you, you might have a case to dismiss this as an aberration if Solyndra had been the ONLY green energy/green jobs company to get oodles of money and then fail, but they where not. There are at least 3 of them tied to solar energy alone that we know of.

    5) That “rigorous financial review by the DOE” we keep hearing about seems to have been seriously half assed – or if you accept that to be the standard for government work – at best, because as we are finding out, despite the damage control efforts from the WH and the DOE, they felt the risk of giving Solyndra money was so high they needed to not just keep a constant eye on Solyndra, but that they needed to put them under 24/7 supervision. A DOE employee was basically put on the board. And if you are going to dispute that that didn’t happen because Solyndra’s finances where anything short of abysmal, we have a problem.

    6) Trying to use the tired and old “blame Bush” tactic, directly or indirectly, that now is being bandied about by the Obama administration to deflect blame from them, while pretending that the Obama administration did not either ignore or outright dismiss the same risk assessment that turned off the Bush administration, doubly so since things had gotten worse and not better for Solyndra in the interim, and most importantly of all, pretend that the Obama administration did not suffer from heavy green energy/green jobs bias, all smack of damage control efforts.

    The facts & logic are there and indisputable. At a minimum we have a case of terrible judgment based on the usual green bias and academic know-it-all-ism on their part. But I am convinced this was far worse. Time will tell. But pretending that Solyndra, like many others, where not picked because they served the left’s agenda – and Obama was king of that agenda – like practically every endeavor where that stimulus money was sent to, smacks of desperation. And I am feeling a lot of that from the WH, the left, and all the watermelons.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  22. AlexInCT says:

    From your own link:

    Solyndra, identified during Bush’s administration as a promising applicant, received the Energy Department’s first loan guarantee after Obama took office. Solyndra was given conditional approval in March 2009 and the award became final that September.

    Who was president in 2009? And also from that link I provided, just to put some context to this argument:

    Two months before Obama’s visit, accounting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP warned that Solyndra, the recipient of $535 million in federal loan guarantees, had financial troubles deep enough to “raise substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern.”

    The Obama administration stood by Solyndra through the auditor’s warning, the abandonment of a planned initial public offering and a last-ditch refinancing where taxpayers took a back seat to new investors. That unwavering commitment has come under increasing scrutiny since the company’s travails culminated in its filing for bankruptcy protection on Sept. 6 and a raid on its headquarters by the Federal Bureau of Investigation two days later.

    Obama KNEW, before he went on stage to tout Solyndra as a success and a great stimulus investment, that the place was in shambles, and promise to spend more than half a billion in tax payer cash on them. The fact that Solyndra lobbied the DOE starting under the Bush admin means squat after that. Team Obama doubled down and lost. The blame is squarely theirs.

    Further more,
    Solyndra was a huge donor to Obama himself, and some of the top investors as well as Solyndra management went to DC to talk to Obama, right before he chose to ignore both the warnings by PriceWaterHousCooper AND several republicans in congress pointing out there where problems with Solyndra, by coincidence. You might be inclined to think Obama is the messiah, but to those of us that know better this is as simple as putting together 2 and 2.

    In February 2011, due to a liquidity crisis, investors provided $75 million to help restructure the loan guarantee. The DOE rightly assumed it was better to give Solyndra a fighting chance rather than liquidate the company – which was a going concern – for market value, which would have guaranteed significant losses

    Oh, priceless! The DOE, because now it is the DOE and not a democrat contolled congress that was behind the $535 million dollars team Pelosi allocated to Solyndar in the over $25 billion they put in the porkulus package, “felt” it was a good investment to give a company with huge problems that spent a measly $75 million restructuring, which did nothing to change the companies dreadful fiscal outlook accoding to the analysits that warned it was a real bad risk, another half a billion of tax payer’s dollars. All so Solyndra could then still end up bankrupt and needing to be liquidated anyway. No bias there at all….

    QED CM.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  23. AlexInCT says:

    Why not attack the variety of subsidies handed out to oil companies – (after all, the assistance provided to the non-renewable sector is larger than the assistance provided to the renewable sector)?

    Well, show me one of those oil companies that got a huge loan in the porkulus pacakge despite being classified as a huge risk, then went broke leaving the tax payer screwed hardcore, and you might have a leg to stand on in this attempt to move the goal post.

    And those subsidies to oil companies you decry at least serve to lower the price of oil products for us consumers, which I might point out, affects a far greater swat of people than than anythign Solydra was doing.

    Unless the problem is just ideological of course…..

    Like your lame attempts to defend this indefensible faliure by the WH that pissed away half a billion dollars, just because it shows this green energy/green job nonsense from the left isn’t viable without massive and continued government subsidies? yeah…

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  24. AlexInCT says:

    Fuck Krugman.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  25. sahrab says:

    The Solyndra loan guarantee was a multi-year process that the Bush Administration launched in 2007. The Bush team tried to conditionally approve the Solyndra loan just before President Obama took office. One of the earliest and largest investors, Madrone Capital Partners, is funded by the family that started Wal-Mart, the Waltons. The Waltons have donated millions of dollars to Republican candidates over the years.

    Your source relies upon shady leaps of logic, which seem to boil down to nothing more than a tie with the Waltons, who also donate heavily to Republicans. Waltons made a contribution thereby the Bush adminstration try to push it through.
    From your source:

    In an effort to show it has done something to support renewable energy, the Bush Administration tries to take Solyndra before a DOE credit review committee before President Obama is inaugurated. The committee, consisting of career civil servants with financial expertise, remands the loan back to DOE “without prejudice” because it wasn’t ready for conditional commitment.

    Unsupported and spurious claims, without any supporting evidence.

    Instead we have this that refutes your source.

    The White House noted to ABC News that the Bush administration was the first to consider Solyndra’s application and that some executives at the company have a history of donating to Republicans.

    The results of the Congressional probe shared Tuesday with ABC News show that less than two weeks before President Bush left office, on January 9, 2009, the Energy Department’s credit committee had voted against offering a loan commitment to Solyndra.

    Even after Obama took office on Jan. 20, 2009, analysts in the Energy Department and in the Office of Management and Budget were repeatedly questioning the wisdom of the loan. In one exchange, an Energy official wrote of “a major outstanding issue” — namely, that Solyndra’s numbers showed it would run out of cash in September 2011.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  26. sahrab says:

    From your own link:

    Solyndra, identified during Bush’s administration as a promising applicant, received the Energy Department’s first loan guarantee after Obama took office. Solyndra was given conditional approval in March 2009 and the award became final that September

    President Obama was inaugarrated in January 2009. The Bush administration didnt “advance” anything. They let the normal process run its course.

    The Obama adminstration came in and fasttracked this

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

      
  27. balthazar says:

    Really, Krugman? After the asshole shit sandwich he put up last week? You really need to go somewhere else for some information.

    after this fucking atrocity of a blog post where he rips people for politicizing 9/11, then proceeds to-do it himself.

    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/11/the-years-of-shame/

    he’s a douchebag rucksack of unimaginable order. Then he proceeds to not allow comment on his douchery to top it all off. Fuck him i hope he goes and diaf.

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

      
  28. Seattle Outcast says:

    Krugman has never been right about anything, so your argument fails…

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  29. sahrab says:

    You do know Krugman refutes your “Obama is for higher gas prices” argument?

    From your link

    How so? There is only one effective, sustainable way to produce “green jobs,” and that is with a fixed, durable, long-term price signal that raises the price of dirty fuels and thereby creates sustained consumer demand for, and sustained private sector investment in, renewables. Without a carbon tax or gasoline tax or cap-and-trade system that makes renewable energies competitive with dirty fuels, while they achieve scale and move down the cost curve, green jobs will remain a hobby.

    Sound similiar to President Obamas argument doesnt it?

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  30. CM says:

    The point is Solyndra has been looking for a bailout for a long time

    Evidence?

    That’s because the people handling the money saw that Solyndra was in deep shit BTW.

    Evidence?

    In fact, back in 2009 he was telling us that it was companies like Solyndra that would save us from the damage evil Bush

    Can you give me a (non cherry-picked) quote?

    “Career staffers” is basically pretty lingo for left wing life-long bureaucrats

    I thought you were dealing in ‘facts’ here? What evidence do you have that these career staffers were leaned on, to the point where they went against their own judgement?

    Anyway, as pointed out, it was far from lefties that were interested in the economic potential of the company.

    Then comes the whole “Stimulus” program which is well documented as anything but.

    Narrative.

    Free cash for companies pushing green anything galore!

    Loan guarantees once approved. Bit different. And in this case, it was only approved after a restructuring.

    There are at least 3 of them tied to solar energy alone that we know of.

    Which are the others? The Solyndra loan comprised just 1.3% of DOE’s overall loan portfolio.

    Trying to use the tired and old “blame Bush” tactic

    No Alex, trying to pretend that it didn’t get selected and proceed through the process for 2 years under Bush is admitting that your unable to consider the issue with objectivity. Even seeing facts which have the word ‘Bush’ in it seems to mean to you that someone is trying to blame Bush.

    dismiss the same risk assessment that turned off the Bush administration

    You’re saying this like you know what the specifics of that risk assessment were, and that they were the same level of risk after the approved restructured proposal (approved by the same people). For some reason you keep missing the fact that the same credit committee approved the strengthened loan application.

    The facts & logic are there and indisputable.

    It’s a shame that, yet again, you’re only interested in the parts that suit you.

    At a minimum we have a case of terrible judgment based on the usual green bias and academic know-it-all-ism on their part.

    Evidence?

    But pretending that Solyndra, like many others, where not picked because they served the left’s agenda – and Obama was king of that agenda – like practically every endeavor where that stimulus money was sent to, smacks of desperation.

    If you want to just pretend the inconvenient parts of the timeline don’t exist, that’s your issue.

    That’s not to say there were problems with what has happened. Hell, perhaps it will be revealed that the loan should never have been granted.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  31. sahrab says:

    sorry need to edit, Krugman doesnt refute your argument, but he does use the same argument President Obama uses

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  32. CM says:

    Your source relies upon shady leaps of logic, which seem to boil down to nothing more than a tie with the Waltons, who also donate heavily to Republicans. Waltons made a contribution thereby the Bush adminstration try to push it through.

    That doesn’t even make sense. My source boils down to a link to the Waltons? Um, no it doesnt.
    Where are the shady leaps of logic in anything I’ve said, or quoted? I’m simply bringing additional relevant parts of the story to the table so that we’ve got some semblance of a reasonable discussion. Otherwise it’s just a collection of right-wing talking-points.

    Where does the information in your link differ from the information in mine, in any meaningful way?
    Apparently the loan proposal was restructured before it was finally approved. If this happened as a result of the concerns raised by those analysts, or because more private capital was raised to push it beyond an acceptable threshold, then that wouldn’t necessarily be a problem.
    What we need to know is what changed the mind of the credit committee. Unless we know, we can only speculate.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  33. Mississippi Yankee says:

    Your link now points to a Thomas Friedman global warming screed.
    Oh wait a sec, that’s a redundant statement.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  34. Miguelito says:

    Yeah. I was gonna ask why he said Krugman but linked to Friedman.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  35. CM says:

    Who was president in 2009?

    Obama. So?

    Obama KNEW, before he went on stage to tout Solyndra as a success and a great stimulus investment, that the place was in shambles, and promise to spend more than half a billion in tax payer cash on them.

    It was far from dead in the water at that stage though – it was still more than a year before things really went tits up. As pointed out, surely it’s better to first try and make an existing investment work rather than walking away.

    You might be inclined to think Obama is the messiah

    Although you’re clearly unable to see it, there’s a huge difference between thinking Obama is the messiah and considering these issues in a reasonable and objective manner.

    The DOE, because now it is the DOE and not a democrat contolled congress that was behind….

    I guess we need to see the evidence of who made the decisions, and at what point.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  36. CM says:

    Well, show me one of those oil companies that got a huge loan in the porkulus pacakge despite being classified as a huge risk, then went broke leaving the tax payer screwed hardcore, and you might have a leg to stand on in this attempt to move the goal post.

    It’s worse, they get billions of dollars rain or shine.

    And those subsidies to oil companies you decry at least serve to lower the price of oil products for us consumers, which I might point out, affects a far greater swat of people than than anythign Solydra was doing.

    Socialist.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  37. CM says:

    Sorry, I meant Friedman not Krugman.
    Maybe I just wanted to see you all spit more bile. ;-)

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  38. sahrab says:

    there were 3 very succint responses to your Krugman/Friedman piece

    AlexInCT says: September 14, 2011 9:21 am at 9:21 am (UTC -4)

    Reply
    Fuck Krugman.

    balthazar says: September 14, 2011 2:32 pm at 2:32 pm (UTC -4)

    Reply
    Really, Krugman? After the asshole shit sandwich he put up last week? You really need to go somewhere else for some information.

    after this fucking atrocity of a blog post where he rips people for politicizing 9/11, then proceeds to-do it himself.

    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/11/the-years-of-shame/

    he’s a douchebag rucksack of unimaginable order. Then he proceeds to not allow comment on his douchery to top it all off. Fuck him i hope he goes and diaf.

    Seattle Outcast says: September 14, 2011 4:07 pm at 4:07 pm (UTC -4)

    Reply
    Krugman has never been right about anything, so your argument fails…

    .
    Maybe if you removed your ideological blinders you’d be able to see them

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  39. CM says:

    You may need to look up the definition of ‘substance’.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  40. sahrab says:

    aww whats wrong, your attempt to spin this as anything other than President Obama didnt go the way you hoped?

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  41. CM says:

    Spin this as anything other than Obama? That makes no sense either. Are you paying any attention at all?

    This piece seems fair to me.

    I’ll look forward to responses like ‘HuffPo can suck my cock’.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  42. AlexInCT says:

    At least the oil industry tax breaks return a ton of value for that money. For one, as I already pointed out, it creates viable high paying jobs, and lowers my gas/heating oil prices. It’s so economically viable that it would work just fine even without the subsidies, albeit with consumers paying higher prices. The green shit is so miserably useless that without big government subsidy it can’t even compete.

    BTW, what you are displaying here is that “government should pick winners & losers” argument of mine in spades. On a psot where we are discussing how the WH fucked up by fast tracking a loan for ideological and policial reasons, only to watch the house of unviable cards collapse anyway, your rebuttal is to flail widely at oil industry. You might have had me agreeing with you if you had targeted the corn subsidies to make corn into ethanol. That’s another giant waste unlike the oil industry.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  43. AlexInCT says:

    Why is it that the only time libs feel something is fair is when it is basically a liberal propaganda piece, huh? HuffingtonPost? Really? The truth, facts and logic, don’t care much about fair.

    Look CM here is even the WaPo admitting that the Obama WH forced this thing through when everyone pointed out it was a bad idea. Opening paragraph:

    EXCLUSIVE | The Obama White House tried to rush federal reviewers for a decision on a nearly half-billion-dollar loan to the solar-panel manufacturer Solyndra so Vice President Biden could announce the approval at a September 2009 groundbreaking for the company’s factory, newly obtained e-mails show.

    Their only mistake is to say they “tried”. Obviously they succeeded, Solyndra got the loan, and then despite most of them knowing that it smelled like shit because it likely was, and the rest is history. Obama was so hell bent on using Solyndra in his green bullshit speech and owed Solyndra donors favors that he basically fastracked a terrible deal that cost the tax payer $535 billion plus whatever it will now cost to investigate this debacle. Doesn’t get easier than this.

    Defending this fuckup is a sign of fanatical following. Ask yourself how you would be reacting if this was Bush.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  44. CM says:

    At least the oil industry tax breaks return a ton of value for that money. For one, as I already pointed out, it creates viable high paying jobs, and lowers my gas/heating oil prices.

    Socialist garbage.
    If the jobs involve subsidies, then how do you know they are viable?
    Why not let costs fall where they do? Isn’t that the whole basis of your philosophy? If you allow it in one industry, why not all?

    It’s so economically viable that it would work just fine even without the subsidies, albeit with consumers paying higher prices.

    Given all your emotional rantings about higheer energy prices, I can only conclude that your body has been possessed.
    If it’s economically viable without them, then by definition they’re not needed.

    BTW, what you are displaying here is that “government should pick winners & losers” argument of mine in spades.

    I believe governments can (and in some areas should) selectively tilt the market to benefit a particular type of of industry in a particular sector. The ‘picking winners and losers’ is just your narrative for a perfectly reasonable approach to managing a country sustainably.

    On a psot where we are discussing how the WH fucked up by fast tracking a loan for ideological and policial reasons,

    We need to know a lot more before we can agree to that as a fact.

    only to watch the house of unviable cards collapse anyway, your rebuttal is to flail widely at oil industry.

    Not even remotely close to a ‘flail’ It’s very relevant. And it’s given you the opportunity to show how much you want to pick winners and losers. You clearly prefer to interfere in the market so that unsustainable industries continue to thrive ahead of sustainable ones.

    You might have had me agreeing with you if you had targeted the corn subsidies to make corn into ethanol. That’s another giant waste unlike the oil industry.

    But you’ve written millions of words about how interfering in markets is repugnant and disgusting. And yet here you are, picking your winners and losers via govt subsidies. Ridiculous.
    The corn thing was a mistake. They do happen. None of this is perfect. Those pretending they know of a perfect system are delusional.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  45. CM says:

    Given your opening paragraph, you do realise the irony of your second, don’t you? Anyway, you’ve ignored the substance of the piece in its entirety.

    Defending this fuckup is a sign of fanatical following.

    It’s more a case of attacking the bullshit than defending anything. As more comes out, it’s becoming clear that some bad decisions were probably made. All I’m doing is trying to stick to what is known, not making all sorts of judgements according to what I can concoct in my own head.

    Ask yourself how you would be reacting if this was Bush.

    Why would it be any different? Who cares who the President is at the time. The issues are the issues.

    Your link says that when they pushed a for a decision the company had already been “tentatively approved for the loan by the Energy Department” and “was awaiting a final financial review by the Office of Management and Budget.”

    If it had already passed through the DOE then how can it be that “everyone pointed out it was a bad idea”?

    Also from your link:

    It is not clear from the e-mails whether the White House influenced a final decision to approve the loan guarantee.

    We need to wait for that evidence, if there is any. I’m not going to deny evidence as it comes out. What I’ve been saying is that you need to consider all the evidence/facts. But that WAPO link of yours appears to be pretty damning. No way the Administration should have been putting unrealistic time pressures on people to make a decision.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  46. AlexInCT says:

    Given your opening paragraph, you do realise the irony of your second, don’t you?

    Maybe I am not as smart as you but my opening paragraph pointed out that every god damned time that a liberal tells you they want fairness what they really mean is that they want things to be the way they like them, reality, truth, facts, or logic be damned. I then called into question anything from HuffingtonPost.

    Then in my second paragraph I link to the WaPo, a liberal paper by any definition, admitting that Obama’s WH pushed this through, for political and ideological reasons, against those that where trying to vet it properly and saw problems.

    Where would I have to find any kind of irony? Or are you telling me the WaPo is lying? It certainly can’t be because since the WaPo is a liberal rag you think my comment about liberals and fairness suddenly loses credibility. That sort of logic defies anyone.

    It’s more a case of attacking the bullshit than defending anything.

    Classic. The only bullshit here is from the people trying to pretend team Obama didn’t fuck up and desperately trying to get any of the pooh they are flinging to stick and give them some kind of breather.

    As more comes out, it’s becoming clear that some bad decisions were probably made.

    That’s one heck of an understatement, huh? This was a grade a 1/2 a billion dollar fuck up by people that because of an ideological and political agenda decided to ignore everyone telling them this was a major problem. Not a bad decision.

    All I’m doing is trying to stick to what is known, not making all sorts of judgements according to what I can concoct in my own head.

    If that’s the case then by your definition I must be making shit up, so I would love for you to show me where I pointed out something that was either wrong or didn’t pan out exactly as I predicted. That should be easy right?

    Why would it be any different? Who cares who the President is at the time. The issues are the issues.

    Wink! Man, this stuff is PRICELESS!

    The issue is that Obama used his power to push through something that went sour – like everything he touches – for political and ideological reasons, and the US tax payer is the one that loses out. Now that the whole green bullshit promise is unraveling Obama, like the green disciples – yeah like you – are all desperately trying to do damage control. That’s the facts CM.

    If it had already passed through the DOE then how can it be that “everyone pointed out it was a bad idea”?

    Did you miss my post above about the way the DOE is full of liberal asshats? And the everyone you are so callously dismissing are the OMB, a credit rating company contracted to look at the Solyndra books, and many, many republicans that where then demonized by the press and democrats for daring to question the Messiahs wisdom. That’s all documented facts.

    We need to wait for that evidence, if there is any.

    I got it. You will forgive me for feeling that what people that say this when it is one of their guys on the burner really mean is that they do not like the facts currently in evidence and where they are going, and hence the call to wait until the story goes away, so it does not get investigated, because this isn’t looking good for progressives, Obama, democrats, and especially the watermelon movement. A courtesy I add that the left never, ever gives the other side

    I’m not going to deny evidence as it comes out.

    You already have, and you have done it right here on this chain of posts dude, only to have me show you that I was ahead of the LSM in pointing it out!

    What I’ve been saying is that you need to consider all the evidence/facts.

    Erm, what do you think I was doing? I was pointing out things as I became aware of them, and apparently the LSM has been lagging far, far behind the sources I am hearing things from, so I ask again: if I said anything that is false point it out.

    But that WAPO link of yours appears to be pretty damning. No way the Administration should have been putting unrealistic time pressures on people to make a decision.

    Watch us find out information that makes it get worse for the people involved, CM. Just like with gunwalker. Everything I have said here will play out that way. They can not make this one go away.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  47. AlexInCT says:

    Socialist garbage.
    If the jobs involve subsidies, then how do you know they are viable?
    Why not let costs fall where they do? Isn’t that the whole basis of your philosophy? If you allow it in one industry, why not all?

    Ah yes, the goal posts are shifted.

    Let me put a quick end to this CM. I seriously would have zero problems with government ending the practice of subsidizing businesses. But if/when that happens, I want them to do it across the board, and not just to the things they don’t like subsidized. If oil gets no subsidies, then neither does sugar, corn, farming, and any other pet peeve the left loves to fund.

    If Obama came out and said he was ending government subsides to all businesses and special interests, not just oil, I would cheer him on. But that’s not what people like you or him want huh, because the real thing that pissed you and these other progressives off is that without the subsides everything your like really goes poof.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  48. CM says:

    The irony is simple – you dismissed something from HuffPo (I would assume without even reading it) simply because it’s from the HuffPo, and therefore must be a “liberal propaganda piece”. However you then immediately put up a piece from another liberal propaganda publication, thus invalidating your first-paragraph rationale for dismissal. Anyway, it’s clearly lost on you, and explaining it is unlikely to help.

    The only bullshit here is from the people trying to pretend team Obama didn’t fuck up and desperately trying to get any of the pooh they are flinging to stick and give them some kind of breather.

    And around and around we go as usual. I’ll wait for the evidence and determine the situaion. You pick and choose what you deem acceptable, and make the rest up, to form a firm view at the earliest opportunity. Same old same old then.

    That’s one heck of an understatement, huh? This was a grade a 1/2 a billion dollar fuck up by people that because of an ideological and political agenda decided to ignore everyone telling them this was a major problem. Not a bad decision.

    It was a bad decision to pressure the OMB for a decision before they were ready to reach one. If things turned to shit (as they have) then the Administration is exposed by doing so. Silly.
    At this stage I don’t see where the evidence of a decision being made “because of an ideological and political agenda” is.
    You seem to be making an argument that the Obama Administration knew they were backing a loser from the beginning. But how is that going to benefit them when it all turns to shit? Where is the logic?

    so I would love for you to show me where I pointed out something that was either wrong or didn’t pan out exactly as I predicted

    Ah see you’ve reworded that. I’m talking about speculation that you have no proof of. I was right about a lot in terms of Iraq, but I sure as hell didn’t claim it as fact before it turned out that way.

    But as for making shit up:

    1. You claimed (as fact) that “The DOE, like the EPA and a ton of other big government bureaucracies, is replete with career leftwing types that actually kept this thing alive when it should have been sunk from the start.” Evidence?

    2. “The fact is that the Bush admin denied the DOE request to give Solyndra the loan because they saw Solyndra was going down the tubes.” Evidence?

    3. “That’s because the people handling the money saw that Solyndra was in deep shit BTW.” They were the same people that then approved the modified loan application.

    4. “Free cash for companies pushing green anything galore!”

    5. “Trying to use the tired and old “blame Bush” tactic”. Who is trying to say that this is Bush’s fault?

    6. “Obama WH forced this thing through when everyone pointed out it was a bad idea”

    Wink! Man, this stuff is PRICELESS!

    I assume this is because you know you could never be objective, so you operation on the assumption that nobody else could be either.

    The issue is that Obama used his power to push through something that went sour – like everything he touches – for political and ideological reasons, and the US tax payer is the one that loses out. Now that the whole green bullshit promise is unraveling Obama, like the green disciples – yeah like you – are all desperately trying to do damage control. That’s the facts CM.

    No, that’s all your opinion. Although it’s an awful lot of money, and it looks like it was badly handled at the start, this is only one company. The loan comprises just 1.3% of DOE’s overall loan portfolio. Since when does 1.3% represent an ‘unravelling’?
    And again, your link says that pressure was put on a decision after it left DOE. Maybe once it leaves there it’s usually a rubber stamp job? I don’t know. We need to know how meaningful that pressure was.

    Did you miss my post above about the way the DOE is full of liberal asshats?

    This is EXACTLY what I mean by you filling in gaps with your own narrative. Couldn’t get a better example.
    If they’re liberal asshats, then why didn’t they tick it off under Bush?

    And the everyone you are so callously dismissing are the OMB, a credit rating company contracted to look at the Solyndra books, and many, many republicans that where then demonized by the press and democrats for daring to question the Messiahs wisdom. That’s all documented facts.

    Now you’re engaging in blatant revisionism. Since when does “everyone” mean “I only meant the relevant people some at OMB”. Also, I didn’t callously dismiss them. You’re relentless in your inability to get things right.

    and hence the call to wait until the story goes away

    Never even remotely suggested that the story should go away. It certainly deserves a full investigation. You guys also need to know if pressure was put on other decisions.

    You already have

    Which evidence have I denied?
    This may have something to do with your inherent ongoing complete inability to differentiate evidence with the narrative in your head which you’ve created by filling in gaps.

    only to have me show you that I was ahead of the LSM in pointing it out!

    This just proves my last point. You’re saying that I denied facts that were only in your head.

    Erm, what do you think I was doing?

    Spinning a narrative and pretending it was an accurate summation of the facts, as usual.

    Watch us find out information that makes it get worse for the people involved

    It really does say something that you’re enjoying the collapse of a company and the loss of so many jobs…that’s a fascinating (but rather depressing) mindset to witness.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  49. CM says:

    Ah yes, the goal posts are shifted.

    WTF are you talking about? Is this your new tactic to avoid everything?

    Let me put a quick end to this CM. I seriously would have zero problems with government ending the practice of subsidizing businesses. But if/when that happens, I want them to do it across the board, and not just to the things they don’t like subsidized. If oil gets no subsidies, then neither does sugar, corn, farming, and any other pet peeve the left loves to fund.

    As far as I’m aware, the strongest political proponents/defenders of agricultural subsidies (as well as oil) in the US are those on the right.
    But (notwithstanding that) this is interesting to hear, given that you usually don’t give a shit about context. Virtually everything else I’ve ever read from you is about principle.
    Once you go back to that, I’ll be sure to remind you of this.
    ;-)

    But that’s not what people like you or him want huh, because the real thing that pissed you and these other progressives off is that without the subsides everything your like really goes poof.

    Actually, in the absence of Cap and Trade (by which attempts are made to correct a significant market error) sustainable energy is about the only thing I think should be given subsidies.
    So you’re totally wrong there.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  50. balthazar says:

    Or maybe your just as big a fuckstick as Krugman that we really should just ignore your goddamn stupidity like we do his.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  51. sahrab says:

    The irony is simple – you dismissed something from HuffPo (I would assume without even reading it) simply because it’s from the HuffPo, and therefore must be a “liberal propaganda piece”. However you then immediately put up a piece from another liberal propaganda publication, thus invalidating your first-paragraph rationale for dismissal. Anyway, it’s clearly lost on you, and explaining it is unlikely to help.

    And you think your different? You latched onto, and posted on here, an article that attempted to claim the Bush Administration pushed Solyndra through, without any evidence to back it up?

    And around and around we go as usual. I’ll wait for the evidence and determine the situaion. You pick and choose what you deem acceptable, and make the rest up, to form a firm view at the earliest opportunity. Same old same old then.

    Right because you have a history of doing this…. how’d that Fast and Furious rebuttal go for you?

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      
  52. AlexInCT says:

    Brining this out:

    The irony is simple – you dismissed something from HuffPo (I would assume without even reading it) simply because it’s from the HuffPo, and therefore must be a “liberal propaganda piece”. However you then immediately put up a piece from another liberal propaganda publication, thus invalidating your first-paragraph rationale for dismissal. Anyway, it’s clearly lost on you, and explaining it is unlikely to help.

    Actually I dismissed the HuffPo piece AFTER I read it. I linked the WaPo article because I had already also heard the exact same thing they said, only with less spinning to make it not look so bad, already. The irony here is that you found that ironic based on assumptions about what I did or did not do.

    And around and around we go as usual. I’ll wait for the evidence and determine the situaion. You pick and choose what you deem acceptable, and make the rest up, to form a firm view at the earliest opportunity. Same old same old then.

    Since I am making things up, please feel free to point out where that happened, CM. BTW I am going to have fun with this below.

    Ah see you’ve reworded that.

    Reworded what?

    I’m talking about speculation that you have no proof of. I was right about a lot in terms of Iraq, but I sure as hell didn’t claim it as fact before it turned out that way.

    So which one of those speculations bore out to be wrong as the “proof” comes out?

    But as for making shit up:

    1. You claimed (as fact) that “The DOE, like the EPA and a ton of other big government bureaucracies, is replete with career leftwing types that actually kept this thing alive when it should have been sunk from the start.” Evidence?

    Are you fucking serious? At the risk of you “dismissing” the sources because they aren’t “independent enough” or whatever else passes for code that you refuse facts that don’t meet your preconceived idea, let me point you to CATO yet again. Also Google “government agencies are liberal bureaucracies” and let me know what you find.

    Next you will tell me that academia isn’t replete with liberals, with disciplines other than the hard sciences and engineering having ratios ranging from 1 in 7 to as high as 1 in 50 in some instances, either. Or that labor unions are with so few exceptions that they can be disregarded as statistical anomalies, in bed with democrats. Evidence! Writer a dissertation or else!

    BTW CM, would you have accepted my statement if I had said government agencies have an overrepresentation of “moderates”, with moderates being people like you, since it is your contention/belief is that liberalism really is just the equivalent moderate? Inquiring minds want to know.

    2. “The fact is that the Bush admin denied the DOE request to give Solyndra the loan because they saw Solyndra was going down the tubes.” Evidence?

    The fact they didn’t try to circumvent the process and told Solyndra that there would be no loan?

    3. “That’s because the people handling the money saw that Solyndra was in deep shit BTW.” They were the same people that then approved the modified loan application.

    Erm, not sure what this is about. Are you contesting that the OMB & PriceWaterhouseCooper all raised red flags while the WH was telling them to get it done yesterday and to give it up? Or that democrats attacked the republicans in congress that then tried to raise flags when it became obvious the WH put pressure on the OMB to approve the loan and called them all kinds of nasty names, impugning their motives as being anything but a concern about Solyndra’s health, because according to them Solyndra was A-OK? In the end the OMB and the DOE which realized Solyndra had issues went along and signed off on the deal too, didn’t they? So what’s the lie? Or is it just that I cut out all the damage control that makes it sound that this was a huge miscarriage of justice that bothers you?

    4. “Free cash for companies pushing green anything galore!”

    You mean that I was wrong? Seems to me that even the WaPo now says I was right:

    A $38.6 billion loan guarantee program that the Obama administration promised would create or save 65,000 jobs has created just a few thousand jobs two years after it began, government records show.

    The program — designed to jump-start the nation’s clean technology industry by giving energy companies access to low-cost, government-backed loans — has directly created 3,545 new, permanent jobs after giving out almost half the allocated amount, according to Energy Department tallies.

    If you are generous and pretend they will create twice as many jobs as they have for the first half of the $38.6 billion they have allocated, we barely create 10K jobs – at a cost of something like $3.86 million per job – in all. Sounds like free money to me man. Maybe your definition, for whatever reason, is different and you have a far, far lower threshold of what should be considered an outright waste, but even then, how does that make me a liar. That’s free money man.

    5. “Trying to use the tired and old “blame Bush” tactic”. Who is trying to say that this is Bush’s fault?

    The people that felt obligated to stress that Solyndra started asking for loans when Bush was president, then said the process started then, but excluded the details about how the Bush administration did not allow any fast tracking while team Obama basically told the OMB to shut up and certify Solyndra so the loan could go out. All so Biden & Obama could talk about how the $38.6 billion in the stimulus bill was the great job creation success we now see it’s anything but.

    6. “Obama WH forced this thing through when everyone pointed out it was a bad idea”

    Don’t worry CM. You can refuse to see this all you want, but there isn’t going to be any way to avoid that conclusion as this plays out. The WH demanded the OMB drop the usual process and get with it, against OMB protests that they saw serious issues with Solyndra’s business model. There isn’t just one source for this, there are several. There is no way to spin this away. Even better is the proof they knew this because they felt compelled to put someone on Solyndra’s board to monitor it. And don’t leave out that Obama money bundler Kaiser and his role in this whole ordeal. The dots connect. Even if you refuse to do so now, and likely even when they use a fat brush to connect them.

    Have fun defending the indefensible while trying to hide behind “I want only the facts” arugment.

    I assume this is because you know you could never be objective, so you operation on the assumption that nobody else could be either.

    Yeah, its objectivity. That’s why you brought up the subsidies for the oil industry and tried to create a connection with this. Is this more of the same logic that leads you to tell us people that think like you are really just moderates and centrists while everyone to the right of Karl Marx, Lenin, Mao, or Stalin are all right win ideologues? Heh!

    I am done man. Too easy.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  53. AlexInCT says:

    It really does say something that you’re enjoying the collapse of a company and the loss of so many jobs…that’s a fascinating (but rather depressing) mindset to witness.

    Actually CM, as somoene that once lost a job, I feel terrible for these people. aslo feel terrible for us tax payers that paid not just for this, but to create less than some 10K jobs at $3.86 million per (and still an astounding almost 600K per if you go by Obama’s original intended 65K jobs created number) for that $38.6 billion dollar “investment”. But I am really relieved and hoping feverishly that this finally might put the defining proverbial last nail in the coffin for both the Keynesian-Marxist running DC and the whole green industry subsidizing bullshit that is nothing but government again picking who gets to win and who doesn’t despite what consumers or the markets feel is better, and in the process save us of the loss of countless billions more.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  54. CM says:

    Feel free. Nobody is holding a gun to your head balt.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  55. CM says:

    Actually I dismissed the HuffPo piece AFTER I read it. I linked the WaPo article because…..

    Just as I thought, even explaining the irony doesn’t mean you’ll understand it.
    Whether you read the HuffPo piece isn’t relevant to the irony, that was just an aside.

    Since I am making things up, please feel free to point out where that happened, CM. BTW I am going to have fun with this below.

    Already did. You asked and I provided some examples.

    Reworded what?

    You misrepresented what I said. Probably because you can’t grasp the concept.

    So which one of those speculations bore out to be wrong as the “proof” comes out?

    You’re still claiming a whole narrative which isn’t supported by what we know to be fact.

    Are you fucking serious?

    Yes, not just serious, fucking serious. Unless you’ve got evidence that the people working on this at DOE went against protocol or guidelines for polticial purposes, you’re basing this part of your narrative on pure speculation. And it’s defamatory speculation.
    Notwithstanding that, if they’re such lefties, why did they knock back the application the first time? You can’t have it both ways.

    The fact they didn’t try to circumvent the process and told Solyndra that there would be no loan?

    Doesn’t even begin to support what you said. You said “The fact is that the Bush admin denied the DOE request to give Solyndra the loan because they saw Solyndra was going down the tubes.”
    It was DOE that knocked back the request. Notwithstanding that, where is your evidence that the Bush administration saw that the company was going down the tubes. The company hadn’t even started yet.

    Erm, not sure what this is about. Are you contesting that the OMB & PriceWaterhouseCooper all raised red flags while the WH was telling them to get it done yesterday and to give it up?……

    Again, you’ve not explained it at all. Let’s look again at what you claimed:

    ….they never got it while Bush was president. That’s because the people handling the money saw that Solyndra was in deep shit BTW.

    Why are you now trying to claim you’re talking about OMB and PWC (hell and OPP yeah you know me) when you were obviously talking about when Bush was President.
    You’re clearly very confused. I think you need to study the timeline again.

    You mean that I was wrong?

    You claimed “Free cash for companies pushing green anything galore”. Nobody is doubting that the loan guarantee program has been used to jump-start the nation’s clean technology industry. But saying that it involves free cash for anything green is ridiculous and isn’t supported by fact. You’re implying no standards or criteria have been applied to any of this. I.e. you’ve made it up.

    By the way, how many jobs did it save? The claim was that 65,000 jobs would be saved or created. To work out how effective it has been (or not) you need to add the saved jobs to the created ones.

    The people that felt obligated to stress that Solyndra started asking for loans when Bush was president, then said the process started then, but excluded the details about how the Bush administration did not allow any fast tracking while team Obama basically told the OMB to shut up and certify Solyndra so the loan could go out. All so Biden & Obama could talk about how the $38.6 billion in the stimulus bill was the great job creation success we now see it’s anything but..

    The Bush Administration presided over 2 years of the process. That’s not even remotely blaming Bush. It’s adding relevant context.
    We know the WH pushed the OMB to make a decision, but that’s not the same thing as telling them to shut up and certify it. It may come out that they did. But until then, it’s just speculation. Again, to be clear, I’m not saying that pushing them for a decision was anything but a bad thing. At minimum, it provides the appearance of political interference in something that shouldn’t have political interference.

    The WH demanded the OMB drop the usual process and get with it, against OMB protests that they saw serious issues with Solyndra’s business model. There isn’t just one source for this, there are several. There is no way to spin this away.

    No need to spin, because that’s not what you claimed. You said that “everyone pointed out it was a bad idea”. Which is clearly untrue, as the DOE had already ticked it off when the Obama Admin put pressure on OMB to make a decision.

    Have fun defending the indefensible while trying to hide behind “I want only the facts” arugment.

    You’ve failed to show how any of the six examples where supported by fact. Your tactic was to pretend you were talking about something else.

    Yeah, its objectivity. That’s why you brought up the subsidies for the oil industry and tried to create a connection with this.

    How is talking about subsidies for oil companies remotely relevant to the concept of objectivity. That makes no sense.
    It’s entirely relevant to the discussion as it involves oil (which is what your opening post is about) and govt financial involvement, and picking and choosing winners. It couldn’t possibly be more relevant.

    Is this more of the same logic that leads you to tell us people that think like you are really just moderates and centrists while everyone to the right of Karl Marx, Lenin, Mao, or Stalin are all right win ideologues? Heh!

    Not really sure where this comes from or what it’s about. Honestly I think sometimes you just spin a wheel and transcribe whatever generic crap the arrow points to.

    I am done man. Too easy.

    Too woeful. I don’t think you’d even score a single point out of ten.
    You seem to have gone backwards.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

      
  56. CM says:

    Actually CM, as somoene that once lost a job, I feel terrible for these people.

    Your general attitude as evidenced by your comments on this forum certainly wouldn’t leave anyone with that impression.

    …..that is nothing but government again picking who gets to win and who doesn’t despite what consumers or the markets feel is better, and in the process save us of the loss of countless billions more.

    Actually it’s substantially more than that, but you simply don’t or won’t accept it.
    The market is a complete failure when it comes to energy, as the costs are not even remotely close to being reflected in the pricing. That’s inarguable. And yet you support policies which ensure this is the case. So you’re a self-admitting proponent of ensuring the market doesn’t work as intended. Only the policies you support (which results in picking winners and losers, according to your criteria) is completely unsustainable and far worse for health and the livability of the planet (ensuring that people later on pay for what is happening now).
    Which is irrational. It doesn’t make sense on any level.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

      
  57. JimK says:

    HE’S TROLLING YOU ALL AGAIN.
    JimK recently posted..DEAR EVERY AUTHOR IN THE WORLDMy Profile

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      
  58. CM says:

    Have you invented a new definition of ‘trolling’?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  59. AlexInCT says:

    Look in the mirror….

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  60. Section8 says:

    So a couple of days ago CM pretends to blast Krugman for basically using his opinion page as a soap box on 9/11, and then uses the same name with the 9/11 piece in mind (even you can’t claim “I never heard of that”) to ridicule people here knowing damn well the reason why Krugman would get the most negative response after the shit he just pulled.

    Personally I can’t wait for the next earthquake in NZ. Oh did I say earthquake? I meant Earth Day, My bad. :)

    You’re a real piece of shit. Maybe it’s time for you to go litter some other blog. You’re pretty much useless here.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  61. Poosh says:

    … “See yourself. Consider that, Captain. I can think of no greater torment for you.”

    < anyone get the reference?

    *lighten the mood

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  62. AlexInCT says:

    Just as I thought, even explaining the irony doesn’t mean you’ll understand it. Whether you read the HuffPo piece isn’t relevant to the irony, that was just an aside.

    I think that the real irony is that you don’t understand the definition of irony. Look in the mirror.

    Already did. You asked and I provided some examples.

    Yeah, real good ones too.

    You’re still claiming a whole narrative which isn’t supported by what we know to be fact.

    So you are saying that the WH didn’t push the OMB to circumvent the vetting process, and that the stimulists then gave Solyndra half a billion dollar of our tax money, money that went poof, because Solydra’s business model was terribly flawed? Or that once this came out the left, including yourself, tried to pretend Bush was to blame after their attempt to pretend there was no issue failed miserably? What about the fact Obama and the WH pushed for Solyndra to get the loan out of ideological and political expediency? Because that’s what I have been saying, and so is even the LSM. You on the other hand have been pretending none of this is in evidence. I am sure it’s because the sources are not to your liking and independant or moderate enough.

    I am still going to have the last laugh, because no matter how much bullshit your side tries to sell as facts – or lack of facts – this is going to mortally damage both the idiotic green movement and Obama, and that’s sweet nectar.

    Doesn’t even begin to support what you said. You said “The fact is that the Bush admin denied the DOE request to give Solyndra the loan because they saw Solyndra was going down the tubes.”

    You think the Bush admin telling Solyndra sorry but you get no money until you are vetted, because your business model doesn’t look good, and Solyndra only getting a loan after they lobbied Obama and his WH, doesn’t mean you are denied a loan? Do you comprehend English or is the problem, as I suspect, with logic & facts you don’t like?

    No need to spin, because that’s not what you claimed. You said that “everyone pointed out it was a bad idea”. Which is clearly untrue, as the DOE had already ticked it off when the Obama Admin put pressure on OMB to make a decision.

    Erm, I did tell you that the career leftists at the DOE signed off on it scroll up and read. I also told you that the OMB, the ratings agency, and a but load of republicans in congress all then pointed out there where serious problems. Are you seriously accusing me of lying because I said everyone meaning the people vetting the financials and you want to pretend I meant everyoen as in everyone in the universe? Fuck CM, you are a stupid dipshit. No wonder most people just avoid talking to you.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  63. Poosh says:

    forum

    this is a blog, not a forum

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  64. sahrab says:

    Star Trek Movie where Piccard goes Capt Ahab about the Borg?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  65. AlexInCT says:

    Brining this out because it is just too freaking funny to leave it hidden in a thing column.

    WTF are you talking about? Is this your new tactic to avoid everything?

    HAH! That was priceless. What am I avoiding? Seriously, I am the one pointing out damning fact after damning fact, and you are lawyering on language.

    As far as I’m aware, the strongest political proponents/defenders of agricultural subsidies (as well as oil) in the US are those on the right.

    I disagree with that. The farm subsidies started in 1930 under democrats. Is your point that these states that benefit the most from subsidies these days tend to be red, and hence, unless they forego that, that it means that those on the right are the biggest proponents? Me, I think that they all are for it when it is convenient to them. But frankly, who cares which group defends the subsidies? It’s either bad or it is not. That’s the point. End it all if it is bad.

    The problem is that is not what the left wants. They want to end subsidies to those things the don’t like – especially everything and anything tied to the fossil fuel industry – but go bananas if you tell them we should stop subsidizing the shit they like. And, yes, I am sure there are people on the right with the same problem. It’s not pertinent to the fact that we are now seeing assholes come out of the woodworks to defend the subsidies of green energy after the revelation of how botched up this whole Solyndra mess was, and predicate it on the fact that evil oil is subsidized too. Nor is it pertinent to the clear double standard that while they are defending these subsidies they are trying real hard to end subsidies to oil (Obama’s DOA job bill) either.

    The point is that if you think oil subsidies are bad, but green energy subsidies are not, for whatever reason, you are full of shit. The relevant fact however is that even if subsidizing oil is bad, that it would still remain a viable business. Consumers would pay more and there would be an economic impact from the higher cost, but that industry works. We can not say the same about any of the green energy/green technology businesses that simply can not survive without massive government subsidies.

    But (notwithstanding that) this is interesting to hear, given that you usually don’t give a shit about context. Virtually everything else I’ve ever read from you is about principle. Once you go back to that, I’ll be sure to remind you of this.

    Virtually everything I read from you is ideological bullshit hiding behind the veneer/pretense of objectivity. You demand lengthy proof, even for common sense and obvious things, then dismiss whatever you don’t like or doesn’t fit your narrative. I look forward to you reminding me of “this” whatever that “this” is.

    Actually, in the absence of Cap and Trade (by which attempts are made to correct a significant market error) sustainable energy is about the only thing I think should be given subsidies.

    Oh, CM, thanks for validating my point! Twice in one sentence!

    WTF do you think Cap & Tax was, if not a sneaky way of shadow subsidizing the technologies the left wanted/liked, by drastically increasing the cost while choking to death those they didn’t like, all while giving the government even more revenue they didn’t deserve in the first place? And why do you think that since your side didn’t get that it then justifies subsidies to green technology?

    So I was right when I pointed out that the problem really is that you leftists want your cake and to eat it too! No subsides for oil, because you hate it. But subsidies for green energy – especially since you can not get Cap & Tax to knee cap those energy sectors you don’t like and drastically increase the cost to the consumer of the end product. And then, all in order to give the crap you like a chance it would otherwise never, ever get, because it’s too inefficient and costly and not wanted by consumers in general.

    So you’re totally wrong there.

    LOL! Sure. P-R-I-C-E-L-E-S-S!

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  66. Poosh says:

    No… close …

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  67. sahrab says:

    we are now seeing assholes come out of the woodworks to defend the subsidies of green energy

    I see what you did there…. now thats funny!

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  68. Xetrov says:

    I think that the real irony is that you don’t understand the definition of irony.

    We had a very memorable discussion about this exact fact back in Moorewatch. Very funny stuff.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  69. CM says:

    This is all so blatantly dishonest there is no point continuing. As for the irony, you guys sure know how to further a stereotype…..

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      
  70. CM says:

    As usual the hole gets dug deeper and deeper until the whole thing descends into personal abuse, with the usual trolling cowards piling on.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  71. Poosh says:

    How can someone troll a troll? That makes no sense.
    Poosh recently posted..DAVID MITCHELL IS ACTUALLY A COMPLETE MORONMy Profile

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  72. CM says:

    I see: because you disagree with what I post, I’m therefore a troll.
    Lame.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      

Comments have been disabled.