Solyndra's woes worried White House, emails show

[JerseyGuy]

Yes it was all Bush's fault

Any time I hear someone complaining about how anything Bush did was off-limits for criticism the second Obama was sworn in, I'm reminded of this great clip from the Daily Show:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-j ... 2010/blame

[XtremeJibber2001]

Yes it was all Bush's fault

Any time I hear someone complaining about how anything Bush did was off-limits for criticism the second Obama was sworn in, I'm reminded of this great clip from the Daily Show:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-j ... 2010/blame

1) So when Solyndra violated the terms of the Government back loan in 2010 by failing to provide $5 million in equity to a subsidiary that was building a Solyndra factory - it was Bush's fault for not stepping in before things got worse?

2) After violating the terms of the loan the Energy department restructured the loan so Solyndra could keep drawing from it - it was Bush's fault for restructuring the loan and not put a stop to the funding of a company bleeding cash?

3) And when private investors started to become more concerned and the Energy department reshuffled the debt so that private investors won the right to be paid before tax-payers/Fed (of course the Energy department required the same investors to throw in an extra $75M) - it was Bush's fault for not preventing a loan structure that benefit investors before tax-payers?

4) And when Obama officials defended the aforementioned loan restructuring stating "they were trying to protect taxpayers" - it was Bush's fault for not stepping in and preventing the restructuring?

5) It was Obama who appointed Jonathan Silver to oversee the loan program and oversee the restructuring of the debt and subsequent loan restructuring - it was Bush's fault though for not preventing Silver from this appointment.

6) Even though this program was expanded from the original program that GWB created through the economic stimulus package ... Solyndra was the first company to receive funds from the program since its expansion - it was Bush's fault for not ringing Jon Silver's neck in 2010 when PriceWaterhouseCoopers was putting up all types of red flags in relation to recurring losses from Solyndra's operations and their subsequent cash flows issues.

7) And when the loan was restructured again in 2011 (ya know, after all the above was ignored and dismissed) it gave Solyndra even more money just to get through the month of August after already drawing $475M by the end of FY10 - it was Bushes fault for not placing a stop to the gift giving and allowing Solyndra to pull an additional $52 million (when they were already out of cash) from the Government during their downward spiral despite all the problems noted above.

8 ) And when a 2009 report (published at the same time the loan was guaranteed) stated one of the company's key advantages had disappeared (using polysilicon) - it was Bush's fault for not leading the Obama's horses to the proverbial water.

Are you and Coydog blind Obama defenders? This is Bush's fault?

[Coydog]

Are you and Coydog blind Obama defenders? This is Bush's fault?

So where exactly in the article does it say it was Bush's fault?

[XtremeJibber2001]

Are you and Coydog blind Obama defenders? This is Bush's fault?

So where exactly in the article does it say it was Bush's fault?

The article's first point is insinuating the Obama administration simply used a program already in place from the Bush admin - ignoring that the program was expanded in 2009 by Obama via the stimulus and Solyndra was picked as the "flagship" by the Obama admin.

[JerseyGuy]

Are you and Coydog blind Obama defenders? This is Bush's fault?

So where exactly in the article does it say it was Bush's fault?

The article's first point is insinuating the Obama administration simply used a program already in place from the Bush admin - ignoring that the program was expanded in 2009 by Obama via the stimulus and Solyndra was picked as the "flagship" by the Obama admin.

Go back and re-read Nocera's article and tell me what you don't agree with.

[Coydog]

Are you and Coydog blind Obama defenders? This is Bush's fault?

So where exactly in the article does it say it was Bush's fault?

The article's first point is insinuating the Obama administration simply used a program already in place from the Bush admin - ignoring that the program was expanded in 2009 by Obama via the stimulus and Solyndra was picked as the "flagship" by the Obama admin.

Here is the paragraph that seems to upset you:

Does that prove the White House engaged in cronyism, shoveling cash toward a political ally? Not necessarily. Democrats have pointed out that Solyndra’s loan process was initiated by the Bush administration and that many key investors were Republicans. Still, there could have been other reasons the deal was hastened. As a former Clinton energy aide stressed to me, it was arguably a mistake to sell the loan guarantees as job-creating stimulus (the program was expanded as part of the 2009 stimulus bill). “It means you try to force huge amounts of money quickly through processes that aren’t quite ready yet,” the aide said. “It’d be better to have a calmer, steadier source of funding.”

My read is: 1) Democrats are reminding folks the program was initiated and supported by Republicans, 2) the program was expanded as part of the 2009 stimulus bill and 3) the Solyndra deal may have been hastened as part of a job creation agenda. Hard for me to see "it was Bush's fault" in there.

[steamboat1]

https://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/cr ... 94593.html

[JerseyGuy]

https://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/cr ... 94593.html

Thank GOD the Republicans don't do the same thing with the oil industry.

Say, I wonder how many wealthy Republicans own companies in green tech? You know, to try and even out the score? So that a right-wing blog won't call it "crony capitalism"?

[Streamtracker]

The mountain made into a mole hill.



You all should be pissing gallons regarding War contracts and spit once regarding Solyndra.

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/09/3 ... ore-331757

[JerseyGuy]

The mountain made into a mole hill.



You all should be pissing gallons regarding War contracts and spit once regarding Solyndra.

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/09/3 ... ore-331757

No, no, no, no... it's completely tacky and utterly un-American and an indication of blind Obama loyalty to point out that there's nothing happening here on the scale of malignant corruption as happened with, you know, that previous occupant of the White House... the one the GOP wants to pretend never existed.

Clinton got blown by an intern, Obama got elected, the country is being destroyed. End of story.

Didn't you know that?

[XtremeJibber2001]

You all should be pissing gallons regarding War contracts and spit once regarding Solyndra.

IMHO, fraud rubs people a different way when the President and his advisers (arguably) knowingly gave tax-payer funds to a company they knew was struggling financially.

[JerseyGuy]

You all should be pissing gallons regarding War contracts and spit once regarding Solyndra.

IMHO, fraud rubs people a different way when the President and his advisers (arguably) knowingly gave tax-payer funds to a company they knew was struggling financially.

Different than how? Different than when a President and his advisers (arguably) knowingly gave tax-payer funds to numerous companies they knew were actively engaged in fraud and waste on a rampant scale in the Middle East?

Yes, XJib. You're absolutely correct. Fox News and the right-wing scream-o-sphere would like you to believe that giving money to a company that is "struggling financially" is far, far, FAR worse than giving money to companies actively engaged in fraud and abuse on a far larger scale -- oh, and murder, too, just for kicks.

So do you believe it's worse? Is that what you mean by the situation rubbing you in a different way?

[Streamtracker]

You all should be pissing gallons regarding War contracts and spit once regarding Solyndra.

IMHO, fraud rubs people a different way when the President and his advisers (arguably) knowingly gave tax-payer funds to a company they knew was struggling financially.

Different than how? Different than when a President and his advisers (arguably) knowingly gave tax-payer funds to numerous companies they knew were actively engaged in fraud and waste on a rampant scale in the Middle East?

Yes, XJib. You're absolutely correct. Fox News and the right-wing scream-o-sphere would like you to believe that giving money to a company that is "struggling financially" is far, far, FAR worse than giving money to companies actively engaged in fraud and abuse on a far larger scale -- oh, and murder, too, just for kicks.

So do you believe it's worse? Is that what you mean by the situation rubbing you in a different way?

I agree this comparing a molehill of a bad investment to a mountain of deliberate massive corruption.

On one side you have a case of taking a risk on something that might have a very positive payoff. On the other hand you have a case of stuffing money into your corrupt friends pockets without any hope of anything positive coming out of it except that your corrupt friends will continue to fill your campaign chest.

[madhatter]

You all should be pissing gallons regarding War contracts and spit once regarding Solyndra.

IMHO, fraud rubs people a different way when the President and his advisers (arguably) knowingly gave tax-payer funds to a company they knew was struggling financially.

Different than how? Different than when a President and his advisers (arguably) knowingly gave tax-payer funds to numerous companies they knew were actively engaged in fraud and waste on a rampant scale in the Middle East?

Yes, XJib. You're absolutely correct. Fox News and the right-wing scream-o-sphere would like you to believe that giving money to a company that is "struggling financially" is far, far, FAR worse than giving money to companies actively engaged in fraud and abuse on a far larger scale -- oh, and murder, too, just for kicks.

So do you believe it's worse? Is that what you mean by the situation rubbing you in a different way?

I agree this comparing a molehill of a bad investment to a mountain of deliberate massive corruption.

On one side you have a case of taking a risk on something that might have a very positive payoff. On the other hand you have a case of stuffing money into your corrupt friends pockets without any hope of anything positive coming out of it except that your corrupt friends will continue to fill your campaign chest.

don't think solyndra has any money left for hopey.

[XtremeJibber2001]

You all should be pissing gallons regarding War contracts and spit once regarding Solyndra.

IMHO, fraud rubs people a different way when the President and his advisers (arguably) knowingly gave tax-payer funds to a company they knew was struggling financially.

Different than how? Different than when a President and his advisers (arguably) knowingly gave tax-payer funds to numerous companies they knew were actively engaged in fraud and waste on a rampant scale in the Middle East?

This has happened under the Obama admin as well - has it not? I haven't seen you scream for Obama's head, pretty ironic I'd say, but I'm not surprised.

Yes, XJib. You're absolutely correct. Fox News and the right-wing scream-o-sphere would like you to believe that giving money to a company that is "struggling financially" is far, far, FAR worse than giving money to companies actively engaged in fraud and abuse on a far larger scale -- oh, and murder, too, just for kicks.

So do you believe it's worse? Is that what you mean by the situation rubbing you in a different way?

You speak as if there has been no fraud or abuse on Obama's watch. Do you have evidence to support this? Or is it okay that there was fraud/abuse on Obama's watch simply because it occurred on a smaller scale?

I think when the President appears to be directly connected to fraud that it looks a lot worse then a fraud occurring through multiples of different layers within the bureaucracy. This is relatively well supported - just look at the media coverage (e.g., HuffPo, CNN, et al).

I agree this comparing a molehill of a bad investment to a mountain of deliberate massive corruption.

Why do you feel there was no fraud in the Solyndra situation?

a : deceit, trickery; specifically : intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right b : an act of deceiving or misrepresenting : trick