Is Fisker Headed for a Solyndra-Like Collapse?

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Frazzled**

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/fisker-headed-solyndra-collapse/story?id=18861256
(Other reports note they hired Kirkland Ellis - thats a Bankruptcy firm.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324685104578388454059688928.html)

Is Fisker Headed for a Solyndra-Like Collapse?

April 2, 2013
As a major financial deadline looms, a green car company that was approved for a $529 million loan from the U.S. Energy Department is keeping quiet about whether it could be headed towards a Solyndra-like collapse, following reports the company may be preparing for bankruptcy.

"We are not offering any official comment on the speculation around bankruptcy at this stage," Roger Ormisher, a spokesperson for the electric car company Fisker Automotive, told ABC News recently.

Ormisher was responding to questions about reports last week that Fisker had hired a prominent law firm to advise it on possible bankruptcy proceedings. The Anaheim, Calif.-based company recently disclosed that it had furloughed non-essential U.S. workers in March, a move made as the company is "in the process of identifying a strategic partner... [but] continuing to manage its day-to-day operations," Ormisher said.

Fisker Automotive entered the electric car market with hefty support from the U.S. Energy Department and backing from such celebs as Justin Bieber and Leonardo DiCaprio, but the company and its high-priced Fisker Karma have continued to skid financially.

Fisker AutomotiveThe 2012 Karma Silver Wind is a plug-in... View Full Size Fisker AutomotiveThe 2012 Karma Silver Wind is a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle.
If the California-based luxury carmaker goes bust, it will be the most high profile failure of an alternative energy firm backed by the Obama administration since the solar company Solyndra filed for bankruptcy in 2011.

In April 2010, Fisker started receiving payments on a loan of up to $529 million from the Department of Energy as part of the Obama administration's push to bolster alternative energy firms. Fisker has been making repayments on the loan interest for several years, but the first sizeable repayment of the principle – an amount the company has not disclosed – is due at the end of April.

The loan to Fisker was part of a $1 billion bet the Energy Department made in two politically-connected California-based electric carmakers producing sporty -- and pricey -- cutting-edge autos. Fisker Automotive, backed by a powerhouse venture capital firm whose partners included former Vice President Al Gore, predicted it would eventually be churning out tens of thousands of electric sports sedans at the shuttered General Motors factory it bought in Delaware. The other major recipient of financial support, Tesla Motors, is backed by PayPal mogul Elon Musk.

Fisker launched the Karma with great fanfare, showing off prototypes of its sleek, quiet-running sports sedan at major auto shows and opening showrooms around the globe.

In October 2011, ABC News aired reports revealing that the government loan to Fisker raised concerns among industry observers and government auditors, and added to questions about the way billions of dollars in loans for smart cars and green energy companies were being awarded.

**Dreadclaw69**

So how many of these companies that have received millions of taxpayers $ have folded?

**whembly**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
So how many of these companies that have received millions of taxpayers $ have folded?

Quite a bit... see here.

**Dreadclaw69**

whembly wrote:
Quite a bit... see here.

Yeah, that isn't inspiring reading;

Amonix Solar: FAIL! – manufacturing plant in North Las Vegas, subsidized by more than $20 million in federal tax credits and grants given by Obama Administration, has closed its 214,000 square foot facility a year after it opened.
Solar Trust of America: FAIL! - Filed Bankruptcy in Oakland, CA, April 3, 2012

Bright Source: FAIL! - Bright Source warned Obama’s Energy Department officials in March 2011 that delays in approving a $1.6 billion U.S. loan guarantee would embarrass the White House and force the solar-energy company to close. Bright Source lost billions of dollars but is getting more money to keep trying. Can you say, “This isn’t working Mr. President?”

Solyndra: FAIL! - Obama gave $500,000,000 (that’s a HALF BILLION!) in taxpayer money to Solyndra who shut its doors and laid off 1100 workers in August 2011 after billions in losses due to failure to make a solar product that works! Barack Obama was not vetted before being elected President and neither was Solyndra before Mr. Obama threw that taxpayer money down the drain of unproven technology.

LSP Energy: FAIL! - LSPEnergy LP filed bankruptcy protection and a sale of its assets in Feb 2012

Energy Conversion Devices: FAIL! – On February 14, 2012 Energy Conversion Devices, Inc. and its subsidiaries filed for bankruptcy

Abound Solar: FAIL! - Abound Solar received a $400 million loan guarantee from Barack Obama then announced in June, 2012 that it would file for bankruptcy. Many of these failed corporations, such as Abound, donated MILLIONS and continue to donate to Barack Obama’s campaign. Can you say, “Democrat Slush Fund”? Yes this is illegal. But Democrats are being protected from being prosecuted, for now.

SunPower: FAIL! - SunPower stopped producing solar cells in 2011 at near bankruptcy then restructured with the help of, get this, oil giant TOTAL, Inc. who owns 60% stake in SunPower. Irony? The company is still struggling.

Beacon Power: FAIL! – Beacon Power Corp filed for bankruptcy protection in October, 2011 just a year after Obama approved a $43 million Government loan guarantee. They remain barely in business, still struggling to make energy that makes sense or that works at all.

Ecotality: FAIL! - ECOtality, a San Francisco green-tech company that never earned any money and remains on the verge of bankruptcy after receiving roughly $115 million in two loan guarantees from President Obama, who wants to do some more of this kind of Democrat Slush Fund Guarantees after he is elected to a 2nd term.

A123 Solar: FAIL! - A123 Solar received $279 million from taxpayers thanks to President Obama’s Department of Energy loan guarantees even after the Solyndra bankruptcy and is getting another $500M from Obama after a loss of $400M.

UniSolar: FAIL! - Uni-Solar filed for Ch 11 bankruptcy in June 20, 2012 after laying off hundreds of workers. UniSolar received even more Obama money after showing now progress, no profits and is still failing… yet they still remain in business with Obama’s help.

Azure Dynamics: FAIL! - Azure Dynamics filed for bankruptcy in June , 2012 wasting millions in Obama “Stimulus” money and received abatement on taxes owed and and several tax credits. Azure Dynamics LLC filed for bankruptcy protection in Canada and the US. Azure laid off 120 of its 160 employees in Oak Park; Boston; Vancouver, British Columbia; and the UK.

Evergreen Solar: FAIL! - Evergreen Solar received $527 Million in Taxpayer money from Obama and filed bankruptcy in late 2011. Evergreen, which closed its taxpayer-supported Devens factory in March, 2011 cut more than 1800 jobs. Evergreen’s $450 million factory, turned out to be a colossal “waste” of taxpayer money.

Ener1: FAIL! Ener1 Inc. received a $118 million U.S. Energy Department grant from President Obama to make electric-car batteries but filed for bankruptcy protection January 2012 after defaulting on bond debt.

How far down the hole do you have to be before you stop digging?

**whembly**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

How far down the hole do you have to be before you stop digging?

That's the age old question now isn't it...

How much money does it take to buy political influences?

**Dreadclaw69**

whembly wrote:
That's the age old question now isn't it...

How much money does it take to buy political influences?

I don't know, but the illegal immigrants must have ponied up quite a bit

**Mannahnin**

Most new businesses fail. Most new technical ideas don't work out. To advance technology you explore new avenues and try new ideas, and some of them work out. Not all of them.

The whole point of subsidizing new technology is to give a chance to ideas which are not sure-fire successes. Ideas which are guaranteed successes won't need government help, as private investment will be easy to obtain.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/04/politics/fact-check-green-energy
Some of this stuff goes back to campaign claims from last Summer and Fall.
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/romneys-solar-flareout/
http://blog.sfgate.com/energy/2012/10/04/romney-half-of-fed-funded-green-companies-bankrupt/

As of last October, we were up to what, 3 out of 33 companies who received loans from the D of E having declared bankruptcy? Solyndra, Abound, and Beacon, right?

**Kanluwen**

Mannahnin wrote:
Most new businesses fail. Most new technical ideas don't work out. To advance technology you explore new avenues and try new ideas, and some of them work out. Not all of them.

The whole point of subsidizing new technology is to give a chance to ideas which are not sure-fire successes. Ideas which are guaranteed successes won't need government help, as private investment will be easy to obtain.

Well put. Another thing that deserves mention is that even if the technology might be a "sure-fire success", there's no guarantee it would get funded or put into wide spread usage because of other factors like the establishment of infrastructure to support a change from the currently existing technology to the start-up technology.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/04/politics/fact-check-green-energy
Some of this stuff goes back to campaign claims from last Summer.
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/romneys-solar-flareout/

Let's not things like "the truth" get in the way of a good old fashioned Republican led witch hunt!

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:
Dreadclaw69 wrote:

How far down the hole do you have to be before you stop digging?

That's the age old question now isn't it...

How much money does it take to buy political influences?

We could always ask the NRA.

**whembly**

Mannahnin wrote:
Most new businesses fail. Most new technical ideas don't work out. To advance technology you explore new avenues and try new ideas, and some of them work out. Not all of them.

The whole point of subsidizing new technology is to give a chance to ideas which are not sure-fire successes. Ideas which are guaranteed successes won't need government help, as private investment will be easy to obtain.

True... but if money is tight, why do this at all now?

I mean, if our economy/employment is humming along, I'd be in favor of this. But with all this money that the DoE has, is it really that wise to spend it on these risky endeavor during the time of economic crisis? There's gotta be a better "bang" for the buck that this... but, hey, we're talking about our government, eh?

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/04/politics/fact-check-green-energy
Some of this stuff goes back to campaign claims from last Summer and Fall.
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/romneys-solar-flareout/
http://blog.sfgate.com/energy/2012/10/04/romney-half-of-fed-funded-green-companies-bankrupt/

As of last October, we were up to what, 3 out of 33 companies who received loans from the D of E having declared bankruptcy? Solyndra, Abound, and Beacon, right?

Little more than that buddy. But, as a realistic viewpoint, that's sorta normal. Again, I'm just arguing the point that it isn't the right time to do these sorts of investments at this time.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kanluwen wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:
Dreadclaw69 wrote:

How far down the hole do you have to be before you stop digging?

That's the age old question now isn't it...

How much money does it take to buy political influences?

We could always ask the NRA.

Ha! Touche...

**Ahtman**

whembly wrote:
I mean, if our economy/employment is humming along, I'd be in favor of this. But with all this money that the DoE has, is it really that wise to spend it on these risky endeavor during the time of economic crisis?

Yes. In fact, that is the best time for the government to be involved in investing. When everything is going well the government doesn't need to, but in leaner times the government helps grease the skids to keep the wheels turning until things pick back up.

**sebster**

Mannahnin wrote:
Most new businesses fail. Most new technical ideas don't work out. To advance technology you explore new avenues and try new ideas, and some of them work out. Not all of them.

The whole point of subsidizing new technology is to give a chance to ideas which are not sure-fire successes. Ideas which are guaranteed successes won't need government help, as private investment will be easy to obtain.

Yeah, and in the case of Solyndra the company failed because it was an alternative to silicon based solar cells. When the price of silicon dropped as rapidly their technology was no longer a viable alternative. That's basic rub of the green stuff when it comes to tech companies, the world moves rapidly and doesn't always fall in your favour. I mean, there was some shenanigans in there as well and the eventual bankruptcy deal, to me, read like a tax dodge rather than a genuine takeover of IP, but you know, that's life.

But in the right wing pundit world and it's steady drone of stupid nonsense, any failure is to be repeated over and over again, louder and dumber each time.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:
True... but if money is tight, why do this at all now?

I mean, if our economy/employment is humming along, I'd be in favor of this. But with all this money that the DoE has, is it really that wise to spend it on these risky endeavor during the time of economic crisis? There's gotta be a better "bang" for the buck that this... but, hey, we're talking about our government, eh?

Jesus fething Christ man, we've been through this. A lot of times.

Stimulus. Stimulus. Stimulus. The best time to undergo projects like this is during demand driven recession.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kanluwen wrote:
We could always ask the NRA.

Did you see that ad where the NRA was complaining about the couple of million Bloomberg was putting in to anti-gun lobbying efforts? The NRA were doing this. The guys who have gotten tens of millions from gun manufacturers. Those guys. They were complaining about someone else putting money in to the issue.

**Steve steveson**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
whembly wrote:
Quite a bit... see here.

Yeah, that isn't inspiring reading;

Amonix Solar: FAIL! – manufacturing plant in North Las Vegas, subsidized by more than $20 million in federal tax credits and grants given by Obama Administration, has closed its 214,000 square foot facility a year after it opened.
Solar Trust of America: FAIL! - Filed Bankruptcy in Oakland, CA, April 3, 2012

Bright Source: FAIL! - Bright Source warned Obama’s Energy Department officials in March 2011 that delays in approving a $1.6 billion U.S. loan guarantee would embarrass the White House and force the solar-energy company to close. Bright Source lost billions of dollars but is getting more money to keep trying. Can you say, “This isn’t working Mr. President?”

Solyndra: FAIL! - Obama gave $500,000,000 (that’s a HALF BILLION!) in taxpayer money to Solyndra who shut its doors and laid off 1100 workers in August 2011 after billions in losses due to failure to make a solar product that works! Barack Obama was not vetted before being elected President and neither was Solyndra before Mr. Obama threw that taxpayer money down the drain of unproven technology.

LSP Energy: FAIL! - LSPEnergy LP filed bankruptcy protection and a sale of its assets in Feb 2012

Energy Conversion Devices: FAIL! – On February 14, 2012 Energy Conversion Devices, Inc. and its subsidiaries filed for bankruptcy

Abound Solar: FAIL! - Abound Solar received a $400 million loan guarantee from Barack Obama then announced in June, 2012 that it would file for bankruptcy. Many of these failed corporations, such as Abound, donated MILLIONS and continue to donate to Barack Obama’s campaign. Can you say, “Democrat Slush Fund”? Yes this is illegal. But Democrats are being protected from being prosecuted, for now.

SunPower: FAIL! - SunPower stopped producing solar cells in 2011 at near bankruptcy then restructured with the help of, get this, oil giant TOTAL, Inc. who owns 60% stake in SunPower. Irony? The company is still struggling.

Beacon Power: FAIL! – Beacon Power Corp filed for bankruptcy protection in October, 2011 just a year after Obama approved a $43 million Government loan guarantee. They remain barely in business, still struggling to make energy that makes sense or that works at all.

Ecotality: FAIL! - ECOtality, a San Francisco green-tech company that never earned any money and remains on the verge of bankruptcy after receiving roughly $115 million in two loan guarantees from President Obama, who wants to do some more of this kind of Democrat Slush Fund Guarantees after he is elected to a 2nd term.

A123 Solar: FAIL! - A123 Solar received $279 million from taxpayers thanks to President Obama’s Department of Energy loan guarantees even after the Solyndra bankruptcy and is getting another $500M from Obama after a loss of $400M.

UniSolar: FAIL! - Uni-Solar filed for Ch 11 bankruptcy in June 20, 2012 after laying off hundreds of workers. UniSolar received even more Obama money after showing now progress, no profits and is still failing… yet they still remain in business with Obama’s help.

Azure Dynamics: FAIL! - Azure Dynamics filed for bankruptcy in June , 2012 wasting millions in Obama “Stimulus” money and received abatement on taxes owed and and several tax credits. Azure Dynamics LLC filed for bankruptcy protection in Canada and the US. Azure laid off 120 of its 160 employees in Oak Park; Boston; Vancouver, British Columbia; and the UK.

Evergreen Solar: FAIL! - Evergreen Solar received $527 Million in Taxpayer money from Obama and filed bankruptcy in late 2011. Evergreen, which closed its taxpayer-supported Devens factory in March, 2011 cut more than 1800 jobs. Evergreen’s $450 million factory, turned out to be a colossal “waste” of taxpayer money.

Ener1: FAIL! Ener1 Inc. received a $118 million U.S. Energy Department grant from President Obama to make electric-car batteries but filed for bankruptcy protection January 2012 after defaulting on bond debt.

How far down the hole do you have to be before you stop digging?

Many non "green" companys have also had taxpayer funding and failed.

Equaly some "green" companys are doing well:

http://www.pistonheads.com/news/default.asp?storyId=27415

**Frazzled**

Mannahnin wrote:
Most new businesses fail. Most new technical ideas don't work out. To advance technology you explore new avenues and try new ideas, and some of them work out. Not all of them.

The whole point of subsidizing new technology is to give a chance to ideas which are not sure-fire successes. Ideas which are guaranteed successes won't need government help, as private investment will be easy to obtain.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/04/politics/fact-check-green-energy
Some of this stuff goes back to campaign claims from last Summer and Fall.
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/romneys-solar-flareout/
http://blog.sfgate.com/energy/2012/10/04/romney-half-of-fed-funded-green-companies-bankrupt/

As of last October, we were up to what, 3 out of 33 companies who received loans from the D of E having declared bankruptcy? Solyndra, Abound, and Beacon, right?

Government subsidizing research: GOOD
Government using tax payer dollars to subsidize crony capitalism: BAD*.

*Unless I own the Company of course, then revert to GOOD.

**whembly**

sebster wrote:

whembly wrote:
True... but if money is tight, why do this at all now?

I mean, if our economy/employment is humming along, I'd be in favor of this. But with all this money that the DoE has, is it really that wise to spend it on these risky endeavor during the time of economic crisis? There's gotta be a better "bang" for the buck that this... but, hey, we're talking about our government, eh?

Jesus fething Christ man, we've been through this. A lot of times.

Stimulus. Stimulus. Stimulus. The best time to undergo projects like this is during demand driven recession.

By the fething Holy Emperor of Terra, READ what I said.

Is spending money on RISKY investment a wise thing to do? There are probably better ways to stimulate.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:
whembly wrote:
I mean, if our economy/employment is humming along, I'd be in favor of this. But with all this money that the DoE has, is it really that wise to spend it on these risky endeavor during the time of economic crisis?

Yes. In fact, that is the best time for the government to be involved in investing. When everything is going well the government doesn't need to, but in leaner times the government helps grease the skids to keep the wheels turning until things pick back up.

I actually agree with that... but, on risky endeavors?

**Dreadclaw69**

whembly wrote:
By the fething Holy Emperor of Terra, READ what I said.

Is spending money on RISKY investment a wise thing to do? There are probably better ways to stimulate.

Pretty much my thinking too, then again I don't try to stake the house budgets by betting them on long shot horses

**Frazzled**

whembly wrote:
sebster wrote:

whembly wrote:
True... but if money is tight, why do this at all now?

I mean, if our economy/employment is humming along, I'd be in favor of this. But with all this money that the DoE has, is it really that wise to spend it on these risky endeavor during the time of economic crisis? There's gotta be a better "bang" for the buck that this... but, hey, we're talking about our government, eh?

Jesus fething Christ man, we've been through this. A lot of times.

Stimulus. Stimulus. Stimulus. The best time to undergo projects like this is during demand driven recession.

By the fething Holy Emperor of Terra, READ what I said.

Is spending money on RISKY investment a wise thing to do? There are probably better ways to stimulate.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:
whembly wrote:
I mean, if our economy/employment is humming along, I'd be in favor of this. But with all this money that the DoE has, is it really that wise to spend it on these risky endeavor during the time of economic crisis?

Yes. In fact, that is the best time for the government to be involved in investing. When everything is going well the government doesn't need to, but in leaner times the government helps grease the skids to keep the wheels turning until things pick back up.

I actually agree with that... but, on risky endeavors?

Actually the argument that spending taxpayer dollars, which you've stolen from other people, to give to your friends, who then go bust, is...criminal. This isn't some private investor taking risk. This is tax money, taken from people under threat of civil and criminal sanction-including imprisonment, and be given to companies owned or connected to people who gave you campaign money. Its utterly criminal.

**Mannahnin**

The idea that taxes are theft is ludicrous. If you want to live in the mountains somewhere and make no use of public roads, utilities, medical or emergency services, schools, etc., then maybe expressing that opinion wouldn't seem so silly. You can complain when the government spends tax money on something you don't like. I sure complained about the trillions of dollars and thousands of human lives wasted in the pointless and evil Iraq war. But spending tax dollars on something you don't like does not equal criminality. Given the choice, I'd certainly rather my tax money go to gambling on green energy rather than bombing people. Maybe your priorities are different.

As for the payola accusations, from my second link above:

Friedman never said contracts were steered to “friends and family.” He said the office was investigating that kind of thing.

We reached out to the DOE’s inspector general’s office to find out what it has come up with so far. The office cannot comment on open cases, or closed ones in which no wrongdoing was found. But what about convictions? The office released a statement to us that said: “None of the cases that resulted in convictions for Recovery Act fraud related to the directing of contracts or grants to friends or family.”

Perhaps one of the ongoing cases will reveal some instances where money was directed to friends and family, but so far, there’s nothing except a year-old statement that the inspector general was looking into it. The ad suggests cases have already been discovered, and that’s not true.

An independent review of the DOE loan program, headed by former Treasury official Herb Allison, also “failed to turn up the waste and incompetence that critics said riddled the programs,” the Los Angeles Times noted, though it did call for better oversight after companies are awarded contracts. The review also concluded the program could lose as much as $2.7 billion on loans to green-energy companies, but that was actually less than the $10 billion anticipated by Congress. The Allison report was criticized by some Republicans as incomplete, particularly since the panel did not evaluate Solyndra as part of its review.

In addition to that investigation, Politico noted that “investigations launched by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and the Energy and Commerce Committee have yet to turn up evidence of political favors to Democrats in the loan program.”

A Dec. 25, 2011, Washington Post analysis of thousands of memos, company records and internal emails concluded the green-technology program was “infused with politics at every level.” But the Post story didn’t document any corrupt pay-to-play scheme. Instead, the “politics” described by the Post involved the backing of financially shaky companies to push the administration’s green agenda, not any rewarding of campaign donors. The story said: “The records do not establish that anyone pressured the Energy Department to approve the Solyndra loan to benefit political contributors.”

As we noted in an earlier report, there’s an ongoing criminal investigation of Solyndra’s executives, led by Republican House investigators. So new revelations could emerge in the future. But so far what’s been documented is evidence of questionable business judgments to push the Obama administration’s green-energy platform or wishful thinking about the economic viability of solar energy, not of any outright payola or quid pro quo.

**Ensis Ferrae**

I understand the Government "investing" in green companies.. I don't understand the Government investing in green CAR companies.

I'm sorry, but if it doesnt have a minimum of 6 cylinders, doesnt have the ability to tow the Statue of Liberty, or isn't capable of cramming enormously huge wheels under it, most Americans simply don't want it.... There's a reason why we don't see too many prius or other hybird/alternate fuel vehicles, typically, they just don't sell, excepting a few markets.

**Cheesecat**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I understand the Government "investing" in green companies.. I don't understand the Government investing in green CAR companies.

I'm sorry, but if it doesnt have a minimum of 6 cylinders, doesnt have the ability to tow the Statue of Liberty, or isn't capable of cramming enormously huge wheels under it, most Americans simply don't want it.... There's a reason why we don't see too many prius or other hybird/alternate fuel vehicles, typically, they just don't sell, excepting a few markets.

Trams would be more environmentally conscientious, are safer and cheaper.

**deathholydeath**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I understand the Government "investing" in green companies.. I don't understand the Government investing in green CAR companies.

I'm sorry, but if it doesnt have a minimum of 6 cylinders, doesnt have the ability to tow the Statue of Liberty, or isn't capable of cramming enormously huge wheels under it, most Americans simply don't want it.... There's a reason why we don't see too many prius or other hybird/alternate fuel vehicles, typically, they just don't sell, excepting a few markets.

I see them all the time, actually.

**Frazzled**

Taxing isn't theft. Taxing to give it to your campaign contributing friends IS theft.

**sebster**

whembly wrote:
By the fething Holy Emperor of Terra, READ what I said.

Is spending money on RISKY investment a wise thing to do? There are probably better ways to stimulate.

It doesn't matter if its risky or not. Either way you get jobs and therefore more spending through the economy and you sustain aggregate demand.

I mean, sure if something is risky it's less appealing. But if the payoff to the overall economy and society are worth the risk in good economic times, then nothing has changed in poor economic times.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Pretty much my thinking too, then again I don't try to stake the house budgets by betting them on long shot horses

Investing modest amounts of money in a wide variety of tech companies and putting money on long shot horses couldn't be further apart.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
Actually the argument that spending taxpayer dollars, which you've stolen from other people, to give to your friends, who then go bust, is...criminal. This isn't some private investor taking risk. This is tax money, taken from people under threat of civil and criminal sanction-including imprisonment, and be given to companies owned or connected to people who gave you campaign money. Its utterly criminal.

Actually, the Obama administration directly warned against the investment, due to all the things that are now being investigated. So your summary above is just more standard rightwing nonsense.

Please just fething stop. You hear some half baked rightwing lie, and you repeat it here. Someone explains to you that it's a halfbaked lie... and then you talk about weiner dogs until you get told some other halfbaked lie. We're over it. It's boring.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I'm sorry, but if it doesnt have a minimum of 6 cylinders, doesnt have the ability to tow the Statue of Liberty, or isn't capable of cramming enormously huge wheels under it, most Americans simply don't want it.... There's a reason why we don't see too many prius or other hybird/alternate fuel vehicles, typically, they just don't sell, excepting a few markets.

Americans are not somehow inherently uniquely irrational. They're just people, and like the rest of us they like big cars, until those cars get too expensive to run. You can see this by tracking small car sales against fuel price spikes - when fuel surges you get an almost immediate uptick in small car sales, at the expense of bigger and less efficient cars.

Right now you've got more big cars because your fuel is much, much cheaper as taxes on it are much, much lower. And that's why you get less of an uptake on green cars.

**Mannahnin**

I see WAY more little, fuel efficient cars on the roads nowadays than I used to, and far fewer SUVs than even five or ten years ago. And I live in a state that's 80% forest, and a good chunk of it mountain. Admittedly, I live in the Southern, more urban part, and if I go up-country the ratio shifts, but those smaller cars are certainly gaining ground and have been for a while.

Taxing isn't theft. Taxing to give it to your campaign contributing friends IS theft.

You can modify your statement, but going on to just ignore the rest of my post still looks silly.

**Frazzled**

Its not silly. Its accurate. The link with all these companies that the Energy Department gave away hard earned taxpayer money too, is that they were campaign contributers.

Instead of funding pure research they actually gave money to companies.

**Dreadclaw69**

sebster wrote:
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Pretty much my thinking too, then again I don't try to stake the house budgets by betting them on long shot horses

Investing modest amounts of money in a wide variety of tech companies and putting money on long shot horses couldn't be further apart.

And investing billions in risky markets couldn't be further apart from the vanilla "Investing modest amounts of money in a wide variety of tech companies"

**Frazzled**

Investing billions in risky markets that gave money to your campaign and have no viable business strategy is the correct answer.

Again, providing funds for research - a proven govenment function.

Providing funds from the government for your business cronies - a proven banana republic function.

Its criminal. You're forcing money from people with the force of the gun, and then giving it to your friends. At least Zetas provide a product.

**Mannahnin**

Mannahnin wrote:
As for the payola accusations, from my second link above:

Friedman never said contracts were steered to “friends and family.” He said the office was investigating that kind of thing.

We reached out to the DOE’s inspector general’s office to find out what it has come up with so far. The office cannot comment on open cases, or closed ones in which no wrongdoing was found. But what about convictions? The office released a statement to us that said: “None of the cases that resulted in convictions for Recovery Act fraud related to the directing of contracts or grants to friends or family.”

Perhaps one of the ongoing cases will reveal some instances where money was directed to friends and family, but so far, there’s nothing except a year-old statement that the inspector general was looking into it. The ad suggests cases have already been discovered, and that’s not true.

An independent review of the DOE loan program, headed by former Treasury official Herb Allison, also “failed to turn up the waste and incompetence that critics said riddled the programs,” the Los Angeles Times noted, though it did call for better oversight after companies are awarded contracts. The review also concluded the program could lose as much as $2.7 billion on loans to green-energy companies, but that was actually less than the $10 billion anticipated by Congress. The Allison report was criticized by some Republicans as incomplete, particularly since the panel did not evaluate Solyndra as part of its review.

In addition to that investigation, Politico noted that “investigations launched by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and the Energy and Commerce Committee have yet to turn up evidence of political favors to Democrats in the loan program.”

A Dec. 25, 2011, Washington Post analysis of thousands of memos, company records and internal emails concluded the green-technology program was “infused with politics at every level.” But the Post story didn’t document any corrupt pay-to-play scheme. Instead, the “politics” described by the Post involved the backing of financially shaky companies to push the administration’s green agenda, not any rewarding of campaign donors. The story said: “The records do not establish that anyone pressured the Energy Department to approve the Solyndra loan to benefit political contributors.”

As we noted in an earlier report, there’s an ongoing criminal investigation of Solyndra’s executives, led by Republican House investigators. So new revelations could emerge in the future. But so far what’s been documented is evidence of questionable business judgments to push the Obama administration’s green-energy platform or wishful thinking about the economic viability of solar energy, not of any outright payola or quid pro quo.

**KalashnikovMarine**

Cheesecat wrote:
Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I understand the Government "investing" in green companies.. I don't understand the Government investing in green CAR companies.

I'm sorry, but if it doesnt have a minimum of 6 cylinders, doesnt have the ability to tow the Statue of Liberty, or isn't capable of cramming enormously huge wheels under it, most Americans simply don't want it.... There's a reason why we don't see too many prius or other hybird/alternate fuel vehicles, typically, they just don't sell, excepting a few markets.

Trams would be more environmentally conscientious, are safer and cheaper.

And are completely impractical for most of the United States. Welcome to decentralized society.

**Cheesecat**

KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Cheesecat wrote:
Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I understand the Government "investing" in green companies.. I don't understand the Government investing in green CAR companies.

I'm sorry, but if it doesnt have a minimum of 6 cylinders, doesnt have the ability to tow the Statue of Liberty, or isn't capable of cramming enormously huge wheels under it, most Americans simply don't want it.... There's a reason why we don't see too many prius or other hybird/alternate fuel vehicles, typically, they just don't sell, excepting a few markets.

Trams would be more environmentally conscientious, are safer and cheaper.

And are completely impractical for most of the United States. Welcome to decentralized society.

Oh yeah, you would need a major infrastructure reconstruction and cultural shift for it to be implemented so it's highly unlikely it'll ever happen.

**djones520**

Cars are as much a part of our culture as guns, and apple pie.

I love this country!