More Automotive Irony

[JDP]

Personally, I think the question of whether Fisker used US loan money to build cars in Finland is not the salient one. The real question should be, "should government be funding technologies and businesses that should be private-sector, venture capital projects." I'm sure Bob Kagle or Ann Winblad have the money or the ability to assemble a consortium to fund this sort of development... if they thought the returns justified it.

The are arguments on both sides of that issue. It should be noted that counties that are eating our lunch are investing way more government money in hi tech than we are. Many emerging technologies are either funded directly or indirectly by the government in the beginning. i.e. we would not have had the internet or GPS by now if the government had not invested billions. Not to mention indirect funding like the space program that just now is being privatized. In the case of the Karma, millions in private money was invested, but they needed a government loan to buy the old GM plant and convert it.

In the end, if they succeed we get new tech, and new jobs, if they fail both the government and private investors will take a hit. When you think about the billions lost on abandoned defense projects you have to recognize there are risks both ways, but with defense, every dime lost and risk taken is on the tax payers dime.

[Scott]

And you know that some of that money could be your social security dollars at work!

[stall]

I don't know what the argument is all about. We all know that the US Government is very proficient at picking startup company winners and creating jobs.

I think Solara might be bigger than Exxon someday and unemployment is dropping, right!!!

[JDP]

I don't know what the argument is all about. We all know that the US Government is very proficient at picking startup company winners and creating jobs.

I think Solara might be bigger than Exxon someday and unemployment is dropping, right!!!

You won't see me defending the Solyndra loan. Mistakes were made by the government and private investors and neither did due diligence. In the rush to fund a green energy company, no one thought about the Chinese dumping solar panels with the help of their government and making Solyndra uncompetitive. Like airports that are not needed, and bridges to no where, governments often make lousy investments.
Look at the billions lost on the Concord before Europe made a success of their commercial aircraft industry. If the government does not help with responsible investments, we'll being buying more from companies that have state sponsored industry like China.
I just read the Chinese are trying to sell the USA on having them build our high speed rail system and that is just wrong IMHO.


FRESNO — In the 19th century, laborers from China helped build railroads spanning California and linking the U.S. coasts. In the 21st century, the Chinese may be back — not for backbreaking labor, but with financial and technological muscle.
The People's Republic of China has more miles of track for high-speed trains than any country in the world, but California has none.
The Chinese want in on the state's fledgling high-speed rail project. They're eager to help bankroll and build the system and, eventually, provide the trains to operate on the tracks.

Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/01/0...#ixzz1bwAkjJoO

[BobPalma]

You won't see me defending the Solyndra loan. Mistakes were made by the government and private investors and neither did due diligence. In the rush to fund a green energy company, no one thought about the Chinese dumping solar panels with the help of their government and making Solyndra uncompetitive.

Mistakes are one thing and we all make them.

It's just a lot easier to make them when it isn't your money on the line, but, rather, taxpayer money you just might be using to promote your own political personhood.

There is 'way too much political smoke about the cronyism and the current administration's funders and operatives involved with Solyndra to not have been a fire somewhere, sometime. (Unless, of course, you want to set up a fan to blow the smoke away so nobody sees it.) BP

[JDP]

Mistakes are one thing and we all make them.

It's just a lot easier to make them when it isn't your money on the line, but, rather, taxpayer money you just might be using to promote your own political personhood.

There is 'way too much political smoke about the cronyism and the current administration's funders and operatives involved with Solyndra to not have been a fire somewhere, sometime. (Unless, of course, you want to set up a fan to blow the smoke away so nobody sees it.) BP

Like I said, no defense of the Solyndra deal, but it's hardly the first time tax payer money was lost. Pork is a equal opportunity game in Washington. Of course there was the 60 billion lost to fraud and theft of the trillion in costs of the Iraq war, not to mention what we are still losing to fraud in Afghanistan. If you recall, we sent pallets of cash to Iraq, and tossed out "bricks" of $100 bills with no accounting to tribal leaders. It would be nice if one party was pure as the driven snow, but sadly, I can't think of one administration that did not piss away tax money.
Anyone that ever served in the military will tell you what happens if you don't spend all your departments money by the end of the budget period. You'll be ordered to spend it on anything or "We'll get our budget cut for the next quarter" I never saw that change when we changed administrations.

[Gunslinger]

Anyone that ever served in the military will tell you what happens if you don't spend all your departments money by the end of the budget period. You'll be ordered to spend it on anything or "We'll get our budget cut for the next quarter" I never saw that change when we changed administrations.

That's not just the military...that's throughout the government. One agency I worked for would go on their annual spending binge at the end of the fiscal year buying all kinds of unnecessary items. If it had to have been spent they could at least purchased useful items...but nooooo...they bought stuff that stayed in storage room for years...unused and unwanted.

Our tax dollars at work. As you said...it matters not what administration is in office...the Federal beast is still the same.

[JDP]

That's not just the military...that's throughout the government. One agency I worked for would go on their annual spending binge at the end of the fiscal year buying all kinds of unnecessary items. If it had to have been spent they could at least purchased useful items...but nooooo...they bought stuff that stayed in storage room for years...unused and unwanted.

Our tax dollars at work. As you said...it matters not what administration is in office...the Federal beast is still the same.

I got really good at it. One time when I ran out of ideas on how to spend money in one day, I bought a stereo receiver for the division lounge. I wrote up the request for $300 or so as, as I recall a A4/F4 modulated tuner/ amplifier to get it past the supply clerk. That was better than the previous Chief, he just stocked his garage with tools from Sermart.

One time I thought I'd do something useful and order a spare circuit board for a microwave transmitter. It was a few $100 item, but did not arrive for a few months. Turned out they had one made from scratch from a contractor at a cost of over 5K when they did not have one in the supply chain. BTW, we scrapped it a year later when we got modern transmitters.
As a electronics nut, it broke my heart to see pallets of brand new, but now obsolete electronics scrapped because it was to expensive to ship back to CONUS for salvage sale.

[BobPalma]

Like I said, no defense of the Solyndra deal, but it's hardly the first time tax payer money was lost. Pork is a equal opportunity game in Washington. Of course there was the 60 billion lost to fraud and theft of the trillion in costs of the Iraq war, not to mention what we are still losing to fraud in Afghanistan. If you recall, we sent pallets of cash to Iraq, and tossed out "bricks" of $100 bills with no accounting to tribal leaders. It would be nice if one party was pure as the driven snow, but sadly, I can't think of one administration that did not piss away tax money.
Anyone that ever served in the military will tell you what happens if you don't spend all your departments money by the end of the budget period. You'll be ordered to spend it on anything or "We'll get our budget cut for the next quarter" I never saw that change when we changed administrations.

Obviously, John, as usual...you are missing the point, which is not government waste in general (which is one topic) but, rather, the fraudulent use of taxpayer dollars to reward those who placed the current administration in power.

The point I was (and am) making is the Solyndra deal having 'waaaay too many political overtones that served to further this specific administration's goal of securing reelection at the hand of the American taxpayers. You've undoubtedly seen (and discounted as right-wing rhetoric so you didn't have to consider the validity of) the depth of political favoritism associated with the Solyndra deal.

My position remains as usual: If even half of the reported political implications are correct, your administration's heros de jour should be subject to your endless investigation and subsequent disrespect. Not that said will ever happen, of course. BP

[JDP]

Obviously, John, as usual...you are missing the point, which is not government waste in general (which is one topic) but, rather, the fraudulent use of taxpayer dollars to reward those who placed the current administration in power.

The point I was (and am) making is the Solyndra deal having 'waaaay too many political overtones that served to further this specific administration's goal of securing reelection at the hand of the American taxpayers. You've undoubtedly seen (and discounted as right-wing rhetoric so you didn't have to consider the validity of) the depth of political favoritism associated with the Solyndra deal.

My position remains as usual: If even half of the reported political implications are correct, your administration's heros de jour should be subject to your endless investigation and subsequent disrespect. Not that said will ever happen, of course. BP

I get your point, one side is always bad, the other is the savoir of all things bright and beautiful, but I just don't buy it. I already agreed that the Solyndra loans were a mistake, but hardly the first mistake by this administration or others. We'll never get anything done in this country if everyone thinks "their" party is the only one with good idea's, or never makes a mistake.

Do you truly believe that there is a rational reason for congressional votes where neither side can get one vote for the other sides idea ? Now, we have politicians signing purity pledges to never vote for this or that before the issue even comes up. The last guy I voted for from "your" side was Reagan and I truly believe he would have been appalled by the extremists on both sides today. I guess you'd find it odd that I admire both Reagan and Clinton, but neither were without flaws.
We have elections to decide who has the best idea's, and no matter who wins, I doubt he/she will please more than half the voters, it's the nature of the new world of extreme polarization.

[BobPalma]

I get your point, one side is always bad, the other is the savoir of all things bright and beautiful, but I just don't buy it. I already agreed that the Solyndra loans were a mistake, but hardly the first mistake by this administration or others. We'll never get anything done in this country if everyone thinks "their" party is the only one with good idea's, or never makes a mistake.

Do you truly believe that there is a rational reason for congressional votes where neither side can get one vote for the other sides idea ? Now, we have politicians signing purity pledges to never vote for this or that before the issue even comes up. The last guy I voted for from "your" side was Reagan and I truly believe he would have been appalled by the extremists on both sides today. I guess you'd find it odd that I admire both Reagan and Clinton, but neither were without flaws.
We have elections to decide who has the best idea's, and no matter who wins, I doubt he/she will please more than half the voters, it's the nature of the new world of extreme polarization.

Sorry, John; but you don't get my point, which is nothing as you describe or imagine, although it is admittedly your desire to pigeon-hole right-of-center people as one-size-fits-all to avoid addressing legitimate, albeit uncomfortable for terminal leftists, points they might have. "Nice try," as they say.

If you really got my point about Solyndra (and I think you do but don't have the intellectual honesty to admit it), you'd acknowledge the Solyndra deal being more than a simple mistake. Rather, it seems to have been motivated by the desire to reward major donors and players with taxpayer loans for an enterprise that could not be justified as a legitimate business proposition...with the added bonus of warm and fuzzy vibes for man-caused global warming enthusiasts.

Anyway, there seems to be plenty of evidence to support many on your side having had reservations about Solyndra, and I laud their intellectual honesty, but being overruled by those who saw the political benefits of mis-appropriating taxpayer money anyway. It would be silly to waste time citing appropriate links because no matter where they came from, if they required acknowledging Solyndra being anything other than "a simple mistake," they would be disregarded as being from kooky, right-wing extremists...yadda, yadda, yadda.

You know, the usual; you can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time, et al. BP

[JDP]

Sorry, John; but you don't get my point, which is nothing as you describe or imagine, although it is admittedly your desire to pigeon-hole right-of-center people as one-size-fits-all to avoid addressing legitimate, albeit uncomfortable for terminal leftists, points they might have. "Nice try," as they say.

If you really got my point about Solyndra (and I think you do but don't have the intellectual honesty to admit it), you'd acknowledge the Solyndra deal being more than a simple mistake. Rather, it seems to have been motivated by the desire to reward major donors and players with taxpayer loans for an enterprise that could not be justified as a legitimate business proposition...with the added bonus of warm and fuzzy vibes for man-caused global warming enthusiasts.

Anyway, there seems to be plenty of evidence to support many on your side having had reservations about Solyndra, and I laud their intellectual honesty, but being overruled by those who saw the political benefits of mis-appropriating taxpayer money anyway. It would be silly to waste time citing appropriate links because no matter where they came from, if they required acknowledging Solyndra being anything other than "a simple mistake," they would be disregarded as being from kooky, right-wing extremists...yadda, yadda, yadda.

You know, the usual; you can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time, et al. BP

Speaking of intellectual honesty, do you recall your post about the big stock market drop being a wake up call for the voters ? What say you about the 300 point rise today ? As I pointed than, the POTUS of either party has little control of the stock market. As to Solyndra, the outrage on the right over the issue reminds me of the outrage on the left about Halburton and both had political implications. Do I think the Solyndra deal was politically motivated, you bet, is the first or last time politicians do political things, nope, but it's no Watergate.
There is more to look at with the Fast and Furious guns issue, that needs a full investigation to see who is responsible for that lame idea.

[Packard53]

Bob Palma: During the Bush adminstaration Haliburton was awarded many no bid defense contracts during the Irqa War. i would say that was a way of giving taxpayers monies for those who contributed to the Bush campain.

Those contracts put alot of money directly into Dick Chenneys pockets. Called direct pay of taxpayers money to the then VP with out going through a third party.

John S.