Because Obama is a liberal, and liberals are all anti-war, so increasing deployment to AfPak is a lie…
Is that pretty much your logic?
Solyndra executives will appear before Congress-but will take the fifth!
It looks like Solyndra just might have been close to collapse when the loan was approved…my, my!
I guess the “Green” jobs are worth it!
No.
First of all, there are plenty of reasons to take the Fifth apart from actual guilt. This has become a public issue and as a result public pressure will build to find someone to hang from the yardarm. A prudent person might well decide to take the Fifth to avoid giving the prosecution any rope to hang him, even if there is no underlying criminal conduct.
Secondly, even if Solyndra officials knew that the company was struggling, what of it? As business owners, they owed to their stockholders the fiduciary duty of trying to save their company. As long as they made no fraudulent misrepresentations, why shouldn’t they try mightily to secure extra funding even if they knew the company was having problems?
Finally, where is the evidence that Obama, or his staff, were complicit in any of this?
What shape would our economy be in if we hadn’t gone to a senseless war in Iraq? Which cost more lives – the strike on the Trace Center Towers or war in Iraq?
Why is there no accounting for the money spent on security in either administration? Who decided there would be no accounting? Where does the money go?
What makes you think there is no accounting?
Regards,
Shodan
The dead head right wing, hate Obama, hate the Dems, suck up to the rich, hate gays, love guns types are all jumping all over this dwindling story. That is as predicted. This is the only place the story lives now.
Says the guy who keeps bumping the thread to deny that the story has any legs.
Regards,
Shodan
It’s in the SJ Merc pretty much every day.
You do realize Gonzo that you sound and act exactly like the very people you claim to hate. Replace right with left, Obama with Bush, Dems with Republicans, rich with poor, gays with Christians, guns with hybird and you have you, a mirror image of what you have posted.
I find your post so hypocritical. You can’t stand any critisism of Obama and the Democrats, yet you do the same to the Republicans. And you wonder why nothing will ever be acomplished in Congress.
If you know that your company is incapable of making a profit, is it honest and prudent to take monies (that you know will be lost)?
Furthermore, if you misrepresent the state of the firm, are you in fact guilty of fraud?
Yeah, I know $538 million is chicken feed-but a few of these and it adds up!
What makes you think they knew the company was incapable of making a profit? Their business plan assumed the prices of solar cells remained relatively stable. They didn’t. If they knew there was a more cost-efficient production method about to enter the marketplace they would have used that method.
No, it’s neither honest nor prudent. But I don’t think we’ve established that the company was “incapable” of making a profit.
It really depends on the nature of the misrepresentation.
Can some one point me to the proof, if it exists, that this loan application was fast-tracked. Thanks.
Like I said, during the first year when Obama was elected, i pitted him. I also have bitched plenty about how he handled the financial crisis. Are you suggesting every time I bitch about the repubs ,I have to include a DEm criticism to maintain credibility with the "fair and balanced " rightys?
I don’t think there is any right now. That’s part of what the investigation is about. I’m sure the GOP will be scrupulously impartial in their analysis.
John, we talked about this. Tequila and bongwater is not for amateurs.
As a liberal Democrat, I appreciate your being fair on an issue where the easy conservative route is to condemn. And your first point here is certainly valid. The second, though, is where the rubber will meet the road as far as the Solyndra officials are concerned. If they knew the company was having problems and didn’t disclose this, it’s likely they made fraudulent misrepresentations (e.g., in their projections). Agreed, the prosecutors will have to prove this and they can’t require or expect the officials to incriminate themselves. Nor do we have any evidence (yet) that they made misrepresentations. But, if they did, their fiduciary duty to stockholders won’t be a defense. Rather, it would be called motive.
The most troubling thing I’ve seen so far is that there was a debt restructuring back in Feb after an additional infusion of cash from investors that stipulated the investors would be paid back ahead of the government in the event of bankruptcy. I don’t know what role the administration had in that deal, if any, but it certainly is worth looking into.
He proposed immediate withdrawal from Iraq and then followed Bush’s plan almost to the letter. He had to have known going into the election that his plan was bullshit. He wasn’t selling that nonsense to Republicans so that means he was selling it to Democrats.
which leaves, what? The loan approval professionals in charge of throwing money down a rat hole?
It all comes down to how obvious the failure of the company was and how much pressure is exerted when the loan is being used by the White House for publicity.