So “indicated” by the documentation is different from “backed up” by the documentation?
Like I said, that is more than a stretch.
Cite.
Cite.
What I said is exactly correct, exactly as I said it.
Regards,
Shodan
And what do you think “Obamacare”* is*? :dubious: (Hint: It’s what you just said should be done :rolleyes:)
The rest of your reply to my question as to what you do want to do is too incoherent for even that much of a reply. You have GOT to turn the channel away from Gretchen Carlson and Steve Doocy once in a while.
Looks like you once again didn’t get the point. Let me put in in shorter words for you: Startups need cash or they fail. Growth businesses start as startups. Solar energy is good national policy, too. But startups carry risk. Can’t avoid risk.
All you’re doing is, as is your habit, the same irresponsible partisan sniping that forms the limit of Magiver’s discursive performance as well. Does Gretchen (or maybe Steve for that matter, not that there’s anything wrong with that) give you that hard a boner that you can’t change the channel either?
Who said our only choices are a bad program or mortgaging our lives? Seriously. Congress is perfectly capable of addressing insurance gap issues without dragging businesses into it.
Nope.
Those are interesting cites, and they do indicate that the Obama administration was not a passive partner in the loan approval process for Solyndra.
But the issue you and I had been discussing, the issue that you allegedly got “exactly correct” was whether or not the Bush administration killed the loan approval process when they were in power. None of your new cites addresses that. Post 150 in this thread.
If you want to continue debating with me, you’ll have to start quoting your cites and quoting them accurately. I won’t continue with your pathetic attempts at making claims not supported by your unquoted cites.
I doubt you’ll get them to admit to this distinction.
How hard would it have been to get money for Solyndra when the economy was in meltdown. I suppose the real problem was the Solyndra money ,not the trillions the bankers destroyed. We should focus all our attention on that. It is so big . I know I watched Fox the other day. It is like HLN, the Casey Anthony channel, but it is fox, the Solyndra Channel.
This is in violation of forum rules. If you cannot make an argument without personal comments, take it to The BBQ Pit.
Knock it off.
[ /Moderating ]
This is not likely to help Obama: Energy Secretary Steven Chu acknowledged allowing Solyndra to continue receiving taxpayer money after it had technically defaulted on its loan.
Right.
Rejected means “It ain’t gonna happen.” Shelved means “It ain’t gonna happen unless/until something changes.”
So, again, what do you think should be done? :dubious: Got anything for us besides sniping?
I would take business out of the loop. We’re already paying higher premiums to cover the hard-to-insure as a result of the health care bill. The parts of the bill that mandate coverage for various physical conditions or financial situations are already codified.
That means you get your insurance from: a personal policy, a group policy, a business policy, or a government policy (medicaid, medicare, low income supplementary).
And if it’s not in the bill I’d include government contracts with pharmaceutical companies to reduce the cost of drugs. It could be mass purchase of drugs or the direct purchase of patents. It can’t be a one size fits all mandate because the cost of drugs is a mix of research, manufacturing and liability costs. There are probably more to the mix but the point is that a single method of reducing costs does not fit all situations. I would make this function independent of government to avoid the purchase of political influence over the process.
The hardest part, which will be a permanent political battle, is where to draw the line of insurable conditions because that line determines what we all pay for insurance.
I agree. There should be no profit motive in the practice of medicine.
I was unaware of the facts in this article. Things are looking worse for the White House. I don’t think Obama really is to blame for much of this. But the more he tries to handwave it and protect those responsible, the more it will hurt him.
How does this make it worse?
This, for starters:
For some reason, the links to the subsequent pages don’t seem to be working.
I see nothing that makes this worse for Obama. Explain.
I didn’t say that it necessarily made things worse for Obama. I said White House, and you just did a little slight of hand trying to put words in my mouth. Nice try, but no. Try rereading. I’ll even break it up for you:
It’s got his fingerprints all over it.
“How hard is this? What is he waiting for?” wrote Steven J. Spinner, a high-tech consultant and energy investor who raised at least $500,000 for the candidate before being appointed to a key job helping oversee the energy loan guarantee program. “I have OVP [the Office of the Vice President] and WH [the White House] breathing down my neck on this.”
A major fundraiser for Obama pushes for the loan and name drops the the white house in the process.
So what? Nobody is denying it was a showpiece for the Whitehouse. What I would like you to explain is, why is this something that can cause serious damage? The same loan program invested in 40 other companies; most are doing great. Is it your argument that because one went bad, Obama is somehow a bad president? I just don’t see the logic. Tempest in a teapot. Change the channel.
It’s still better than arguing the President is somehow not in charge of the White House, as magellan01 is reduced to claiming. 
The competence and honesty of an administration can be measured by how deeply its implacable opposition has to dig to find something to criticize it for. If this is the best they can do, it’s actually quite an endorsement.