Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
[It's a] microcosm of this admin's lack of business acumen.
You're going to believe what you choose to believe. I've presented the facts: Solyndra was not a big deal, relatively, not representative of government investments, and its loan guarantee was not just a creation of the Obama administration.
You're going to believe what you choose to believe. I've presented the facts: Solyndra was not a big deal, relatively, not representative of government investments, and its loan guarantee was not just a creation of the Obama administration.
They were turned down under Bush. While they were in the program, they were turned down because they had incomplete paperwork.
http://nation.foxnews.com/solyndra/2...-solyndra-loan
The results of the Congressional probe shared Tuesday with ABC News show that less than two weeks before President Bush left office, on January 9, 2009, the Energy Department's credit committee had voted against offering a loan commitment to Solyndra.
Even after Obama took office on Jan. 20, 2009, analysts in the Energy Department and in the Office of Management and Budget were repeatedly questioning the wisdom of the loan. In one exchange, an Energy official wrote of "a major outstanding issue" -- namely, that Solyndra's numbers showed it would run out of cash in September 2011.
The US retail sector is now at its lowest level since the summer of 2009.
Gee and all this time Republicans have been saying that lack of consumer demand has nothing to do with the economy, the problem is that the taxes are too high and regulations add too much uncertainty. Hmmm.
And of course laying off all those public employees is just the ticket to raising consumer spending.
They were turned down under Bush. While they were in the program, they were turned down because they had incomplete paperwork.
Bush Admin. Voted AGAINST Solyndra Loan - Solyndra - Fox Nation
The results of the Congressional probe shared Tuesday with ABC News show that less than two weeks before President Bush left office, on January 9, 2009, the Energy Department's credit committee had voted against offering a loan commitment to Solyndra.
Even after Obama took office on Jan. 20, 2009, analysts in the Energy Department and in the Office of Management and Budget were repeatedly questioning the wisdom of the loan. In one exchange, an Energy official wrote of "a major outstanding issue" -- namely, that Solyndra's numbers showed it would run out of cash in September 2011.
I did previously include information regarding that "questioning":
January 2009: In an effort to show it has done something to support renewable energy, the Bush Administration tries to take Solyndra before a DOE credit review committee before President Obama is inaugurated. The committee, consisting of career civil servants with financial expertise, remands the loan back to DOE “without prejudice” because it wasn’t ready for conditional commitment. March 2009: The same credit committee approves the strengthened loan application. The deal passes on to DOE’s credit review board. Career staff (not political appointees) within the DOE issue a conditional commitment setting out terms for a guarantee.
... September 2009: Solyndra raises an additional $219 million. Shortly after, the DOE closes a $535 million loan guarantee after six months of due diligence. This is the first loan guarantee issued under the 1703 program. From application to closing, the process took three years – not the 41 days that is sometimes reported. OMB did raise some concerns in August not about the loan itself but how the loan should be “scored.” OMB testified Wednesday that they were comfortable with the final scoring.
I feel like it's hopeless to bother trying to get back on point, away from Solyndra:
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist
What needs to be answered is what a president could have done that would have drastically changed the state of the Union given a weak global economy and a sternly uncompromising anti-Obama opposition party?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
