Another one bites the dust . . .

[MaggieD]

Look aroind. You will see all sorts of stuff that has come into existance and been brought to market due to these sorts of loans. Yeah, some fail, and some create the networks and technologies we talk on, they create the light and power we get, they help our cars ruin more efficiently along with our appliances. hell they even helped trump get his day glow tan. You don't think the rich got rich by risking all of their own money, do you? No they risked our tax money before they ever risked their own. Sometimes it fails and we get screwed, and sometimes it works and we get great stuff.

Let me load the gun with which you can shoot me in the head:

But a closer look at Bain’s record under Romney reveals that the company relied on the very government subsidies that Romney and Tea Party conservatives routinely denounce as “crony capitalism.” The Los Angeles Times ran a big story yesterday about Bain’s investment in Steel Dynamics, which received $37 million in subsidies and grants to build a new plant in DeKalb County, Indiana. An analyst at the Cato Institute called it “corporate welfare.”

Romney has recently pointed to Steel Dynamics as one of his success stories at Bain, including in a new ad, which contributed to the 100,000 net jobs he’s claimed to have created at the firm (an incorrect figure he’s subsequently had to walk back). He never mentions that government subsidies played a major role in ensuring that success.

Phil Mattera, research director for Good Jobs First, provides a few more examples of the government subsidies Bain received during Romney’s tenure at his blog, Dirt Diggers Digest.

GS Industries. In 1996 American Iron Reduction LLC, a joint venture of GS Industries (which had been taken private by Bain in 1993) and Birmingham Steel, sought some $20 million in tax breaks in connection with its plan to build a plant in Louisiana’s St. James Parish (Baton Rouge Advocate, April 6, 1996). As the United Steelworkers union noted recently, GS Industries later applied for a federal loan guarantee, but before the deal could be implemented the company went bankrupt.

Sealy. A year after the 1997 buyout of this leading mattress company by Bain and other private equity firms, Sealy received $600,000 from state and local authorities in North Carolina to move its corporate offices, a research center and a manufacturing plant from Ohio (Greensboro News & Record, March 31, 1998). In 2004 Bain and its partners sold Sealy to another private equity group.

GT Bicycles. In 1997 GT, then owned by Bain and other investors, decided to move its manufacturing operations to an enterprise zone in Santa Ana, California. Being in the zone gave the company, which was later purchased by Schwinn, special tax credits relating to hiring and the purchase of equipment (Orange County Register, July 9, 1999).

^^^In the interest of truth, justice and the American Way.

 

[Kurmugeon]

So you don't want to end these things, which is what some people want to do, you want to try to make them more reliable and less corrupt. So that just leaves me with the question of why you want to elect the guy who wants to get rid of them all even when some are doing good?

Because President Obama spent an additional 6 TRILLION dollars in corrupt kick backs, money we did not have, and much it did not even go to American Citizens during economic duress, but to foriegn countries.


Because President Obama and his administration has taken GOOD programs and agencies like DOE and NASA and turned them into nothing but political pandering RACIST machinery.


NASA Chief Who Called Muslim Outreach 'Foremost' Job Heads to Saudi Arabia | Fox News


Because Romney will not get rid of ALL of these programs, no President can turn the direction of the country that fast, nor do I think he intends to get rid of the un-corrupt programs. But even if he did, it would far better than to continue to through money we cannot afford to the corrupt agencies, agendas and policies created by Obama.


We need to clear out the Garbage created by Andy Van Jones and Valerie Jarrett and start over.


When we start over, we should start by making a firm commitment that RACE, Gender, sexual preference, political affiliation, radical socialist agendas etc will not be a factor in determining who gets hired and what techonogies get pursued.


It is well past time for America to get both far-sighted, but also pragmatic and flexible about energy policy.


That means Obama need to go.


-




-

 

[tererun]

Because President Obama spent an additional 6 TRILLION dollars in corrupt kick backs, money we did not have, and much it did not even go to American Citizens during economic duress, but to foriegn countries.


Because President Obama and his administration has taken GOOD programs and agencies like DOE and NASA and turned them into nothing but political pandering RACIST machinery.


NASA Chief Who Called Muslim Outreach 'Foremost' Job Heads to Saudi Arabia | Fox News


Because Romney will not get rid of ALL of these programs, no President can turn the direction of the country that fast, nor do I think he intends to get rid of the un-corrupt programs. But even if he did, it would far better than to continue to through money we cannot afford to the corrupt agencies, agendas and policies created by Obama.


We need to clear out the Garbage created by Andy Van Jones and Valerie Jarrett and start over.


When we start over, we should start by making a firm commitment that RACE, Gender, sexual preference, political affiliation, radical socialist agendas etc will not be a factor in determining who gets hired and what techonogies get pursued.


It is well past time for America to get both far-sighted, but also pragmatic and flexible about energy policy.


That means Obama need to go.


-




-

yes, I have heard all those incorrect talking points before. Is it true, or did you hear it on fox?

 

[JEthrid]

I like Obama's enthusiasm for green energy, but giving money to private companies isn't the way to go. We definitely need to start transitioning to green, renewable energy, but the money should be invested in research and development. Let the technology become more efficient and affordable to the public before trying to force companies to produce a product they're incapable of producing. Either way, it's better than Romney's plan to drill for oil in Alaska and Canada, and build a pipeline through Canada to the US.

 

[Kurmugeon]

yes, I have heard all those incorrect talking points before. Is it true, or did you hear it on fox?

I worked for DOE for 9 Years, I've been designing high voltage, high current power supplies for 27 years. I've built more power systems than most students have read about.

 

[justabubba]

I like Obama's enthusiasm for green energy, but giving money to private companies isn't the way to go. We definitely need to start transitioning to green, renewable energy, but the money should be invested in research and development. Let the technology become more efficient and affordable to the public before trying to force companies to produce a product they're incapable of producing. Either way, it's better than Romney's plan to drill for oil in Alaska and Canada, and build a pipeline through Canada to the US.

your objection is not to the government's funding of technology but you are opposed to bringing such technology to the marketplace
having technology that is unused - or more frequently - adopted by foreign manufacturers, does us no good

 

[justabubba]

No, but it still doesn't answer my question. Will any of the loaned money ever be paid back?

I think the government should stay out of the business of loaning huge amounts of money to established corporations. Especially in exchange for political donations.

had to construct a straw man in order to have something to attack
or did i miss the part where it was shown these loans were quid pro quo for political donations

 

[PirateMk1]

The role of the government with regards to energy to invest in technologies not specific corporations. That requires real technical analysis, not giving money over to hucksters peddling "green" BS. It really pisses me off that environmentalism is treated like a fashion trend rather than a deliberate calculation of preserving communal resources. In this case, the loans guarantees are either the result of corruption or incompetence, its always hard to tell the different between the two.

I would like to know excactly were in the contitution does say to invest in ANYTHING let alone technology. Last I checked , there was something about a patent office and patents and that was the extent of the subject. I am interested in what you to say. Really. This should be enlighting or depressing. I guess we will see.

 

[PirateMk1]

And that's a risk that venture capitalists know they are taking, when they invest in risky businesses. It's their right to take such risks with their own money, in hope of high returns if the business in which they invest succeeds.

It is absolutely not the government's right to take such risks with the taxpayers' money.

This forum needs.... wait for it........................................................a love button. Or.......................wait for it.........................................a love meter!!!:lamo So we can rate a post we love on a scale of 1-10 or something. Or maybe the star rating for individual posts. I wonder if this is an original idea? Naaaaa probley not.

 

[justabubba]

I would like to know excactly were in the contitution does say to invest in ANYTHING let alone technology. Last I checked , there was something about a patent office and patents and that was the extent of the subject. I am interested in what you to say. Really. This should be enlighting or depressing. I guess we will see.

damn, the Constitution said nothing about investing in aerospace technology and look what happened with NASA

 

[PirateMk1]

damn, the Constitution said nothing about investing in aerospace technology and look what happened with NASA

You know I am a bonified certified genuine amatuer rocket surgeon, and I love the guys over at NASA. And let me be honest here. They are skirting the constittutional lines so hard it hurts. The only reason they are even remotely constitutional, is they serve a constitutional function by developing and launching goverment como and intelegence birds, and GPS birds. Those are military and communication functions which are squarely constitutional, its the other things that are shall we say much less so.

 

[AliHajiSheik]

had to construct a straw man in order to have something to attack
or did i miss the part where it was shown these loans were quid pro quo for political donations

Still not answering the direct question.

 

[JEthrid]

your objection is not to the government's funding of technology but you are opposed to bringing such technology to the marketplace
having technology that is unused - or more frequently - adopted by foreign manufacturers, does us no good

Why give companies money to manufacture products they aren't ready to manufacture? Just because you have the funding to do something, doesn't mean you have the qualified personel or market to sell it to. Either way, it's a step in the right direction over Mitt Romney's plan to drill in Canada and Alaska and build a pipeline through Canada.

 

[justabubba]

Why give companies money to manufacture products they aren't ready to manufacture? Just because you have the funding to do something, doesn't mean you have the qualified personel or market to sell it to. Either way, it's a step in the right direction over Mitt Romney's plan to drill in Canada and Alaska and build a pipeline through Canada.

and that is what the government does in attempting to identify those enterprises with the advanced technology. find the ones which indicate they do possess the capability to bring that technology to the marketplace. the government then provides the capacity

 

[waas]

Yet another green loan dies . . .



This is yet another reason why the government shouldn't be investing in private companies. If our government cannot tell the difference between a viable company and one on the verge of bankruptcy, we shouldn't be in the loan business. Period. That's what venture capitalists are for. If these green companies can't raise money in the private marketplace, they do not deserve to be in business.

Your opinion?

Personally, I find two solutions here:

1.) Give control over the renewables industry to pre-exiting companies in the private sector, as these will be much less likely to fail and may be quicker to develop this new infrastructure.

2.) Nationalize the renewables industry, much like France does with their nuclear.

 

[MaggieD]

Personally, I find two solutions here:

1.) Give control over the renewables industry to pre-exiting companies in the private sector, as these will be much less likely to fail and may be quicker to develop this new infrastructure.

2.) Nationalize the renewables industry, much like France does with their nuclear.

I Liked your post because of your #1 above. Hate your second solution.

 

[waas]

I Liked your post because of your #1 above. Hate your second solution.

It's not that surprising. I find it pretty atypical to support nationalization in this country.

 

[JEthrid]

and that is what the government does in attempting to identify those enterprises with the advanced technology. find the ones which indicate they do possess the capability to bring that technology to the marketplace. the government then provides the capacity

True, but I think the money would've been more efficient if they took a bottom up approach. Say if I went and bought a solar panel to use on my house, I could write that off on my taxes. Using the money to give back to the people so they have an incentive to go green.

 

[Dittohead not!]

We need to spend money in green energy, period.

Absolutely.
Private venture capital needs to be recruited for this purpose.

 

[justabubba]

True, but I think the money would've been more efficient if they took a bottom up approach. Say if I went and bought a solar panel to use on my house, I could write that off on my taxes. Using the money to give back to the people so they have an incentive to go green.

you are still effectively spending taxpayer money to transfer technology
and notice that the government is still in the business of selecting which technologies will benefit from the tax break

 

[rathi]

I would like to know excactly were in the contitution does say to invest in ANYTHING let alone technology. Last I checked , there was something about a patent office and patents and that was the extent of the subject. I am interested in what you to say. Really. This should be enlighting or depressing. I guess we will see.

The general welfare clause. Given that our entire national prosperity is based on our advanced technology in combination with our large populace and natural resources, funding research is a absolute requirement for our economy and status as a world power. If you had any conviction in your views, you wouldn't be using the internet invented on the government dime. You are simply yet another example of someone who enjoys the benefits of choices made by practical leaders even though you would attempt to destroy them in your blind ideological fanaticism.

 

[PirateMk1]

The general welfare clause. Given that our entire national prosperity is based on our advanced technology in combination with our large populace and natural resources, funding research is a absolute requirement for our economy and status as a world power. If you had any conviction in your views, you wouldn't be using the internet invented on the government dime. You are simply yet another example of someone who enjoys the benefits of choices made by practical leaders even though you would attempt to destroy them in your blind ideological fanaticism.

General Welfare clause????? Where did you learn to read??? That is a preamble statement. It states the PURPOSE of the constitution. It does NOT delineate a power. Those powers and structures are decribed below the preamble starting in artical one. Try again. This now officialy depressing.

Note the internet is combination of goverment educational and commercial colaberation

 

[justabubba]

General Welfare clause????? Where did you learn to read??? That is a preamble statement. It states the PURPOSE of the constitution. It does NOT delineate a power. Those powers and structures are decribed below the preamble starting in artical one. Try again. This now officialy depressing.

Note the internet is combination of goverment educational and commercial colaberation

since you obviously appreciate good readership, i encourage you to study this
CRS/LII Annotated Constitution Article I

 

[Deuce]

And we will. That's what the private sector is best at. But know what? A company has to be somewhat viable in order to get those investments in the private sector. Our government shouldn't be throwin' **** up against the wall to see what sticks. Viable companies will have no problem getting private investment funds. There's nobody that's going to get any greater return on their money than those who invest in winners. The government obviously can't pick 'em. Or maybe the technology simply isn't ready for prime time. We need to realize that before we go broke.

Not in the news:

Private investments that go bad.
Government investments that go well.

Confirmation bias is a powerful thing.

 

[MaggieD]

Not in the news:

Private investments that go bad.
Government investments that go well.

Confirmation bias is a powerful thing.

You're missing the point, When 12+ companies go bankrupt or otherwise out of business using taxpayer funds within two years or less of that cash infusion, we're doing something wrong in the evaluation process. To say this is confirmation bias is just wrong. It's bad business.