but that wasn't romney's money
he handed over the check, sure. but it was the taxpayer's money he handed over to them
what we learn from this is that both candidates are not adverse to investing taxpayer money in green industry
we learn that they don't always pick winners
this gives Obama ammo when romney brings up solyndra during the coming debates
Fact-checkers debunk Mitt Romney?s Solyndra claim - Andrew Restuccia - POLITICO.com
Ok, the Massachusets legislature (while romeny was Governor) funded 1.5 mil to a company that lasted years afterwards, and President Obama funded $535 million to a company that lasted less than a year afterwards....that's the same thing to you?
let me translate
state taxpayer money lost investing in green business is ok because romney did it
federal taxpayer money lost investing in green business is not ok because Obama did it
got it
different order of magnitude of failed investment, but otherwise, absolutely the same
your ignorance of fundamental economics is showingYou have a failure to translate, Sir.
Here is the proper translation:
MA, it's citizens, it's legislature decide to provide state money to green businesses. Romney delivers the check. What MA does with their own money...and the risks they take with it...doesn't concern me since I don't live in MA and it's not MY money they are using. Furthermore, since they are a State, they are required to actually HAVE the money they are giving away.
On the other hand...
Obama and his administration, without the approval of the nation's citizens or legislators, gives away half a billion dollars to one company...money the federal government DOESN'T have...and must borrow.
If Obama were the governor of some state and did what Romney did...I wouldn't give a rat's ass...as long as it's not in Colorado.
If Romney were President and did what Obama did...I'd try to boot him out of Office.
Ok, the Massachusets legislature (while romeny was Governor) funded 1.5 mil to a company that lasted years afterwards, and President Obama funded $535 million to a company that lasted less than a year afterwards....that's the same thing to you?
your ignorance of fundamental economics is showing
both governments had the money to lend
otherwise solyndra would have received nothing for it to have lost
Got it....not apples and oranges...but, apples and younger less expensive apples.
Hmmm...The smaller state of Mass. spends less money than the larger country they are a part of...who'd a thunk it.
For your consideration:
"
Solyndra, schmolyndra: The Obama administration’s hit rate is better than the private market’s
By Jess Zimmerman
Making loans is a tricky business — sometimes you bet on the wrong horse. For example, there's the Obama administration, which doled out 1.4 percent of its Recovery Act cleantech investments to failed solar company Solyndra, in a move that everyone and their uncle is now calling a giant embarrassment. And then there's private venture capital, which invests in green energy companies that fail at least 30 percent of the time.
According to Susan Kraemer at CleanTechnica, the Obama admin's hit rate far outperforms venture capitalists:
The US government guarantee of a private loan to Solyndra, at $535 million, represented a minuscule 1.4% of the Department of Energy investment in all renewable technologies. By contrast — VCs (who were out $1 billion to Solyndra, for example) expect much higher failure rates. Richard Stuebi, who advises VCs on expected green energy failure rates, says that just 3 in 10 successes represents a successful VC investment strategy. That is 70% losers — not 1.4%.
It's not an apples-to-apples comparison, because the 1.4 percent is based on how much money went to Solyndra, whereas Stuebi's figures are about number of ventures. DOE lists 38 guaranteed loans; one failure out of 38 investments would be closer to 2.6 percent. And while Stuebi shows only 30 percent of investments being successful, there's another 40 percent that just drag along, not failing but not providing sufficient return on investment. Still, it looks like private investments go belly-up at a much higher rate than the government's.
So, are we still calling this a "scandal"?
.....Just Sayin'......
sigh...
My understanding of economics is fine.
The federal government can't spend ANY money unless it borrows almost half of it first. That's because they DON'T have the money...but they lend it anyway...and the Obama administration did it just because THEY wanted to. Not because Congress...or the citizens...told them to.
yes, you really nailed it with that retort [/s]
mass was so well off and able to loan its state taxpayer money that it only required $5.5 Billion in stimulus money ... received from the federal government
So what?
That doesn't change the facts in either situation. Or the fact the neither situation is comparable to the other.
What does the rate of success on private investments have to do with this topic?
Got it....not apples and oranges...but, apples and younger less expensive apples.
Hmmm...The smaller state of Mass. spends less money than the larger country they are a part of...who'd a thunk it.
For your consideration:
"
Solyndra, schmolyndra: The Obama administration’s hit rate is better than the private market’s
By Jess Zimmerman
Making loans is a tricky business — sometimes you bet on the wrong horse. For example, there's the Obama administration, which doled out 1.4 percent of its Recovery Act cleantech investments to failed solar company Solyndra, in a move that everyone and their uncle is now calling a giant embarrassment. And then there's private venture capital, which invests in green energy companies that fail at least 30 percent of the time.
According to Susan Kraemer at CleanTechnica, the Obama admin's hit rate far outperforms venture capitalists:
The US government guarantee of a private loan to Solyndra, at $535 million, represented a minuscule 1.4% of the Department of Energy investment in all renewable technologies. By contrast — VCs (who were out $1 billion to Solyndra, for example) expect much higher failure rates. Richard Stuebi, who advises VCs on expected green energy failure rates, says that just 3 in 10 successes represents a successful VC investment strategy. That is 70% losers — not 1.4%.
It's not an apples-to-apples comparison, because the 1.4 percent is based on how much money went to Solyndra, whereas Stuebi's figures are about number of ventures. DOE lists 38 guaranteed loans; one failure out of 38 investments would be closer to 2.6 percent. And while Stuebi shows only 30 percent of investments being successful, there's another 40 percent that just drag along, not failing but not providing sufficient return on investment. Still, it looks like private investments go belly-up at a much higher rate than the government's.
So, are we still calling this a "scandal"?
.....Just Sayin'......
it's an apples to apples comparison
small apple to large apple
small apple bought by mass and large apple bought by the feds
but a direct comparison
stay tuned for the debates. Obama will teach you (and romney) this similarity better than i
it's an apples to apples comparison
small apple to large apple
small apple bought by mass and large apple bought by the feds
but a direct comparison
stay tuned for the debates. Obama will teach you (and romney) this similarity better than i
Seriously?....now you are simply being silly, still I will explain.
You blame Obama for investing in Solyndra (along with venture capitalists)...because it failed as a venture. You ignore the other successful 30 some odd companies that did not fail, so I assume you wish to focus on this failure. I then point out the risk involved in venture capital as well as the ratio of success, to which you respond that it has no bearing on your focus. Likely due to the fact that the VC failure rate is far above the Gov't failure rate....thus making it hard to defend your stance. The only comparison that actually DOES work here it indeed Venture Capital, as that is exactly what the Government was doing with the recovery act.
The topic of this thread is about Romney...not Obama. It's about perceived hypocrisy...not whether Obama did a good thing or not.
Perhaps you need to be reminded what the thread title says, eh? "Romney-backed solar firm flops, Dems pounce"
In respect to my stance...do you really understand what my stance is???
The topic of this thread is about Romney...not Obama. It's about perceived hypocrisy...not whether Obama did a good thing or not.
Perhaps you need to be reminded what the thread title says, eh? "Romney-backed solar firm flops, Dems pounce"
In respect to my stance...do you really understand what my stance is???
Uh...remember this!
"
Mycroft
Professor Join DateOct 2011Last SeenToday @ 07:03 PMGenderLeanConservative Posts2,106Liked758 times
Hmmm...
I wonder how much federal taxpayer money was spent on this Massachusetts company?
Was it anywhere near as much as half a billion dollars?
Did it increase the federal debt...at all?
I'd say it's hard to claim hypocrisy when one is discussing apples and oranges.
I sure as hell do.
Well. You've proved that you can find a post. Now prove that you understand what the post said.
Seriously?....you still want to play this silly game....fine.
Discussion revolved around the Romney deal, then you posted a defense of his actions by comparing the Obama Solyndra deal to it. You used the difference in cost, as well as a state/Fed not the same thing statement.
You then used the Apples and Oranges comment to add to your point.....which seems to be:
Wait for it.....Obama is a terrible president because he spent too much of your money on a failed venture, while Romney was spending far less and not your tax money...so it's not as bad.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?