It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Solyndra 2.0... taxpayers lose $118.5 million in another green jobs stimulus failure

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 01:45 PM
link   
Surprise surprise!

Taxpayers Lose Another $118.5 Million As Next Obama Stimulus Pet Project Files For Bankruptcy

Remember that one keyword that oddly enough never made it's way into the president's largely recycled SOTU address - "Solyndra"? It is about to make a double or nothing repeat appearance, now that Ener1, another company that was backed by Obama, this time a electric car battery-maker, has filed for bankruptcy. Net result: taxpayers lose $118.5 million. The irony is that while Solyndra may have been missing from the SOTU, Ener1 made an indirect appearance: "In three years, our partnership with the private sector has already positioned America to be the world’s leading manufacturer of high-tech batteries."


Yet another failure by Obama and his ``stimulus that saved us from a depression`` BS...

Eh don't sweat it, it's only 38 cents by US citizen lost. No biggie. And don't kid yourself the republicans would have done the same thing.
edit on 26-1-2012 by Vitchilo because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 03:50 PM
link   
Its really not about going green for the lawbreakers (lawmakers in disguise), it is about giving contracts, watching the stock rise, sell it then it crashes. The congressmen make money by artificially inflating a company before it crashes. Insider trading bastards.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Vitchilo
 


"Green" jobs could never have jump started the economy.. a literal impossibility. Sometimes I wish Liberals were not so freaking stupid when it came to economics.

However.. it gives me an idea. Anyone want to start a solar panel manufacturing plant with me? We will get a few hundred million in loans, throw massive company parties in Vegas until it's mostly gone ... then declare bankruptcy.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Vitchilo
 


Well it's always an INVESTMENT and better to lose it there than lose the Gulf to an oil spill, peoples careers and jobs and communities that thrive on tourism.

You really have to start somewhere on the green jobs bandwagon rather than just talk about it.
Talking about it is like a fat person saying they are going to diet because it might cause a heart attack. It can and it will. It is only a matter of time. You are kidding yourself and doing yourself (in this case the planet and our children) a disservice to keep putting that diet off. There is no good day or way and you are going to fail a few times before you get it right.
No matter what the price - its worth it.

I wonder how much FRACKING or blasting shale out of mountains with poisonous chemicals cost us?

That is the Cheney way!

I wonder how much we paid extra for fossil fuels because the prices were manipulated.

Who cares about drowning Polar bears, the poison water, polluted air ...


The last few years oil has been at the highest price and yet oil companies made record profits.

I say put another 200 million in....



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 01:42 AM
link   
reply to post by newcovenant
 




Well it's always an INVESTMENT and better to lose it there than lose the Gulf to an oil spill, peoples careers and jobs and communities that thrive on tourism.


Um.. pretty sure we already decimated the Gulf with oil (that the same administration covered up, assisted with the PR, and allowed drilling to recommence while never really punishing any of the corporations involved)

Wake up. It's not about "jobs" it's about kickbacks to campaign supporters.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 01:45 AM
link   
Could you please list the success rate of the green job stimulus as a contrast to this loss? It would help paint a clearer picture for those of us not very familiar with this stimulus package so we can more levelheadedly judge whether or not this failure and the risk was in acceptable bounds. And if it's even soon enough or not to judge success in the initiative as a whole. Thanks.

P.S. Also for those of us not very familiar, is this news or is there something new here? The final total perhaps? Thought this was an old story? Thanks again.
edit on 1/27/2012 by ~Lucidity because: Added P.S.

edit on 1/27/2012 by ~Lucidity because: strike P.S.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 02:02 AM
link   
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 


The story is about Ener1, which is a different company than Solyndra.

Companies are financial entities driven by on basic economic and market factors. A company founded on 'hope and change', rather than sound market and economic factors WILL fail. Unfortunately executives are compensated by quarterly goals and are motivated by personal gain. So when a bonus is offered for raising capital from politicians unable to recognize an unsustainable business model, the execs jump at the opportunity without regard to the long term viability of the business or the related ability to repay loans funded by money pulled out of your paychecks.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 02:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Dbriefed
 

Thanks. There's the news part answered. Silly me.

As for the rest, from what I'm reading, 11 companies in total to date may have "failed." But it's hard as hell to figure out what's actually succeeding and whether it's too soon to tell. Investments in the future don't always show profits overnight. It takes time, and as you've pointed out so well, and as many of us already know, there are many pitfalls and shady practices and a lot of greed that in the way. Frankly, the 15 minutes or so I've spent trying to weed through the "news" and data available about this to try to answer my own questions has given me a headache, and I'm about to give up trying to find the answers, which should make the people filling our airwaves with obfuscation and not presenting both sides very happy. If I'm any indication of the amount of effort the average person is willing to put in to figuring out whether to be irate or not, fail.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by newcovenant
 




Well it's always an INVESTMENT and better to lose it there than lose the Gulf to an oil spill, peoples careers and jobs and communities that thrive on tourism.


Um.. pretty sure we already decimated the Gulf with oil (that the same administration covered up, assisted with the PR, and allowed drilling to recommence while never really punishing any of the corporations involved)

Wake up. It's not about "jobs" it's about kickbacks to campaign supporters.



Yeah we did and that's my point.

Not sure if you are aware of this little DIFFERENCE in the party platforms but ahhh....

One stark contrast between the 2 major parties in this country is their view on green energy and the use of fossil fuels.

The Republicans are AGAINST green energy and PRO fossil fuels.

The Democrats are FOR green energy and AGAINST fossil fuels.


Maybe keep this in mind when ever you vote.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 10:23 AM
link   
It's not so much about how evil or incompetent some elected politician is, although I love to rant on incompetent and damaging politicians.

The problem is that there are politicians who change the operational rules of things that are way over their heads. Execs are doing what they're supposed to do, make money for their board members.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 04:15 PM
link   
The green job slant is misleading...that is not what needs to be seen here.

...and at only $118 million, it is peanuts compared to the bank bailouts. No less crooked just paltry in scale.

I cannot wait for this to become a campaign issue and the bank bailouts to disappear from the discussion.



new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join