Was the Solyndra bankruptcy deliberate?
Tags:
- Politics
Last response: in News & Leisure
I found this while looking for some material about Jon Corzine.
Snips & Snails & Puppy Dog Tails
Posted by Ann Barnhardt - April 23, AD 2012 5:57 PM MST
5. I just want to point something out that I'm not sure people are appreciating. All of these so-called "green energy" companies that Obama throws billions of dollars at and then file for BK - these companies are taking less than 18 months to go from signing the papers for the government loans to full-liquidation BK. The speed with which these companies collapse is, in and of itself, proof that these companies are set up PURELY as mechanisms to loot the United States Treasury. They were never intended to actually produce anything. They are shells that are set up to fail. "Success" was never even an objective with any of these outfits. Take Solyndra. They received a loan from the government for over $500 million in September of 2010, and filed for total liquidation bankruptcy in September of 2011. Guys, if that company was real, it would take longer than a year JUST TO GET WARMED UP. It takes time, far in excess of a year, to get a company set up, get infrastructure in place, begin production, establish a customer base, etc. Even if they had some pieces in place before the government money came, remember, we are still talking about HALF A BILLION DOLLARS. For a company to burn through half a billion dollars and have a padlock on the front door in 12 months without massive embezzling going on is not possible. And Solyndra was one of the smaller "loans" issued by the Obama regime. And he is pushing for MORE billion dollar "loans" to "green energy" scam companies. Well, of course. Obama is looting the Treasury ahead of the collapse, positioning himself and his oligarch cronies for the post-Republic regime.
Quote:
Snips & Snails & Puppy Dog Tails
Posted by Ann Barnhardt - April 23, AD 2012 5:57 PM MST
5. I just want to point something out that I'm not sure people are appreciating. All of these so-called "green energy" companies that Obama throws billions of dollars at and then file for BK - these companies are taking less than 18 months to go from signing the papers for the government loans to full-liquidation BK. The speed with which these companies collapse is, in and of itself, proof that these companies are set up PURELY as mechanisms to loot the United States Treasury. They were never intended to actually produce anything. They are shells that are set up to fail. "Success" was never even an objective with any of these outfits. Take Solyndra. They received a loan from the government for over $500 million in September of 2010, and filed for total liquidation bankruptcy in September of 2011. Guys, if that company was real, it would take longer than a year JUST TO GET WARMED UP. It takes time, far in excess of a year, to get a company set up, get infrastructure in place, begin production, establish a customer base, etc. Even if they had some pieces in place before the government money came, remember, we are still talking about HALF A BILLION DOLLARS. For a company to burn through half a billion dollars and have a padlock on the front door in 12 months without massive embezzling going on is not possible. And Solyndra was one of the smaller "loans" issued by the Obama regime. And he is pushing for MORE billion dollar "loans" to "green energy" scam companies. Well, of course. Obama is looting the Treasury ahead of the collapse, positioning himself and his oligarch cronies for the post-Republic regime.
More about : solyndra bankruptcy deliberate
Oldmangamer_73
May 3, 2012 2:00:54 PM
Related resources
musical marv
May 6, 2012 2:51:48 AM
riser said:
Three solar firms, all supported by the gov't, failed in my former city. All of them received millions of dollars, never started production before failing.You do have to wonder about it.. how could so many start up firms, with gov't money, all fail? Have any been successful?
jsc said:
riser, which three? I need more grist for my Solyndra mill. (And wanamingo goes, "
Please don't encourage him.")
http://www.toledoblade.com/Energy/2012/04/15/3-Toledo-a...
wanamingo
May 7, 2012 12:31:09 PM
Oldmangamer_73
May 7, 2012 12:53:10 PM
Great. That's Solyndra 13 - 15.
It would also be interesting to trace the owners' political connections.
But the total tab for the three companies is "only" $10.5 million. That is pocket change compared to Solyndra.
Oldmangamer_73
May 7, 2012 4:33:39 PM
jsc said:
Great. That's Solyndra 13 - 15.It would also be interesting to trace the owners' political connections.
But the total tab for the three companies is "only" $10.5 million. That is pocket change compared to Solyndra.
The co-founder of Xunlight is a Doctor of Physics at the Univ. of Toledo so chances are he's a huge liberal progressive and voted for Obama.
Oldmangamer_73 said:
The co-founder of Xunlight is a Doctor of Physics at the Univ. of Toledo so chances are he's a huge liberal progressive and voted for Obama.Actualyl, the vast majority of the school is liberal. A couple years ago the 'conversative' group of students were protesting liberal professors. Many of the students failed courses based purely on political belief. After a short time the issues were resolved, the students were passed, and they maintained a list of openly liberal professors who injects their thoughts into the coursework. Two years ago one of the top guys at Xunlight game the UT commencement speech. It was heavily based around the liberal ideology that it was disgusting. I know, I sat through it.
Oldmangamer_73
May 14, 2012 12:52:24 PM
What the Mainstream Media Isn’t Reporting About Solyndra
http://www.redstate.com/repmorgangriffith/2012/05/11/wh...
After just a short time in Congress, I find myself more keenly aware of the research and reporting failures of the modern mainstream media. If a story gets more depth and attention than the typical 10 second sound bite, I admit, I’m surprised. Solyndra is no different.
There are a number of facts surrounding the Solyndra story that don’t seem to be getting any attention. A significant part of the public outrage regarding the bankrupt company isn’t centered on their failed business model or external factors; it’s the millions of taxpayer dollars that the Obama Administration lost on Solyndra after the business was doomed.
After Solyndra defaulted and they knew Solyndra was in real financial trouble, Secretary Steven Chu’s Department of Energy (DOE) staff made a decision by December 10, 2010, to subordinate $75 million of taxpayer money so more private capital could be injected into Solyndra. Subordination means that outside private investors are given superiority over taxpayers in the event of bankruptcy. At that point, $440 million of the $535 million loan guarantee already had been pumped into the company.
By law Secretary Chu wasn’t allowed to subordinate the taxpayers’ money. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 specifically states that the loan guarantee “shall be subject to the condition that the obligation is not subordinate to other financing.” It was the clear intention of Congress that taxpayers should be reimbursed first.
For a company that had already been declared in default and had a collapsed business model because the Chinese were selling their solar panels for less, one might question the sanity of private investors who gambled on Solyndra in December of 2010. Were they after Solyndra’s intellectual property (IP) rights? As a private investor and the dominant financier, could Argonaut’s support of President Obama have helped them secure Solyndra’s IP assets?
By December of 2010, these private investors were placed in first position to get the choice parts of the business – intellectual property, including proprietary information, processes, and patents – when Solyndra went under. To be fair, I’d guess that these assets likely aren’t worth billions, but one could certainly speculate they’re at least worth $75 million, which legally belonged to the taxpayers.
Without question, $170 million – at the very least – was wasted. If DOE had simply let Solyndra fail in December 2010, taxpayers wouldn’t be on the hook for $95 million of the loan guarantee that had yet to be dispersed in addition to the $75 million that was subordinated.
Why isn’t the mainstream media asking questions like these? What other questions aren’t being asked? To me, the Solyndra scandal is worthy of some good, old-fashioned investigative reporting. Where are Bernstein and Woodward? Is there no budding Mike Wallace? I will continue to try to get to the bottom of this scandal. Will the media join me?
Rep. H. Morgan Griffith, Virginia Republican, is a member of the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on oversight and investigations.
http://www.redstate.com/repmorgangriffith/2012/05/11/wh...
After just a short time in Congress, I find myself more keenly aware of the research and reporting failures of the modern mainstream media. If a story gets more depth and attention than the typical 10 second sound bite, I admit, I’m surprised. Solyndra is no different.
There are a number of facts surrounding the Solyndra story that don’t seem to be getting any attention. A significant part of the public outrage regarding the bankrupt company isn’t centered on their failed business model or external factors; it’s the millions of taxpayer dollars that the Obama Administration lost on Solyndra after the business was doomed.
After Solyndra defaulted and they knew Solyndra was in real financial trouble, Secretary Steven Chu’s Department of Energy (DOE) staff made a decision by December 10, 2010, to subordinate $75 million of taxpayer money so more private capital could be injected into Solyndra. Subordination means that outside private investors are given superiority over taxpayers in the event of bankruptcy. At that point, $440 million of the $535 million loan guarantee already had been pumped into the company.
By law Secretary Chu wasn’t allowed to subordinate the taxpayers’ money. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 specifically states that the loan guarantee “shall be subject to the condition that the obligation is not subordinate to other financing.” It was the clear intention of Congress that taxpayers should be reimbursed first.
For a company that had already been declared in default and had a collapsed business model because the Chinese were selling their solar panels for less, one might question the sanity of private investors who gambled on Solyndra in December of 2010. Were they after Solyndra’s intellectual property (IP) rights? As a private investor and the dominant financier, could Argonaut’s support of President Obama have helped them secure Solyndra’s IP assets?
By December of 2010, these private investors were placed in first position to get the choice parts of the business – intellectual property, including proprietary information, processes, and patents – when Solyndra went under. To be fair, I’d guess that these assets likely aren’t worth billions, but one could certainly speculate they’re at least worth $75 million, which legally belonged to the taxpayers.
Without question, $170 million – at the very least – was wasted. If DOE had simply let Solyndra fail in December 2010, taxpayers wouldn’t be on the hook for $95 million of the loan guarantee that had yet to be dispersed in addition to the $75 million that was subordinated.
Why isn’t the mainstream media asking questions like these? What other questions aren’t being asked? To me, the Solyndra scandal is worthy of some good, old-fashioned investigative reporting. Where are Bernstein and Woodward? Is there no budding Mike Wallace? I will continue to try to get to the bottom of this scandal. Will the media join me?
Rep. H. Morgan Griffith, Virginia Republican, is a member of the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on oversight and investigations.
Read discussions in other News & Leisure categories
!