Obama praised Solar Cell firm goes bust..costs tax payers $500 million

Like everything innovative, it is a commercialized byproduct of military research.

 

Not quite. Investing in carbon free technology doesn't necessarily raise the price of coal or whatever.

And whether you fund innovation through a general tax or a tax on a specific industry is kinda moot.

Gov'ts have, can, and need to create markets/industries. If our gov't doesn't you just are enabling China and India to do it. Then you will complain when high-tech jobs are all in those countries and not in ours.

You can't have it both ways.

 

Point made.

 

but continuing to prove serious character flaws and unethical behavior from the Obama administration is worth much more than anything on that page

pwn3d

 

You couldn't pawn a gold coin with your weak bull*****.

 

I'm just skimmed this thread but for those of you who are decrying government investment in renewable energy I am in the PRC right now and they are pumping tons of money into renewables. At the conference I am at every fifth word out of their mouth is about the environment and renewable energy.

While the PRC is heavily relying on coal they are fully aware of the long term problems of a fossil fuel infrastructure and are actually working to do something about it. Rather arguing about whether they believe the science or not they realize that their are so many side benefits to renewable energy sources its not worth not to move forward with it. that's why the PRC is now the leading country in wind and solar while we keep on falling further behind.

 

Which is exactly the field I am in right now.....I am a big supporter these days of government funded innovation.



DD

 

Obama's weak bull**** is the real issue here

 

I don't think many people have a problem with the gov investing into renewable energy or into programs like NASA or medical research. I would much rather see money go towards this than many of the moneypits in major defense programs.

The issue is Obama gave 530m to a company who was not just a bad bet, or a losing bet, but a near guaranteed loss. Execs at this company donated 100k to his campaign. They have made back their 100k investment many times over. This was not an investment; This was a kickback. This 530m could have gone into a green company who really could have made a difference. Im completely supportive of green initiatives that are environmentally motivated instead of politically motivated. Unfortunately, Obama's green initiatives are politically motivated and are leaving the American people with a sour taste when it comes to green energy.

 

Better to invest in the countries future energy than another defense program, we don't need such a large military.

DD

 

Of course, they're also one of the largest (if not the largest) investors in oil sands.

 

Seriously, does anybody see the flaw in this sentence? Firstly, the guy who massively pushed for the bailout, Hank Paulson, was a Republican, the president whom he pressured to sign it into law was a Republican.

For god sakes, just read Too Big to Fail, or watch the mini movie on cable. It is a shame that an 18 year old knows more about your country's recent financial crisis than you do.

 

Nothing in your post contradicts what I said.


In more relevant news:

Issa to launch probe of Obama actions on Solyndra, LightSquared

 

Pray tell, who among the GOP alternative can present a cogent platform?

Mr. ' it's time to get our boys home but we need to stay in Afghanistan' Perry?

Mr. ' we have to let people assume their own risks, but we can't just let them die" Paul?

Mr. 'our healthcare plan works in Massachusetts but we can't have federal mandates' Romney?

Who now?

 

"I want to see when the president and his cronies are picking winners and losers…

so much for an impartial inquiry. you people are nuts

 

Uhhh, not familiar with cap and tax? Because "raising the price on coal or whatever" is the whole point.

 

Not a bad way to spend some of their trillions of foreign reserve, also not a bad idea to pick up a few more oil ETF shares.

 

This is what your original point right?

They said they would let them fail, but IMO would they do so if they were President at the time, and Paulson was doing this?

Later, when Paulson is persuading members of Congress

I'm not going to quote any more from Too Big to Fail, or else I'd get done for copyright or whatever, but that should, at the very least, paint a picture of what it was like for the lawmakers, regardless they were Republican or Democrat, when you've got two Republicans, Bernanke and Paulson, one who was a Princeton professor, the other the former CEO of Goldman Sachs, both telling you that the country that you are responsible for is going to crash unless you agree to sign a bill to provide funding for banks.

And you want me to believe, that 'many republicans' would have said, 'Nah, I think I know more than a Princeton Prof and the CEO of Goldman, I don't think the world would end, I think I'll risk the country going into a Great Depression, I will reject your bill.'


And just on the general point on subsidies and low-interest, government backed loans. Firstly, what is the US government doing subsidizing the farming industry?

http://farm.ewg.org/top_recips.php?fips=00000&progcode=totalfarm&yr=2010&regionname=theUnitedStates

The US government has given nearly 6 billion in 2010 to various farms. I just decided to go to the bottom and see who's getting the least, and even this guy called Terry Hardy, got 300k of subsidies from 1995 to 2010:
http://farm.ewg.org/persondetail.php?custnumber=A02580165
It's interesting....certainly, but I'm guessing these subsidies are more for a 'food independence' rather than like 'investment for future' purposes.

And secondly, government backing winners or losers is a game that all governments play. It's never going to be 100% perfect, but the government is one of the few entities that have the ability of long-term planning, and the capability of doing so, especially with so many public companies that are on the stock market who have to answer to short-tempered, short-termed stock holders. It's really a case of 'if the gov aren't going to do it, then nobody will.'

 

It's one plan to price in the health and environmental damages, like cigarette companies contributing to health care costs.