Experience Project iOS Android Apps | Download EP for your Mobile Device

Yet Another Stimulous-backed Energy Company Goes Belly Up.

I've always said that if these companies were really investments worth doing that private industry would have done them. Obama and his brain trust (which includes the Kodak CEO that just moved his company to bankruptcy and the GE CEO who's company pays no federal taxes) putting millions of our money into another highly speculative boondoggle.

TwylaMarie TwylaMarie 41-45, F 8 Responses Jan 30, 2012

Your Response


Talk about green energy, Obama has endorsed Bush's policies of turning corn into fuel. When Bush came to office 4% of US corn was used for fuel. By 2008 it was almost 30% of corn. Its now got to the point where so much corn goes to biofuel that its begining (yes, far from the final impact) to effect food prices everywhere. Its becoming more and more lucrative to farm corn for biofuel than it is to feed the people. Its also making meat more expensive because a large part of the cattle diet was corn which the farmer now has to pay higher prices for, thanks to the fuel industry competition, which will become more fierce. And all the biofuel corn is heavily susidized by taxpayers, that is you're all literally paying to have all your food prices increase. The subsidizing of this corn is great of course for companies like Monsanto who supply the corn, but Brazil has proven long ago that corn is not the way to go when it comes to turning food into fuel. <br />
Obama is just keeping up the old Bush agenda, and that was to ruin the US. Either that or he was just too stupid to see what is coming. See, the difference between rubbish and fact is that the facts give accurate predictions of the future

You won't find me spending a ton of time defending policies on e15 and e85. This is the problem with subsidized solutions in general - they aren't real solutions and often create bigger problems. Right now it takes about a million solar panels to provide energy to less than 15,000 average homes - which is outrageously inefficient when you consider what it costs in the way of energy and materials to create those solar panels, yet they go in because of government subsidies. Likewise those huge windmill turbines which are everywhere, cost a fortune to build, mount and maintain, and collectively contribute less than 3% of our needs. So those points made, should we really be shutting down coal and gas production, because that's what the Obama administration is doing. It's going to amount to shortages, high prices and more manufacturing moving offshore.

Believe it or not, thats part of the plan. You could think of moving to Brazil, where the economy has just put the UK down a notch in world rankings. Many Americans are moving to China, I saw a yankee on CNN today showing off his luxury house in China, saying he's never been happier.

Ah, the tired old rhetoric of "Bush lied" which has been completely and totally repudiated, except for the shrill, mindless internet lefties. And I don't recall cries of "Impeach Obama" as a result of the OBL raid. Keep up the mindless BS, and let us know if you're ready to come back someday with intelligent discourse instead of regurgitating the tired old liberal rants. :)

I have to wonder how much of those millions of dollars that seem to have walked off in the pockets of the CEO's found their way back into 0bamb's campaign coffers?

I love how SOME of the liberal authors resort to personal attacks when faced with legitimate and sound rebuttal. The pipeline impact study referenced earlier, If memory serves took three years to complete. <br />
<br />
If you want to help the economy and address polution at the same time, how about investing in natural gas solutions. Conversions for the current vehicles are more affordable for the vehicles we are already driving than the $40,000 Volt which will be produced in China soon. I'd venture a guess that most of us "wealthy conservatives" can't even afford the Volt. Couple a common sense short term viable solution with "alternative" energy r&d and you might have an energy solution that will serve humankind for centuries. <br />
<br />
Keep up the good fight Twi :)

And yet none of you global warming deniers are willing to ask "Why does OIL get a subsidy in the form of tax cuts of $130 billion PER YEAR?"<br />
Can't be due to R&D expenses.

What does one have to do with the other? If you've got a good solution tot he oil issue I'd like to hear it. (Hint: It ain't the investment in Government motors and Chevy Volt - which sold 561 units last month mostly to government.) As for the subsidies, they are mostly designed to keep domestic purchase prices competitive with overseas market, though many are also environmental and equipment purchase related. A good for instance is the subsidy to trade out gas pumps and other oil handling equipment. This not only provided tons of jobs during a bad time (gas pumps being one of the few things mostly made in America) and also helped in environmental protections. Oil companies and their subsidiares bought hundred of millions of dollars of that kind of thing alone and if they hadn't, a large number of people places like Austin Texas and Greensboro South Carolina might be out of work. (Again - just one example.) Perhaps most importantly though - these subsidies make it actually economical to seel oil to the United States. Without them, enough of the supply would be going over to India, China and Pakistan instead to create huge energy prices issues in this country and I can't begin to tell you what THAT would have done to destroy the employment picture. I say this to all of you oil company haters - if you think oil companies are REALLY making all those profits you think they are making, go invest in them. They are all publicly traded companies. What you'll find is that they are not the "get rich quick" stocks you seem to think they are. Yes, the companies make a lot of money - but that money is divided up an awful lot of ways. Overall the companies are not anymore profitable than many other commodities.

What does 130 Billion per year in tax subsidies for the Oil companies have to do with energy subsidies for NON-OIL?
May I remind you that this thread is an attack on Obama for TRYING to spend a LITTLE of the money spent on Oil finding alternatives, when alternatives are ABSOLUTELY required?
What a CHUMP!!!

hmmmmm. wonder where you get the idea that those two CEOs are in his brain trust? and how many republican donors pay no taxes? it is, after all, the party of the rich, and the party that defends the huge loopholes that help rich fatcats avoid paying taxes. so i don't think the tax road will be an argument that helps you very much.<br />
<br />
but i digress. re the pipeline, there was not a proper envriornmental impact assessment that would have shown what effects this thing would have had on water tables in the rural midwest. if other pipelines are any indication, the impact likely would be negative, or maybe not. the Prident's point was, and remains, one should be done before we agree to the pipeline. <br />
<br />
and how many CEOs have been frogmarched to jail? what a dumb thing to say?

I never said those two CEO's were in his brain trust - though one high level investor in the half billion dollar investment is a major Obama campaign contributor. As for CEOs,they get hauled in front of Senate subcommittees all the time and yes, they do go to jail. (IIf you read the Wall St. Journal cover to cover, you see write-ups on it all the time.) As for the GOP being "party of the rich" last time I checked the concentration of millionaires in the congress have (DEM) after their names. I don't think a party looking to cut taxes, lower the cost of government and cut through the red-tape required to start new small businesses is about being rich, but I'd rather support that party than the party of the welfare recipients, unproductive and permanently in poverty. On the pipeline, there's been plenty of work done on environmental stuff and for a project of this size and importance the impact is pretty minimal. Obama didn't sign it because he still naively believes that companies like Solyndra and his Chevy Volt (which sold all of 600 units last month) can have an impact on our vast energy needs.

yes, you did say those two CEOs were in his brain trust: Obama and his brain trust (which includes the Kodak CEO that just moved his company to bankruptcy and the GE CEO who's company pays no federal taxes). your words, my friend.

according to an ABC news story last November, there are 140 Republican millionaires in Congress and 109 Democrats, but then again you folks have always been creative with numbers.

and the Senate, subcommittee or not, can only send people to jail for two things--contempt of Congress (last time, 2008) and perjury before Congress. otherwise, no power to send CEOs or anyone else to prison, jail, or detention after school. you saw that in the WSJ? owned by Rupert Murdoch, that great paragon of ethics. in any case, good luck in finding cases of CEOs being frogmarched to jail by the Senate. they simply don't exist.

Sorry confusion on what you meant by CEOS. If you mean GE's CEO - it's common knowledge that Jeffrey Immelt, the is head of Barack Obama's highly touted Jobs Council. (Less well knowni s that he is moving even more GE infrastructure to China.) CEO Antonio Perez of Kodak is also on Obama's jobs council. Google either name and the info will come right up. I stand corrected on teh number of millionaires - but forgot to make the adjustment for the ***-kicking the dems got in 2010 and haven't looked at the numbers in a while. So there's ONLY 109 millionaire democrats. So there's about 20% less of them now - but take a look at who they are. Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Obama, etc. -- all the leadership are millionaires. My home states senators are both democrats and both millionaires. So yeah, you've sure proved there are no millionaire democrats. As for the contention that the senate can't put people in jail, that is tue, but their investigations can and do put people in jail - not that I said that this is why the CEO's in questoin would wind up there anyway. On your final point - Yes Rupert Murdoch does own the WSJ. So what. Does he invent the news? You think he plants stories about crooked CEO's to help the GOP? That's your contention. Wow, you really are a paranoid type aren't you.

Sorry also forgot to make the point the 8 ot the 10 riches congress people are democrats. John Kerry - the past dem Presidential candidate - is the richest in congress. Clinton and Obama were both millionaires. How can you talk about how "the GOP is the party of the rich" when the proposed tax on millionaires would hit democratically controlled states almost twice as hard as GOP controlled states? It's a silly contention. The GOP is the party of the small and medium sized business owners.

all the leadership of the republican party, including the last presidential candidate, mccain, and the like next, romney, are millionaires, as are sarah palin and newt gingrich. the sad fact of the matter is, thanks to the conservative supreme court, you have to be rich to run for president in the U.S. very sad! so which millionaire will you vote for?

rupert murdoch is an ultraconservative himself, and his newspaper refelcts his anti-liberal anti-democrat bias. no paragon of ethics himself, he's about to face jail time himslef once a phone hacking investigation in the UK and the U.S. is complete. a crook himself who in all his media outlets has slanted the news to suit his views and, yes, help the GOP. should change the name of you party to GOR.

if that is the case, why are democrats supporting an increased tax on the wealthiest, and the GOR wants to tax the middle class? the reality does not fit your narrative one little bit.

Thanks Gwangi. Beat hell out of this chump.She needs it.

There are currently 108 millionaires with a (D) next to their name in congress, including John Kerry - who was the democratic presidential nominee a few years ago. Why didn't being rich matter so much then. (John Kerry, by the way, is the single richest person in congress right now). There used to be more until the 2010 election. There are 140 members of congress who are rich with an (R) after their name - so I won't say there aren't rich people on both sides, but it doesn't bother me. Rich people tend to be better educated, more driven and successful. Unlike some fools out there, I understand that the Paris Hiltons of the world are the exceptions not the rule. Most of these people deserve their money, and if you took it all away they would probably find a way to get rich again soon.

Bitlord - If that was "hell" I scoff at it. Gwanji has said about one intelligent thing to me in the many debates I've had with him. (And for this I actually thanked him for setting me straight.) What I find so funny in this case is that I didn't even write this story - I posted a link from a global warming site. (Yes, those global warming sites are all part of some grand right wing conspiracy aren't they.) If anyone here looks like a chump, you can see that person plainly when you look in the mirror.

Only one intelligent thing? not very respectful, my friend!

7 More Responses

Between Solyndra, and the two mentioned in this article, if this was a bank or investment company, they'd be frogmarching the CEO into jail.

Amazing how so many Democrats totally excuse this behavior from this administration!

There's such a blatant double standard. If a Republican does "X" he get crucified for it and if a Democrat does the same, it's acceptable.

A republican can lie and murder, but when a Democrat has an ENEMY killed, it's called "Impeachable".

bitlord, let us know when you have something more erudite to contribute then "Chump." Until then, you just look - well, unable to form a legitimate counterargument to Twyla's post! :)

1 million INNOCENT Iraqis murdered when Bush LIED, and not ONE OF OU CHUMPS was willing to call for his impeachment.
Obama finally stopped the Bush admin policy of "I don't think about him much. He's just one person" and killed OBL. What was the repig response? "Impeach Obama".

Murder? Why isn't it murder when Ted Kennedy drowns his girlfriend, or when 0bama orders the summary execution of an American citizen with out due process? Sadam had WMD's he used them in the Iran / Iraq war and later on his own people , Those are facts that are well documented. and what does any of that have to do with 0bama's scamming the American taxpayers by giving millions to failed companies that the CEO's pocket half of and funnel a ( Kick back ) payoff back into 0bama's campaign fund.

2 More Responses