Mitt Romney has a Solyndra-like failure in his past, too: report [Oops...]

New York Daily News ^ | 2 June 2012 | Jonathan Lemire

[dirtboy]

“Governour CEO” is gonna save us ping!

Any rational, sane person would be trashing this hypocritical MSM hatchet job instead of rolling in it like a dog on a fresh turd. One doesn't have to be pro-Romney or ABO to see just how lame this particular attempt at moral equivalence is.

[C210N]

So, the claim here is that because of zer0’s policies, these TWO flat-earth solar companies file for bankruptcy in 2012? Ok, two companies go belly-up on zer0’s watch.

I can picture a GOP ad depicting an investment in a company nine years ago with potential; 9 years of employment and perhaps even profit; then this year, under zer0, it also, like Solyndra, goes belly up. Just like millions of other biz’s under zer0, all going belly up, and losing a net 2+ million jobs in 3 years.

[Las Vegas Dave]

The democRATs (includes the MSM) prey on the ignorant!

[italianquaker]

This is one argument barry the kenyan definitely doesnt want to have lol

[Houghton M.]

So you are a Paultard troll? Your the troll who posted the Business Insider radical Left hit piece on Romney a few minutes earlier? How many other crap hit pieces do you plan to post today?

[sitetest]

I'd prefer that governments not offer this assistance, generally speaking, to companies, in the first place.

However, it appears that the company in question survived 11 years, was a going concern for quite a while. It lasted 8 years after the money given by the state of Massachusetts. That suggests that it was a real business run by folks to produce real products and real profits.

Solyndra, on the other hand, was already a basket case when the regime gave it loan guarantees in 2009, against the advice of other elements in the regime which described the loan as very risky and the company as probably a bad bet. Its technology was already out of date, and it had little chance for survival. Internal information in the regime determined the company would have cash flow problems by September, 2011. Indeed, those predictions were borne out when the company actually went bankrupt two years later - in September 2011.

Let's remember that this was a case of the actual day-to-day federal government doing their assigned tasks CORRECTLY: Folks in the bowels of the bureaucracy had rightly determined, “This deal is NOT ready for prime time.”

Yet, the loan was ultimately made because of pressure from the top levels of the regime, resulting from the political connections of the management of the company.

The second scandal here is when things started to go south, the company, with the permission of the government, brought in additional revenue by subordinating the government's position vis-a-vis its loan guarantees, so that, in the case of bankruptcy, taxpayer interests would be completely unprotected to favor the interests of later investors.

From wiki: “Assistant Treasury Secretary Mary Miller wrote emails at the time stating that this subordination might be illegal, and should be cleared with the Justice Department first, but Energy Department officials proceeded based on an internal legal opinion by the loan program's lawyers.”

Even relatively high-level officials of the regime knew that this was against the law. But these folks were really connected.

That's a far, far different tale from giving a million and a half to a company that eventually failed, eight years later.

But the moron supporters of the Kenyan anti-Christ will never get it, because, well, the explanation doesn't fit on a bumper sticker.

[Perdogg]

Some people are not going to listen to you. They hate Romney more than they hate 0bama, so there is no point in trying.

[carcraft]

$ 1.5 million Vs 535 million? Not by a long shot, try 1.5 million Vs 3-5 BILLION. Solyndra, Bright Source, Enr1, ABC 123, Fisker, Tesla, over 13 or more FAILED companies that recieved several billion dollars in loans + $500 million in “green energy job training programs. I can go on for days about the utter waste in tax payers dollars on Obumbler’s “bets” ( and that is Obama word for the waste)! Romney doesn't come even close. Compared to Obama’s waste this is pocket change!

[Political Junkie Too]

Maybe you should try it this way...

The governor of Massachusetts approves Massachusetts taxpayer funding for a Massachusetts company. The president approves national taxpayer funding for a California company.

At least Romney kept it within the boundaries of his state.

-PJ

[Latecomer]

There is no reason to “hate” anyone here. Just to point out that Romney had these tendencies as governor. The tendencies to use taxpayer money for policies to follow government controlled “industries for change, for a certain political agenda”. Government bureaucrats always make poor decisions out of their own “virtuous” intentions, of course.
Another ‘point out’ Romney could have vetoed this!

[newzjunkey]

Romney "awarded" a $1.5m renewable energy subside to Konarka in 2003.

Konarka filed for Ch 7 bankruptcy in 2012.

Nine years later and five years after Romney left the governorship.

On the timeline alone, it's not even remotely comparable to Solyndra.

[newzjunkey]

Pay attention! The subside happened in 2003, the bankruptcy in 2012.

[Drew68]

Yeah, that sounds like a winning arguement.

C'mon, now... The Obama supporters on this forum are doing the best they can.

[Perdogg]

I am not saying that Romney is perfect. However, this article was put in the paper by the New York Daily News to help 0bama. I will critize Romeny when needed, however I refuse aid and abet the 0bama re-election campaign, like some of the Romney haters.

[sockmonkey]

Gee, and a timeline search for this news shows this version originated with Think Progress..

D’oh, back at you.

[Elsie]

But he SAVED the UTAH Olympics!

—MormonDude(Singlehandedly, too!)

[xzins]

There are similarities and differences. Romney, like Obama, likes to give tax money to private business. That corporate “partnership” with business is the heart of social corporatism.

The amount of money makes no difference.

The difference in this case somewhat in support of Romney is that Solyndra was given tons of money even though it was known to be failing at the time

The great thing about conservatism is it’s unwillingness to engage in spin. It’s about honest facts and honest analysis. For example, Romney really did come out in support of gay couples and adoption just last month. .

.

[Elsie]

bttt

[Madame Dufarge]

yashcheritsiy, did you know that the KosKiddies think you might be one of them?

"Did a dem get past the moderators? Maybe.

To: greatvikingone
I will vote, but not for Romney. Conservatism will be set back by a Romney win more than by an Obama win.

Exactly. A vote for a Romney is a vote to admit that conservatives really don't care about conservatism, or principles, or any of that other lame garbage that only appeals to losers who actually care about the Constitution and this country.

It's time to tell the GOP-e that we're not going to go along with them anymore. It may even be time to kill their Party and create a new one that they don't have any say in.
39 posted on Wed 01 Feb 2012 11:21:22 PM CST by Yashcheritsiy"

Direct from the Port-A-Potty

[Yashcheritsiy]

No. But you have to look at the time frame. The Mass. Company received that grant in 2003 and declared bankruptcy this year. It was an ongoing concern in the interim. Trying to tie that in with Solyndra, which was nothing more than a payoff to donors, is no more than gotcha politics. The two examples are or even related.

This helps to show the depths of degradation to which Free Republic has fallen in such a short time.

Even six months ago, Freepers were rightly telling us that it was wrong on principle for government to use taxpayers' monies to pick and choose certain industries and businesses to subsidise, especially when the premises for why these businesses and industries were being subsidised was something spurious like concerns over "anthropogenic global warming."

Now, FReepers rush to assure us that it's okay for government to do this, so long as it's below a certain, apparently arbitrary, monetary amount and so long as the subsidised business doesn't fold within a certain, apparently arbitrary, number of years.

No offence, but that's pathetic.