Shared publicly  - 
 
...for all the President's promises of millions of "green jobs," few have appeared. The White House claimed its "investment" in Solyndra would create 4,000 jobs, but at its height, the company employed just 585 people -- and then it went bankrupt. The cost? Almost $1 million per temporary job.

The $34 billion Obama has spent on his loan guarantee program for green energy startups exceeds the GDPs of 104 of the world's countries, but the sources he's focusing on account for only a tiny fraction of America's energy production, and they're still not cost-competitive.
27
3
ยงยุทธ ประเสริฐศรี's profile photoosman458 Redbaron's profile photoRich McMichael's profile photoMarty Quinn's profile photo
89 comments
 
Good job on CNN last night, Newt! Get 'em.
 
Didn't Romney do the same as Gov of Mass.?  Invest taxpayer money into companies that went belly up?  Yes he did.  Many of whom are also large campaign donors.   
 
Yeah! I don't see any green jobs. Republican subsidies to oil companies sure have delivered on dirty jobs though! Go GOP.
 
Yeah, but at least he's not Newt Gingrich.
 
Actually, in MD & surrounding areas, there are plenty of Green jobs.  Many Solar companies are hiring project managers, sales, installers, etc.  The home solar (buy or rent) seems to be doing pretty good around here, creating jobs.
 
ยังไม่เข้าใจ  คิดอะไรกันไปบ้าง ค่ะ
Translate
 
Better than if Newt had been in charge. The money would have gone straight into his pocket, and then payed off his Tiffany bill with taxpayer cash.
 
Green energy companies might not be hiring as fast as we'd like, but it sure beats the oil-based alternative! Just because we're not seeing huge leaps made up front doesn't mean we should give up on green jobs.
 
Wait, Newt you're still relevant?
 
+Chris Johnson I agree with that.  If the free market isn't taking us in the direction we need to go, then I have no problem with the gov't encouraging R&D in a different direction.  I wish they'd be a little more careful with the funds, however.
 
+Travis Cobb totally agree...more careful and ease on regulation to allow production and ease of entry to the market. 
 
+Travis Cobb Agreed.  But what the GOP leaves out (When focusing on Solyndra) is that the majority of the investments in companies have paid off, from the auto industry to the green industry.    You will not get a 100% positive outcome with every investment, but the GOP focuses on the 1 or 2 that fail instead of the majority that have succeeded.
 
It's time for conservatives to make their voices heard on here. Every time I see a post by a conservative, too many liberals come to chime in with negative views including insults that are totally unwarranted. The tone in print is usually self-righteous and mean-spirited. As a conservative myself, when I have given my views on a post made by those with liberal views, I have been treated like a piece of garbage from the outset. Everyone can have different views on politics, religion, moral beliefs, etc. There is no need to insult anyone on here in the slightest. 
 
+Randy Tuggle conservatives need to vote conservative if they want a change.  They don't vote conservative, so we end up with big spending Republicans like GWB.
 
+Randy Tuggle I would never disrespect you. I love a spirited debate on real issues and never resort to 3rd grade name calling, promise. And the fact you didt open with " libtard" shows u have respect for others opinion even if their views are not like yours.
 
+Randy Tuggle It goes both ways.  I'm an independent but when I do agree with Obama's policies I find positive or disagree with any Republican policies, I'm called a Brainwashed Obama demagogue drinking the kool-aid.  Not every conservative or liberal is a jack-a$$, but people in general are.
 
+Michael Sweeney I get the same thing lol as a independent I chalk it up as the price of being a political misfit.
 
+Michael Sweeney and +Toby Clemons It's just wrong. If this is how our government officials behave toward one another, we are screwed no matter who is in office. Let's convince others to be adults as we roll along through this mess. If you agree, +1 or share. I'm sick of the people who talk trash on here and never back it up.
 
+Michael Sweeney  I like you am independent but have found that the failed investements and lack of oversight as well as familiarity by the administration with the people they are granting loans leaves a very bitter taste in my mouth.  I have not seen a string of investments that have "paid off" especially where it relates to green energy.  I feel that throwing money at companies is not a "roadmap" to green energy and jobs.  
 
+Jared Hundrup Quote from article "Thanks to the investments made through the Recovery Act and other measures, we are building on innovative work and increasing opportunities in the clean energy sector throughout the Nation. We must continue to unleash the ingenuity of this country’s entrepreneurs, create permanent private-sector jobs, and keep America strong, safe and prosperous in the 21st century."http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/07/07/solar-and-smart-grid-powering-a-clean-energy-future

Here is another site i came across that lists references next to some of the positive achievements in various areas & policies.
http://obamaachievements.org/list
 
+Jared Hundrup here are a few more I came across in a quick search (I don't keep the info at my fingertips...lol)
http://www.abengoasolar.com/corp/web/en/nuestras_plantas/plantas_en_construccion/estados_unidos/  To begin operation in 2013 in Arizona
Another company 
http://www.abound.com/ that recieved investment
Article on these two companies
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/03/obama-awards-2-billion-fo_n_634693.html

Plus companies in smartgrid tech, changing Govt over too hybrid vehicles (Saving fuel costs) and many other initiatives
 
Ok, the first two links - whitehouse.gov and obama achievements don't really provide anything, I'll give you abengoa solar and aboud, both of which I have heard of but haven't reviewed their financial statements (I'm an accountant, sorry but I usually read those things).  Regardless that is two, with a much longer list of ones that have failed.  I'm not saying the GOP attacks as they put them are warranted or not inflated, however from a purely research based opinion, I think the administrations has failed on investment and management of green jobs.  Just my opinion, everyone is free to form their own.
 
 
+Jared Hundrup The whitehouse.gov article had 3 companies : Nanosolar, Cisco Systems, and SunPower but I haven't looked at each one.   Again, this was just a quick dirty search to show that the GOP only highlights 1 or 2 failed companies as the total of Obama's Green policy initiative & spending.   You would have to look at all investments (I would include investments in green infrastructure and green companies, but thats just me) and see the total.  Which I don't have time to dig deep right now.
 
+Jared Hundrup isn't it the nature of investment in emerging markets that there are far more losers than winners? If I'd been investing in computer companies in the '80s, I would have had the opportunity to invest in Intel and Apple, but I might also have seen Commodore as a rising star, or perhaps Apollo computers in the business space.

There will always be far more losers than winners when you're trying to drive science from the lab into the market.
 
+Aaron Sherman that is correct and best played in the private market and not with tax payer dollars.  That being said I do feel that R&D is necessary and sometimes fails but advances the industry.  Back to my previous comment, when lending taxpayer dollars there should be greater research into the companies receiving funding, their financial stability, and ongoing progress as a viable company.  Also, the funds shouldn't be given to people that are arguably in your back pocket.  I'm not saying this is just an Obama thing, it happens on many levels with politicians and it's not right but the premise of this post by Gingrich saying that Obama's attacks on Romney's time at Bain open up scrutiny to his investments with tax payer dollars is completely valid albeit inflated for the GOP base.  
 
+Aaron Sherman Agreed.   The same happened with Natural Gas & early Govt subsidies.  Plus, all the green spending wasn't investing in particular companies, much was tax incentives, infrastructure spending, changing dept, changing fleets to hybrid, training programs, etc, etc, etc.
 
+Michael Sweeney I think you're making things up.  I don't remember any Massachusetts investments in private companies, under Romney or otherwise.  Remember that investments are different from purchases.

+Travis Cobb The problem is that direct government investment simply doesn't work.  To take an example from the couple of years when I was working in wind energy, the federal government invested millions in big company wind turbine development and nothing came of those huge designs.  Meanwhile private companies competing in the free market ended up developing inexpensive, small turbines that could be used in farms instead of as single central station power plants.

The best the government can do is provide market incentives for the free market to respond to.  In particular, if you want to see more green energy, the government should slap some major taxes on fossil fuel sources.  For example, a $3 a gallon equivalent carbon tax would result in lots of green technology really fast - and incidentally would provide the federal government with enough revenue that the income tax could be eliminated.
 
That's what everyone wants, +Warren Dew. However when Capitalism takes over and all socialistic ideals become the Antichrist we get a world where more money = more power = more control. Oil companies make it impossible for the necessary laws to be implemented for this to happen. This is why corporations cannot be defined as "people, my friend" as some like to claim.

When private sector juggernauts get elected (Bush) and hopefully not Romney they will never govern for the people because in their world $1 = 1 person. They make decisions based on who has the most $1 and not what the majority of real people actually need. 
 
So the alternative is to throw money at it.... 
 
Let's see Newt's investment portfolio to see if he's done as well as the federal government.  I hear they're actually profiting off GM stock.
 
+Warren Dew I see what you mean about creating the environment to encourage a certain thing or direction and I agree.  To reference your example, having some loan options available to encourage those companies that started making the smaller turbines doesn't seem like such a bad idea either.  

I certainly don't think we need a lawyer coming in to evaluate what is really a technical and scientific endeavor, so direct government involvement in which projects get the green light is probably not a good idea.  That said, they can make funds available to encourage development, much like they do with the military when they want a new bomb.
 
...We instead tax the people, because "we " are too stupid to realize that corporations need to be taxed if we don't want them controlling everything. This is our country, not the united states of ExxonMobileGoogleAppleHalliburton.

But for some reason conservatives think that society will be doomed if we choose not to obey the demands of the corporations. They say they need tax breaks to hire people and keep the economy going. Well, they are simply telling you a lie so they can acquire more wealth and control more government. If high taxes were so terrible the 90's wouldn't have been so prosperous. 
 
+Dave Hansen "Everyone wants" a $3/gal gasoline/home heating oil/coal etc. tax?  How come no politician from any party is pushing it, then?

True environmentalists may want that, but most people only support environmental concerns if it doesn't mean that they personally have to make any sacrifices.

+Travis Cobb I don't think loan options would be a good idea; they are too easily turned into patronage since they'd require specific government approval by people who would be favoring their friends, such as in the Solyndra case.  Better is what California did, which was to provide tax benefits for anyone who actually managed to produce and sell the wind based electricity, though even making that work required some very careful crafting of the tax rules.
 
+Dave Hansen a portion of that is true.  They could give corporations a tax break but also not allow them to move proceeds overseas which would solve a great deal of the problem of tax revenue. 
 
+Jon Lemich Taxpayers have lost huge on GM stock.  We need the stock to be at $51/share to break even; it's currently at $22/share.  It's extremely unlikely that us taxpayers will ever recoup the costs of the bailout.
Lance G
 
+Dave Hansen "When capitalism takes over..."

I was unaware that it was socialism that made America great.
 
You proposed it... And eliminating or reducing income tax at the same time wouldn't make it a sacrifice by any means. It is just a different method of collecting revenue by taxing consumption that is not at all advantageous to the wealthiest of all corporations.

Fighting this is why republicans don't make sense. Ya'll were in love with Cain's 999 plan where consumption is taxed. Yet when someone like myself who is obviously not in favor of your party actually agrees with what you proposed its like I have crossed you and now you must battle me. 
 
+Dave Hansen You aren't making any sense.  Who said anything about eliminating corporate tax rate?  Who specifically are you addressing?  Who said anything about taxing corporations on consumption?  Do you understand the tax code or the massive revenues that are moved oversees?  Scaling that back certainly would address a great many issues.  Also, who is "ya'all", anyone in this thread that might disagree with you is now a republican??  I'm at a bit of a loss to discuss with you.
 
+Lance Griggs, It is a combination of the two working together is what made us great. Letting one or the other take over completely is not what we want. Just because I say socialism doesn't mean I want everything to be socialist. Almost everything you eat is the product of a socialist government subsidy. If u hate socialisim so much either stop eating or only buy things you know how to grow/raise/kill otherwise you are a participant in socialism. 
 
+Dave Hansen I proposed it, but I'm not a politician and technically I'm not from either party since I'm registered as an independent.

When I propose something similar to my Democrat state representative, she dismisses it out of hand as "too regressive" - she's okay with a gasoline tax increase only if the proceeds are spent on bigger government and more welfare, rather than on reductions in other taxes.  Federal representatives and senators are of course too busy to give me a personal response.

This isn't a problem just with the Republicans.  It's a problem with both parties.
 
+Dave Hansen Just because we're forced to participate in socialism doesn't mean we have to support it.  I'd be thrilled if we removed all farm subsidies even though my food prices would go up a bit.
Lance G
+
2
3
2
 
Actually +Warren Dew and +Dave Hansen government subsidies present a whole nother set of problems. I personally know cotton farmers who pray for droughts so they don't have a good crop each year because they make more money and easier money than if they take in a bumper crop. That is our tax money we're talking here! That is the mentality we're up against.
 
I bet they do, farm subsidies are out of control, hence why I buy local. The farm subsidies are an example of bad Socialism. In my opinion and I know [most of you on this forum] will disagree but instead of spending money on the farms we should spend it on social healthcare, social K-12 education, and social infrastructure among starters. 
 
We are not forced, you can plant things yourself and buy meat from a local farm. You just need to learn to cook. 
Lance G
 
+Dave Hansen we've spent 900,000,000,000 dollars last year on education. That's as much as both wars combined. If we would abolish the Department of Education and spend that money locally and straight to our neighborhood schools, think of how more effective that'd be.
 
Jobs created does not only mean people employed by a single company.  What about contractors the company used?  Subcontractors?  Other companies that hired Solyndra?
 
Warren, not all are - my neighbor raises cattle on his own dime. Another friend of mine grows a variety of produce and sells it at the local market - without any government help. Even so the subsidy for local farming is a totally different situation from the million acre single crop craziness of big industry farming.

Lance, just because I'm for public education doesn't mean I like how the money is being spent today. We need "free" public education so everyone has the oppertinity to learn. We have private schools if u can afford it, go there. If u can't afford it we have public schools.

The issue to me is how the money is being spent on k-12 not how much. I don't know where you live but the rural public schools in West Virginia need money badly - there is not enough tax revenue to pay for them and not enough people to support private schools.

Take money away from the farm bill, goose up that 9 billion to a full trillion and start funding the education of rural America - not a slew of brand new tech labs at fancy pants school of awesome in DC. The money is there, let's use it for something good. 
 
+Dave Hansen I bet your neighbor takes advantage of the tax breaks for farming that are built into the federal tax system - he's basically required to.  Most likely he also gets lower property tax rates from farming.  There are lots of farm subsidies built into the system throughout; it's impossible to get away from them.
 
+Nate Sorensen Solyndra is bankrupt.  Any jobs that might have been created at contractors they purchased from are gone too.
 
To some of you, it seems "socialism" is every dollar of government spending that doesn't go directly to busting drug dealers or bombing middle eastern nations.  To others, "socialism" means everything from keeping children from dying to jackbooted thugs forcing you to get your bread from the government store.  It's a meaningless word.

Look, decide what kinds of people you want us, as a nation, to help.  To me, it's children, veterans, and the elderly; each in limited capacity.  Children and veterans should have preventative, remedial and emergency health, oral health and mental health care.  The elderly should have limited health and mental health care.  Children should have decent housing, a good education, healthy food, and protection from abuse.  Veterans should have higher education support.  

We should either be able to freely litigate against companies that do us indirect harm (e.g. sue the power company for asthma partly caused by their carbon emissions) or else have a regulatory agency that sets standards for the use of public goods; not both.  I prefer regulation to redress because the former means preventing as much harm as possible ahead of time while minimizing litigation. In cases of high complexity products such as financial services, we need to devote a small line item to a watchdog agency to help people understand those services and to warn people about predatory service providers and help individuals who have been harmed seek redress for direct damages incurred.  

We should use the federal government to prevent states from complete collapse, subsidizing infrastructure projects and K-12 education.  That way, poor states or states that suffer disasters can still maintain their infrastructure and educational levels and rich states will subsidize it.  This is the current system; and economists agree that it is the main reason that US states like South Carolina and Alabama have not collapsed like Greece and Ireland, pulling the republic down with them.

Military spending for maintaining a small fighting force with the best equipment and training in the world is reasonable.  Large boondoggle expenditures such as billion dollar bomber planes and expensive submarine fleets are not necessary.  The next war will not be like your grandfather's war.  Focus on infantry and armored cavalry training and equipment, logistical support for rapid deployment and readiness, intelligence services to monitor and predict threats and combat terrorists on foreign soil, and maintain the existing stock of long range weapons (e.g. cruise missiles) to deter aggressors while replacing nuclear warheads with conventional ones in order to get other states to do the same.  We should be able to do this for significantly less than the current military budget, half of which goes to military industry contractors who persuade the DOD that it needs more submarines, when clearly it doesn't.

Finally, we should devote a small line item to supporting pure science and public health research as long as that research is freely available to the public so they can profit on it.  

There.  That's it.  Does that make me a socialist?
 
Making it up? Never +Warren Dew Here are 3 quick examples, including one company the GOP attacks Obama for, but Gov. Romney invested taxpayer dollars in first

Romney also presided as Massachusetts governor over the award of $4.5 million in state loans to two biotechnology firms that later went bankrupt, costing taxpayers and jobs. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/06/romney-and-obama-duel-over-solyndra-investment-records/

Evergreen Solar received $2.5 million from the Romney administration for a “major expansion and to cover operating losses as it tried to become profitable,” according to a February article in Politico. The investment was part of a broader program in which the Romney administration gave millions in subsidies to multiple other companies, Politico reported.  http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/crossroads-ad-slams-obama-over-company-that-got-taxpayer-money-from-governor-romney/2012/05/31/gJQA3YAm4U_blog.html  The Crossroads video, attacking Obama, cites the Massachusetts company Evergreen Solar as an example of a company that received taxpayer money before declaring bankruptcy or suffering 
“serious financial issues” — which the video derides as a “risky investment strategy.”  
Seems Romney invested Taxpayer dollars in Evergreen Solar, first


Another: 3 of 6 companies Gov. Romney invested tax payer money into are either closed or on the verge of bankruptcy.
Politico reported:
In 2003, Romney launched the Massachusetts Green Energy Fund, a $15 million project aimed at providing "an opportunity to capitalize on two emerging trends: the growing level of investment interest in clean energy and the importance of Massachusetts' academic and corporate R&D in forming clean energy technology companies," according to its website.
At the time, Romney called the fund a "springboard for the commonwealth by focusing on job creation in the renewable energy sector."
And it is in the nature of venture funds that some of their projects fail. That's why the private sector funds can get such high returns, and why some energy projects seen as having a huge public upside -- from nuclear to solar -- have convinced government officials to back them.
And so while Romney has criticized Solyndra on the campaign trail as a major failure of the Obama administration, his Green Energy Fund invested in several companies that have since failed or not lived up to expectations.
Of the six companies listed in the fund's portfolio, three are either struggling or have shut down completely.
http://bungalowbillscw.blogspot.com/2012/06/romneys-green-energy-initiatives-failed.html
 
Warren, yes but to me that is how the system should work and I put those tax breaks in a different category from the farm subsidy that allows us to sell corn way below the cost to produce, which is detrimental to the global society. It's like you are comparing a penny and a quarter and calling them the same because they are both US currency. This is how we get into so much trouble....

My friends and neighbors are NOT selling their goods below market price. 
 
+Michael Sweeney Thanks for the info.  However, those examples appear to be the case where the Democrat controlled legislature appropriated the money over Romney's objections.  I'd view the Solyndra situation rather differently if Obama had opposed, rather than supported, the appropriattion of the money in the first place.
 
+Dave Hansen Ironically, the biggest corn subsidies are for ethanol production from corn, which is supposedly a "green" subsidy.

I'd rather see no agricultural subsidies at all, and have the purchaser of the food bear the total cost.
 
+Jon Lemich The majority of cruise missiles are launched from submarines these days.  For rapid deployment of small, elite forces around the world, a navy is relatively more important, not less important, than it was in the cold war era, when the relevant missles were ICBMs that could be launched from U.S. soil.
 
+Warren Dew Romney would still have to sign the measures, and they weren't all against Romney's objections (I know he claims one company he objected to) but there is more than the one company.  He has even campaigned on "tax money for Green Jobs" in the past.   Rachel Maddow had an episode the other night, highlighting reports that some of the companies that received mass. tax dollars (some that failed included) are some of the largest Romney donors in Mass.  and have campaigned for him.   Even clips of him speaking in support of funding companies with tax dollars.
 
+Michael Sweeney He wouldn't have had to sign the measures; he could have vetoed them and had the vetoes overridden.  That happened a lot, actually, since he was a Republican governor in a heavily Democratic state.
 
These aren't reports about Romney being overridden by legislators, these are about companies that he supported tax-payer financing of.  Big difference.  That is why he is not running on his Governorship record.   Because he did many of the same policies that he is trashing Obama for.
 
The only green thing about ethanol is the burning process. Everything before that is a total joke and the opposite of green.

Good theory-bad practice.

Again, I don't like large scale subsidized farming or anything that comes from it.

I still think we should be investing in green technology because whoever figures it out first will be ahead of everyone else. It's like the space race - first to the moon wins. We won that, let's try and win this too.

It's just a shame politics have become so polluted that we can't focus on a common goal. We rather fight about the existence of global warming instead of just taking care of business and moving forward. As long as the oil companies control the world the free market will never come up with any solutions, it's just not profitable in the short term. It's the government that needs to step in and help fund these projects so when the time comes we have a backup plan for energy.
 
+Michael Sweeney To the contrary, I suspect vetoes are exactly what his "opposition" meant.  Once the money was allocated by the legislature, of course, the governor would have had a part in deciding which companies to assign it to, but he would no longer have had the choice not to spend it at all.
 
+Dave Hansen I agree completely about ethanol subsidies.  They were justified on the basis of their being green, but it didn't turn out that way.
 
+Jared Hundrup in general, I agree that most investment in emerging technologies can be handled by the market. However, there are times where it makes sense to collectively fund certain emerging technologies which can have a tremendous benefit to society.

I feel that the move to more sustainable energy has been and continues to be worthy of some amount of investment along that line.
 
+Warren Dew Um, he did not Veto, created the fund that did much of the investing.  http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/romneys-rhetoric-differs-record-governor/story?id=14469067#.T8kxtdVYuss
In 2003, Romney created the Green Energy Fund — a $15 million program designed "to provide equity capital, loans and management assistance to Massachusetts-based renewable energy businesses."
As governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney created a fund to invest in green energy, said alternative energy could generate jobs and approved bills allowing cities to build fields of solar panels.

"Now is the time to refocus its assets in such a manner that it can become a major economic springboard for the commonwealth by focusing on job creation in the renewable energy sector," Romney said in 2003 of the state's energy trust fund that year.
Lance G
 
+Jon Lemich As long as government has the funds to pay for the myriad of programs you advocate, I see no problem with government "helping" people who genuinely need it. If it means borrowing more money to pay for it, then no. We're broke.
It seems there are some on this board that have more faith than me in government's ability to actually solve all those problems. In fact, with many areas, in trying to help fix problems, government has actually made them worse. Do you agree with me that every problem which exists cannot be solved?  And would you not admit that there are problems that just cannot be fixed? We are spending too much money. We have been for a long time. It's not just Barack Obama that got us here. We are borrowing $50,000 per second. That's crazy.
"We should use the federal government to prevent states from complete collapse, subsidizing infrastructure projects and K-12 education."
You mean bail them out? As in too big to fail? States like Texas and North Dakota should pony up money to states like California because that state went totally insane fiscally? And what examples are there that SC and AL have already been bailed out?
Tell me what else should we have the government deliver to our front door for us? Should there be not limit to the behemoth in Washington DC's size and scope? Shouldn't there be some fiscal restraint and sound money practiced by it like any other sensible entity? You mean we can just borrow and spend our way to prosperity? The big bloated centralized bureaucratic monster in DC had not part in this mess?
So no, I wouldn't call you a socialist. Sounds like you are a statist.
 
+Michael Sweeney Your news story cites the Massachusetts Green Energy Fund, LP.  This fund appears to have been created from money in the Massachusetts Renewable Energy Trust Fund, which was authorized in 1998, before Romney became governor, and reauthorized in 2009, after the end of Romney's term as governor:

http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/incentive.cfm?Incentive_Code=MA07R&re=1&ee=1

So, just as I described, this was Romney allocating money that had already been authorized without his involvement.

The only money mentioned in your article that Romney signed the legislation for was money for a solar power field owned by the City of Brockton.  That's not interfering in the private sector; it's just spending public money for public sector needs.
 
He supported it correct?  Again, that is just an example of alternative energy industry that was invested under his administration.   Quote: "In 2003, Romney said spending state money to support alternative energy companies that build solar panels and fuel cells would create jobs.".....
He supported this as Governor, he did not end the funding, his administration invested in other industries and he did not veto it.
 
+Michael Sweeney Romney couldn't have ended the funding; it was a 10 year program that had already been passed.
 
+Warren Dew, So it looks like mitt just goes with the flow and says what he thinks will be popular, not what he actually believes. You say the money is already allocated for these programs so its not his problem...but it's not like he was out there trying to change anything. He just said let's spend it and by the way this is a great investment. You can't be promoting the program and then turn around and say that you really didn't like it but you were just forced to. To me It's a sign of a bad leader. 
 
If I was him and didn't like the investment I wouldn't be talking it up like he did. 
 
+Dave Hansen To me, being positive and making the best of a bad situation is the sign of a good leader, not a bad leader.
 
+warren dew - Are you aware that the loan program that funded Solyndra came from a bipartisan Bush era energy law?  Not much different from Romney "making the best out of a bad situation"...except Obama's policies actually reflect his beliefs and message.
 
not disagreeing with what speaker gingrich posted, but invariably what the obama people are claiming is the economic consequences of the investment ergo not just the jobs at solyndra. nevertheless the "green"  claims of helping the economy are well beyond what even the most liberal economic interpretation of an investment could put forth - notwithstanding that most of those "green" initiatives arent (ethanol being the #1 scam).
 
+Dave Hansen What's important is when the money was funded.  The money for the Solyndra debacle was funded during Obama's reign.

Edit:  not that I'm a big fan of Bush's domestic policies either, especially in the second term.
Lance G
 
+Dave Hansen the actual program came about then, but the Bush people nixed giving money to Solyndra. I read in an interview where essentially they said could see that Solyndra was a turd.
 
+Warren Dew to me what's most important is character, which is desperately lacking in Camp Romney. IMHO.

If Obama had not been campaigning about extending more finding to programs/companies like Solyindra then it would be a different issue. The man our country voted into office is actually doing (for the most part) what he said he wanted to do. For me this is a far more valuable characteristic of a human being than being all talk. And you can't deny Romney has, on a constant basis, changed his message to attract more voters.
 
+Dave Hansen To me, it seems that Obama not only lacks character, but is flat out lying about what he's doing.  He says he wants to cut back on Bush's indefinite detention, but then pushes an amendment to make it clearly lawful, and signs it even when talking about how bad it is.  If he really thinks it's bad, don't sign it!  If he really thinks it's necessary, don't lie about wanting it!  Then he goes beyond that and starts assassinating U.S. citizens abroad without trial.

Same thing with abortion choice - he says he's in favor of it, then signs the Stupak amendment into law that means that the health care exchanges where poor working women are going to have to get their health care are essentially prohibited from offering abortion coverage.  Similarly with Plan B, where he overrides the FDA to prevent plan B from being freely sold.  There are innumerable examples in other areas.

Romney may tailor his message to the audience, but his fundamental positions remain the same, and he doesn't flat out lie about them like Obama does.
 
+Warren Dew, He is pro-choice. He is also a politician who understands he must compromise. If he didn't the AHCAA wouldn't have passed the House.

If the AHCAA didn't pass then Obama would have failed on his promise of Health Care reform, which is a much bigger issue in whole compared to just abortions. He chose to get Health Care reform enacted over the impossibility of passing everything he actually wants.

No president has or will ever get everything the way they want, it wouldn't be a democracy if that were the case.

It's sad to me that the republicans think we live in a country where the only path is their path. Not taking into account what the opposing side wants is an attribute of dictators. Not compromising is an attribute of dictators.

Nice try though. I'm a big picture person, so small amendments whose purpose is to allow for compromise & democracy to flourish I expect portions of what a president wants to accomplish to not actually happen. When he is forced to approve things he campaigned against in order to improve the bigger issues I see a good president, not a liar. 
 
I don't like how he has handled detentions and the assassinations of expected terrorist without trial.

Also why I am considering Gary Johnson. 
 
+Dave Hansen The Stupak amendment did not get Obamacare a single Republican vote in either the house or the senate, so I'd say that was an example of where it was the Democrats who thought the only path was their path, not the Republicans.

Obama's actions have been anti-choice, no matter what he says he wants.  Actions speak louder than words.  To me, denying abortion coverage to a large fraction of the women in America is a much bigger issue than fulfilling a campaign promise with what ended up being a cure that's worse than the disease.

Nor can you claim that Obama's refusal to allow the plan B morning after pill to be freely sold was a legislative issue.  There, his only possible justification was the one talked about:  he basically didn't trust his daughters to make the right decision when they become teens.  That's the kind of anti-woman stance that should have gone out with the 1960s.
Translate
Add a comment...