Arkady
President
I'm looking for the evidence for your assertion. Which part of this are you having trouble grasping?
Best summary of Solyndra matter that I've heard.
- Thread starter Arkady
- Start date
1. I found the bankruptcy papers and your interpretation of the Wiki doc is correct. The feds have recovered 19% of $142 million.....care to explain your earlier claim that the feds lost $600 million on Solyndra alone?
2. There is a lawsuit pending for $1.5 billion. If Solyndra succeeds in suing the Chinese companies it accuses of dumping solar panels on the US market then the US will recover the remainder.
ya-ta-hey
Mayor
Mr. Arkady,
I gave you evidence. You just refuse the accept the facts because you are a sycophant.
What you don't seem to understand, these are not loans, but rather loan guarantees. The companies apply for loans through a lender, then the government guaruntees the loan. A simple way to explain how these loans work is the following: If a recipient defaults on its loan, the federal government pays the remainder of the debt to the lenders and repossesses all of the assets from the unfinished projects. It's a boon for the lenders as they are guaranteed a return, and no loss.
To reduce taxpayer exposuire, with the original program, the DOE charged a loan subsidy fee to the borrower. Upon taking the loan, the lender tacks the subsidy fee on to the loan, then sends it to the DOE when the loan is disburse.
With the Section 1705 program, however, the Obama administration set aside $2.5B in grants to award to loan applicants to pay the subsidy fee. Ergo, the governent received little or no gain from the Section 1705 loans.
To make it even worse, the companies in the solar industry that were given guaranteed loans are also available for grants to pay them back. For example, First Solar created a new company St. Clair Solar, who then took a loan of $193M, then sold solar panels to First Solar which paid for them using a 1705 loan. In other words, First Solar sold solar panel to itself using government money which went to their loan.
NRG took out $3.8B in loan guaruntees, then applied and receive 37 grants which were used to pay back their loans. Again, using government money to pay back government backed loans. Currently, they are applying for another $500M grant to pay back a portion of their $1.8B loan, which they will likely receive.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/11/08/world-largest-solar-plant-applying-for-federal-grant-to-pay-off-its-federal/
So you see, the money that was generated from the Section 1705 program was actually government subsidy money, that went from one hand of the government to pay another. Then another hand awarded government grants, which paid back loans.
On the books, the program is a success, but overall, a net loss to the taxpayers.
Arkady
President
No. You keep throwing out random factoids, but have yet to point to evidence of the Obama-era loans, as a group, "barely breaking even." You made the claim. Either admit you were just guessing, or share the evidence. Is that so much to ask?
[/quote]On the books, the program is a success, but overall, a net loss to the taxpayers.[/QUOTE]
I'm asking for evidence to support that statement. Please share the accounting that shows the net loss to the taxpayers.
KnotaFrayed
Mayor
To some, ignorance is bliss and it is demonstrated here.
Does anyone care where the truth really lies when "information" directly contradicts "information" . Can both sides of an issue be correct? No doubt at times they can be, but is that the rule or the exception? By what divine provenance is anyone's information correct or the truth? Can anyone say? When so many people are willing to obfuscate the truth to "win", where does the truth really lie? If one is winning hollow victories by lies and half truths, then what is the value of that victory?
Doesn't the fact that there are two conflicting offerings of "information" thrown out here daily, some with heavy support and detailed research, some with "because I heard it" get anyone thinking that something does not add up with what some are trying to pass off as "truth"? Who simply walks around believing everything they hear from sources whose mission it is to tell people what they want to hear or to present as truth, that which is not.
We would expect people with opposing agendas to offer opposing "takes" on everything, but when two pieces of information are not and cannot be true, where does one look to find the truth? Do con artists walk up to their marks and say, hi, I'm a con artist and I'm going to make like your friend so you will then trust me enough to hand over just about everything you own? No, they are going to act like your best friend, get you to trust them, then take you for all you are worth.
How do we know someone is trying to con us when they tell us what we want to hear and become our best friend?
Is everything out of a "Democrat" "liberal's" mouth "a lie" simply because they are a "Democrat" and someone thinks all Democrats are "liberals"? Are all republicans honest people, not liberal in anyway and mortal enemies of "Democrats" and "liberals" just because they think someone is a "Democrat" and therefore "liberal" and being liberal is mutually exclusive to being "conservative"?
Can most people here articulate the difference between objective and subjective thought?
Does anyone care where the truth really lies when "information" directly contradicts "information" . Can both sides of an issue be correct? No doubt at times they can be, but is that the rule or the exception? By what divine provenance is anyone's information correct or the truth? Can anyone say? When so many people are willing to obfuscate the truth to "win", where does the truth really lie? If one is winning hollow victories by lies and half truths, then what is the value of that victory?
Doesn't the fact that there are two conflicting offerings of "information" thrown out here daily, some with heavy support and detailed research, some with "because I heard it" get anyone thinking that something does not add up with what some are trying to pass off as "truth"? Who simply walks around believing everything they hear from sources whose mission it is to tell people what they want to hear or to present as truth, that which is not.
We would expect people with opposing agendas to offer opposing "takes" on everything, but when two pieces of information are not and cannot be true, where does one look to find the truth? Do con artists walk up to their marks and say, hi, I'm a con artist and I'm going to make like your friend so you will then trust me enough to hand over just about everything you own? No, they are going to act like your best friend, get you to trust them, then take you for all you are worth.
How do we know someone is trying to con us when they tell us what we want to hear and become our best friend?
Is everything out of a "Democrat" "liberal's" mouth "a lie" simply because they are a "Democrat" and someone thinks all Democrats are "liberals"? Are all republicans honest people, not liberal in anyway and mortal enemies of "Democrats" and "liberals" just because they think someone is a "Democrat" and therefore "liberal" and being liberal is mutually exclusive to being "conservative"?
Can most people here articulate the difference between objective and subjective thought?
KnotaFrayed
Mayor
How exactly does one take out a government loan guarantee? As you pointed out, they are not loans, but guarantees on loans by others. Nothing is lent by the government unless there is a bankruptcy and default on the loan from others by the borrowers. In the case of Solyndra, the risk was for that part of any loan that was guaranteed, but for that part that could not be recovered from bankruptcy restructuring.
"In late 2007, Solyndra was one of 16 clean-tech companies deemed eligible for $4 billion worth of loan guarantees from the U.S. Department of Energy. Tesla Motors, the Silicon Valley electric carmaker, and Oakland's BrightSource Energy, a builder of solar-thermal plants, also made that list."
http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_10653270?source=rss
https://www.google.com/#q=Tesla stock
More about Solyndra - Sure, call it a "biased source", but read it.
http://ourfuture.org/20120926/the-phony-solyndra-solar-scandal
One cannot payback government loan guarantees with government grants. Government loan guarantees cover loan defaults, not ongoing business that may or may not also receive government grants to pay for loans (money forwarded to them to be paid back) or use in lieu of borrowing money.
Before and along with Solyndra. Plus, "presidential pals".
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-10-13/10-biggest-energy-company-bankruptcies
Pluses and minuses
http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2000/12/11governance-light
http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/brookings-now/posts/2014/07/government-failures-author-also-enumerated-government-achievements
St.Clair Solar received a loan guarantee from the Ex-Im bank to buy solar panels from First Solar. St.Clair is a Canadian company....They built two solar farms in Ontario and sold them....so the loan guarantee cost the US nothing.
First Solar Inc. (NASDAQ: FSLR) said earlier this month that it expects to produce 1,800 to 1,900 megawatts in 2014 on net sales of $3.6 billion to $3.9 billion.
Zam-Zam
Senator
Other posts in this thread were not responses to mine. You're still wrong.
1. it is totally irrelevant if my other posts were not to you....you made a generalization about all of my posts based on one.
2. Wrong about what?
Zam-Zam
Senator
It's revealing that you can't muster any defense for Obama other than to bring up other Presidents. You're saying Obama is like Bush.
"Can't must any defense"? And you think that was not a sweeping genralization? You're a funny guy.
Zam-Zam
Senator
You obviously didn't. You may not like it, but you've done nothing to disprove it.
and are you talking about that one post again? So full circle....in that one post, no I did not offer any "defense" of Obama. Read the rest of the thread or do a search on any topic you like with me as the author....you'll find you are substantially wrong. Look for Benghazi, IRS, NSA, immigration....and I have disagreed with the assertions that you and the right wing have made all along. Defense? None needed. Has Obama taken responsibility for events during his administration? Yes. Another poster offered a long list.
ya-ta-hey
Mayor
Mr. Middle,
St. Clair Solar is a wholy owned subsidery of First Solar. While it is irrelevent to this discussion, except to point out that Obama's 1705 programs is only generating loses, it does point out that First Solar took out government secured loans, to sell solar panel to itself uning government secured loans.
Clearly you do not understand the Export/Import bank. Do some research and get back to me.....They guarantee loans to foreign corporations to buy American goods. St Clair was incorporated in Canada and therefore qualified. The money they borrowed was to build a huge solar farm...it was then sold and the loan was repaid.
EX/IM bank is not funded by the federal government.
