WatchCurtesy of Jon Stewart. We all know that Romney lied in the debate about how many energy companies failed after receiving government grants and/or loans, (he claimed half which is complete bullshit) however not surprisingly Obama's record is much better than Romney's when it comes to picking successful corporations.
A real peach y'all got there. Your best reasons for casting a vote for Romney this year are still complete failures.
Follow
Befriend (54)
5,234 threads
6,169 comments
46 male
Menlo Park, CA
Premium
And this kind of dispute is just what I hope people will use the "Invite an expert to join discussion" link at the top for.
If you want to invite that particular group, their email is Editor@FactCheck.org
Follow
Befriend
13 threads
833 comments
Dublin, CA
The most intelligent investors "invest" in 3 game parlays: 6:75 to 1 payout and within the same day. That's 675% return in 1 day! Beats the stock market 8% annual return. With risk/reward tradeoff however . . .
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,646 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
Melmakian says
- 22% of Bain investments failing is a fact.
- 8% of DOE grant corporations failing is a fact.
- I didn't make anything up and these numbers are available from numerous sources.
At what point did you decide to simply lie?
Melmakian says
Fail.
Follow
Befriend
41 threads
915 comments
Larkspur, CA
Melmakian says
The Murdoch owned Wall Street Journal:
Follow
Befriend (1)
294 threads
5,232 comments
Liberals all ways throw out "Factcheck" anytime they are being biased. It's has become as frivolous as "Transparent" which means super secret back room deals in Liberalease.
Follow
Befriend
41 threads
915 comments
Larkspur, CA
Melmakian says
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203436904577151211420780338.html
Here comes the part where you change the subject.
Follow
Befriend
41 threads
915 comments
Larkspur, CA
CaptainShuddup says
Yes, us liberals always use 'stupid' facts from legitimate sources to back up our claims. The correct way is to point to obscure blogs published by middle-aged guys living in their parent's basement.
Follow
Befriend
41 threads
915 comments
Larkspur, CA
*** crickets ***
Follow
Befriend (1)
294 threads
5,232 comments
"Rivals Attack Romney on Bain
Debate Sparked Within GOP Over Free Enterprise; Romney Defends His Record"
Hold the press folks Rivals are are attacking Romney.
of course WSJ didn't report any wrong doing, they just are reporting that another Liberal is invoking the "Factcheck" clause.
They claim therefore it is, like the Citi 1% memo.
And you guys hate Jesus go figure. At least he claimed to heal people with his unsubstantiated claims.
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,646 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
Melmakian says
Everyone is in the tank for Obama when you're a paranoid fascist who needs scapegoats to get through the day. You've already established:
- You think Obama will win Ohio due to election fraud, not because every poll says he's going to win.
- You think all media that puts Romney or any other Republican in a negative light is part of the worldwide conspiracy.
- You blame liberals for nearly every problem the nation has regardless of cause, in fact you've blamed the Democrats for actions in 2005 when they held no power whatsoever. You desperately need scapegoats.
- All data is automatically a lie and you will deny any source that doesn't agree with your delusion. Yet you will NEVER EVER EVER EVER provide alternate data or alternate sources.
Shrek, you are a pathetic pseudo-intellectual who has been reduced to someone yelling on the street corner. You have no credibility here whatsoever.
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,646 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
CaptainShuddup says
If one of you GOP religious zealots threw out something from Newsbusters, I'd be all over it like a pack of piranhas.
The ONLY thing you can do is scream "BIAS BIAS BIAS!!!!". You will never attempt to prove bias because like everything else on the right, you must accept it on faith.
We are not the same. My opinions are based on facts. You fear facts which is why you attack sources instead.
Follow
Befriend (5)
74 threads
1,399 comments
Premium
What a moot point - I don't care how successful somebody is in picking winners and losers as long as they do it with their OWN money and not with my taxes and my kids taxes. Right, Obama is so successful and that's why the debt grew by a couple of more trillions while he PROMISED to cut it by 50% by now. I don't disagree that Romney is not truthful or flip-flops in many ways, but it is a fallacy to use this to justify bailouts and deficit spending and break the law with executive overreach. This is simply partisan hackery and a distraction game for the masses to encourage them to cast the first stone at the candidate who says 'Jehova' first while the nation continues to slip into bankruptcy and the rule of law disappears.
Follow
Befriend
15 threads
3,075 comments
iwog says
I would say the Obama administration was actually warned that "their investment" was NOT going to survive. But as every bad investor.. they ignored it. It was pointed out by PWC, they had a doubt as a "going concern"... the kiss of death !
http://californiawatch.org/dailyreport/were-early-warnings-about-now-bankrupt-solyndra-ignored-12589
Were early warnings about now-bankrupt Solyndra ignored?
PrintPrint
September 14, 2011
WASHINGTON, D.C. – House investigators looking into the failure of Fremont-based Solyndra are likely to focus on why the Obama administration kept giving the troubled solar panel manufacturer taxpayer cash amid multiple warning signs that the company was in serious trouble – including shelving plans to go public and the company's own auditor warning that Solyndra might need to file for Chapter 11 protection.
Solyndra's auditor, PricewaterhouseCoopers, warned in a filing to the Securities and Exchange Commission that “the company suffered recurring losses from operations, negative cash flows ... raise(s) substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern,” auditor-speak for a potential failure of the company.
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,646 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
Melmakian says
Translation:
1. You're wrong
2. You're right
Brilliant!
Follow
Befriend
15 threads
3,075 comments
iwog says
A private investor who invests in start-ups at minimal will contribute $5-10M with a high risk tolerance... willing to lose ALL of their investments.
such actions in the public sector would be considered near fraud. Since it would translate to failure to maximize the public good.
therefore we should by now have seen mass firing within govt agencies for such failures. Even a mear 5% in loss wouldnt go well since it was all wasted.
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,646 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
thomaswong.1986 says
Your assertion is a joke and makes no sense whatsoever. In fact the United States has a LONG history of spending billions on pure technology research that is destined to never see a return or even remain solvent. NASA and the Manhattan project are both great examples.
In both cases, private corporations were awarded with huge government grants and contracts to develop technology that was solely for the benefit of Americans. In the same way, Obama and the Democrats hoped to stimulate technology in alternative fuels to help release us from dependence on Mid East oil.
All previous generations would have accepted this and even lauded the efforts by Obama. It is only the current propaganda saturated right wing lunatic crowd that finds fault with these policies.
thomaswong.1986 says
That would be like firing everyone at NASA for losing so much money in reaching the moon. Unbelievable.
Follow
Befriend
41 threads
915 comments
Larkspur, CA
mell says
Do you understand that countries we have to compete with ARE spending money investing in research and private enterprises? If your argument was we should be careful and spend wisely, I agree. If it is every man for himself, I disagree.
Follow
Befriend (5)
74 threads
1,399 comments
Premium
rooemoore says
I get your point and I think that government will always be moderately involved in groundbreaking research - I just don't see how this applies to the many companies bailed out such as GM or Solyndra - or even worse the banks! Furthermore ventures like the NASA were always government programs/enterprises, so if you must spend money, please do on modern technologies, let the public participate in voting execs on/off and setting salaries and call it a government run enterprise. Don't bail out private companies and let them go back to business as usual. Also, set an initial investment limit and timeline for when results need to be in and if it doesn't happen, let it fail and give somebody else a chance and let the fruitful ideas separate themselves from the duds through competition.
Follow
Befriend
15 threads
3,075 comments
iwog says
They were fired ... because the early Vanguard failures.. a new team headed by Von Braun contracted and his rocket made it to the moon.
Unbelievable!
Follow
Befriend
15 threads
3,075 comments
iwog says
Solar has been around for some time... frankly wont go very far.. currently only 1% of current energy source.
Your better off sinking funds into well know sources like Nuclear all year round proven technology that actual works and has been providing 40% of current source of energy. Double the number of plants would get us close to 100%.
Solar is the Vanguard program.. while real success with Nuclear will be the Saturn project. You can contract today from well known profitable companies like GE and other without any need for R&D to create new plants.
This whole crap with Solar Start ups is pathic.. as with any start up.. no matter how much you sink you have only 10-15% chance of success.
Nuclear is far better course to follow.
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,646 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
thomaswong.1986 says
Totally 100% besides the point and absolutely meaningless in this discussion. YOUR assertion was that money 'wasted' on technology is never tolerated by the government and should result in the firing of everyone involved.
By your reasoning, everyone involved in NASA should be fired for the Apollo program. Why did you abandon your point to talk about Von Braun? It's totally irrelevant.
thomaswong.1986 says
1960: Space travel has been around for some time. Frankly we'll never get to the moon. We have a 0% success rate.
Your point was corrupt and instead of defending it, you throw out some new straw men. Shall we go back to what you said prior?
thomaswong.1986 says
You are dead wrong.
Follow
Befriend
15 threads
3,075 comments
iwog says
This is all about Govt funding, Depart of Energy...
nope... its better to forget solar and focus on getting nuclear plants on line ASAP.
... any money spent on R&D could go to upgrades to current older nuclear plants.
There are already plenty self funded mature viable large corporations with the knowhow and worker skill sets like GE, Westinghouse and others to get results done today.
Every dollar spent today will actually produce goods and services for the public.
Therefor, there is no risk in waste.
Pouring billions into some idiotic green agenda start ups by they Govt will only provide for failures and no real end products. Silicon Valley is littered with failures.
Fraud or Failure call it what you will..
Fired/laid off/terminated/bankrupted as we have seen.
Let the private investor, who can accept losses, fund these solar companies.
Follow
Befriend
41 threads
915 comments
Larkspur, CA
thomaswong.1986 says
What do you think about pouring billions into Halliburtion? $45 for a case of soda? Since it happened under Bush, I'm sure you're cool with it.
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,646 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
thomaswong.1986 says
Gotcha. So let me see if I have your new position straight:
The government should NOT be in the business of promoting solar energy technology but the government SHOULD be in the business of promoting nuclear energy.
Because..........you say so and anyone who believes solar is a better alternative is an idiot.
thomaswong.1986 says
The point of this thread is 92% of the corporations given government money did not go bankrupt. So why pray tell did you say this?
thomaswong.1986 says
Should we let someone like Romney decide where to spend research money? A man with a 22% failure rate?
Follow
Befriend
15 threads
3,075 comments
rooemoore says
You have a GAO report for that ?
July 22, 2004 in Nation/World
Army botched Halliburton contract, GAO says
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2004/jul/22/army-botched-halliburton-contract-gao-says/
Follow
Befriend
15 threads
3,075 comments
iwog says
They are investing in start ups that do Solar... BAD IDEA!
Especially in Silicon valley .. the failure rate is over 80%
which results in getting nothing.. a complete waste ....
Follow
Befriend
15 threads
3,075 comments
iwog says
Its the investors money.. those who can tolerate losing 5-10m each...
its not the govt business to lose money if that is going to happen.
Follow
Befriend
15 threads
3,075 comments
you want a dependable source of energy.. get a nuclear plant.. no R&D needed.
want to gamble on some dream... keep gambling taxpayer money on some start ups R&D expenses which will most likely fail ....
so easy to see but .. the lefties are so blinded!
Follow
Befriend
15 threads
3,075 comments
iwog says
Patrick Moore (born 1947) is a former environmental activist, known as one of the early members of Greenpeace, in which he was an activist from 1971 to 1986.
Moore was opposed to nuclear power in the 1970s when he "believed that nuclear energy was synonymous with nuclear holocaust"and "everything nuclear was evil", but has since come to support it,as have other environmentalists, e.g. James Lovelock, Stewart Brand and Hugh Montefiore.
Moore is supported by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), a national organization of pro-nuclear industries and in 2009 he chaired their Clean and Safe Energy Coalition. As chair, he suggested that the mainstream media and the environmentalist movement is not as opposed to nuclear energy as in decades past.
He argues that any realistic plan to reduce reliance on fossil fuels or greenhouse gas emissions would require increased use of nuclear energy to supply base load power.
He has also criticized the costs and reliability of wind farms.
Follow
Befriend
636 comments
thomaswong.1986 says
There's just one huge problem with your keyboard-cowboy theory, real world physicists and R&D people that are trying to implement or streamline energy use don't agree with you, and that would include a lot of Europe, except maybe France.
Go check out Amory Lovins at the Rocky Mountain Institute because he actually does know what he's talking about, you could learn a few things.
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,646 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
I was betting that no right wingers had the guts to address Obama's investment record versus Romney's record and I was right.
Considering how many times I've heard "The country needs a good businessman running things!" this is a pathetic result and shows how empty the Republican position is.
The point of what government's role should be is a separate issue.
Follow
Befriend (12)
10 threads
3,518 comments
Oakland, CA
leo707's website
Premium
CaptainShuddup says
Ah, and there is the rub. Is intelligent investing making money or helping companies to be successful?
Some of Romney's "failures" have had some of his best returns on investment.
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,646 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
leo707 says
Absolutely correct. One of Romney's favorite tactics was to borrow millions of dollars on corporate credit while the ship was sinking, pay himself huge consulting fees, and screw lenders.
Republicans don't care or they don't believe it's true. Either way, they are extremely reckless with their votes.
Follow
Befriend
15 threads
3,075 comments
iwog says
there is no need to point to the right wingers for that .... you will most likely find people even in the Democratic party that would gladly do away with liberal agenda.
Clearly the Dems fame hero, Steve Jobs, is really a right wing fascist racists...
Steve Jobs Biography Reveals He Told Obama, 'You're Headed For A One-Term Presidency'
When he finally relented and they met at the Westin San Francisco Airport, Jobs was characteristically blunt. He seemed to have transformed from a liberal into a conservative.
"You're headed for a one-term presidency," he told Obama at the start of their meeting, insisting that the administration needed to be more business-friendly.
As an example, Jobs described the ease with which companies can build factories in China compared to the United States, where "regulations and unnecessary costs" make it difficult for them.
Jobs also criticized America's education system, saying it was "crippled by union work rules," noted Isaacson. "Until the teachers' unions were broken, there was almost no hope for education reform."
Jobs proposed allowing principals to hire and fire teachers based on merit, that schools stay open until 6 p.m. and that they be open 11 months a year.
Follow
Befriend
15 threads
3,075 comments
thomaswong.1986 says
what a demented looney crazy right wing agenda... the horror of it all !
Follow
Befriend
15 threads
3,075 comments
iwog says
ah... you mean take long term debt to purchase manufacturing equipment and modernize the company in order to compete ... Finance 101.. you should know it if you had a decent education ...
Follow
Befriend
15 threads
3,075 comments
upisdown says
Im a business guy... show me the best way to spend todays dollar to create energy today ASAP so the nation doesnt depend on oil from foreign nations..
And I dont want to hear about your green agenda..
Follow
Befriend
636 comments
thomaswong.1986 says
Apparently you didn't look into the Rocky Mountain Istitute, did you? And, just how long does it take to get approval and to build a nuke plant? FYI, the nuclear industry for energy generation while good and consistent, it's not the answer that you're looking for if you want it ASAP.
Solar thermal and concentrated solar are where it's at, not PV. Go check out the RMI and watch some of the presentations and they've studied and analyzed the various areas to make logical conclusions. And, quite a few private and public entities seek their consultation to implement their ideas too.
Follow
Befriend
6 threads
263 comments
San Francisco, CA
iwog says
Could you provide link to source data indicating 92% success rate for DOE grants?
Is the following assumption correct:
Total DOE Grants =
investments into new/existing companies +
funds given to universities for various studies
Follow
Befriend (48)
274 threads
12,646 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
nosf41 says
No.
http://money.cnn.com/2012/10/22/news/economy/obama-energy-bankruptcies/index.html
None of the money was for university grants. They were all loans through the DOE loan guarantee program. Grants for pure research are not loans.
The pertinent fact here is that Obama took a shit storm of criticism for the 8% failure rate when Romney's failure rate is 22%.