Sad that there are more people searching for the latest "dancing baby video" on YouTube that learning the truth about Obummer and his corrupt administration's Green energy swindle.
Labour Charter of 1927, the Grand Council of Fascism, article 7: "The corporative State considers private initiative, in the field of production, as the most efficient and useful instrument of the Nation", article 9: "State intervention in economic production may take place only where private initiative is lacking or is insufficient, or when are at stakes the political interest of the State. This intervention may take the form of control, encouragement or direct management."
of course it always works in the interest of those who funded the election campaigns.... that's the problem if these campaigns are so expensive...someone has to fund them and his requests will be granted afterwards :)
Isn't the Obama Regime just awful? that would be like having an organization that uses a generic and official sounding name that and pretends to send unbiased information even though they personally have received almost HALF A MILLION US DOLLARS from KOSH and EXXONMOBIL. I wonder how you sleep at night knowing how you say that Obama is slimey for being friends with green companies while you are totally perfect, even though you are payed by big oil himself.
@11111110 No tears for the oil industry, but you claimed they got subsidies to drill for oil and gas. You were wrong. You claimed Billionaire George Kaiser had nothing to do with Solyndra, never talked to the White House, never discussed it. You were wrong, again.
"you claimed they got subsidies to drill for oil and gas. You were wrong."
I linked you, twice, to a list of oil and gas subsidies cited by the Texas state government. You refused to read it, I understand that But now you're pretending they don't exist, even when I left the information there staring you right in the face. If you're going to live in your own fantasy world, then how do I communicate with you?
I can see how you missed the part about subsidies, considering the page only directly mentioned "subsidies" two hundred and forty-three times. Are you telling me this whole time the Texas state government has been operating without even knowing what a subsidy is? That, even though they claim to be spending billions on gas and oil subsidies, they're really not? Am I to take your word over theirs?
Are you telling me this whole time the Texas state government has been operating without even knowing what a subsidy is? That, even though they claim to be spending billions on gas and oil subsidies, they're really not? Am I to take your word over theirs?
"You claimed Billionaire George Kaiser had nothing to do with Solyndra, never talked to the White House, never discussed it. You were wrong, again."
Again, you're resorting to plain making stuff up in order to win an argument. Quote me on where I claimed any of those things- you can't, because it never happened. They're blatantly false statements, so its unlikely that I would say those things.
@11111110 99%, how about 100% were paying record low prices. 99%, funny. The OWS crowd are a bunch of losers representing the lower 2-3%, not the 99%. Rapists, drug abusers and anarchists are the Obama crowd, glad he owns OWS, since they are nothing but bums.
I though the 99% were pushing for tax hikes, big government regulations, and outright communism. Now they're anarchists? It seems to change every week. By the way, look at the demographics of the two groups:
tinyurl(dot)com/c96fmxx
The average income among the OWS lies well above the bottom 2-3%. Also they're more likely to be employed than the average tea party protester.
@11111110 Yes, Anarchists are among the 99%, where in the hell have you been? If they are employed, what are they doing out there everyday and night. You gotta be a moron to support that trash. If you want the America they want, then you are as stupid as they are. Those idiots complaining about Capitalism are too stupid to realize it is capitalism that pays for the park they are loitering in. I say it is time to tell em' go home to mommy and daddy.
My my, how upset you seem to be. Anyway if you've actually looked at the whole makeup of the protesters, there is a small core of dedicated protesters that camp out night after night, but the majority of them are there for just a day or two. They've been going in and out.
@11111110 Fucking little pixie.... I call you names because all you do is play on the computer and watch tv, you a fucking shut-in that gets my tax money? Get a fucking life you leftist money mooching little prick....
@11111110 Get a job while you are at it.... All you do is complain about people who actually work for a living. You probably think those moochers who Occupy Wall Street are great folks... They aren't, they are trash like you.... Do something with your life instead of trolling the internet whining about those who actually work for a living...
Given that there are so many retirees making up the Tea Party, I'd wager they're also more likely to collect medicare/medicaid and social security checks. Who are the socialists again?
@11111110 Tea Party less employed than OWS, funny. Tea Party has to go to work, your bums have occupied.... Tea Party protests without incidents while OWS is nothing more than rabble. You are funny....
I can't help but notice a pattern here. You typically espouse a factually false statement, I post the data that disproves it, and you ignore it and keep repeating the lie to yourself.
Fact is, OWS protesters are more likely to be employed. More retirees make up the Tea Parties. Retirees, as in, people who don't work and collect government handouts. You know, the type of people you hate. Unemployed moochers
Natural gas is the bridge fuel until we actually get technology that can compete economically. China builds the hell out of solar crap, why? Because they sell it to us and other dimwitted countries. All the while, they continue to open a coal fired electrical plant every week. Do you comprehend this? They are going for the cheap electricity, not expensive. They even import coal to do this. Solar is a scam, pure and simple, a feel good for economic idiots.
Yes, coal is so much cheaper, especially in China where the environmental regulations are next to nonexistent. Sure, the air is barely breathable and health standards are abysmal, but at least their electric bill is low.
Six people don't understand that solar power is only good for powering cheap calculators--solar just doesn't scale well. Nor do they understand that after 60+ years and hundreds of billions of dollars worth of R&D if they haven't had any major breakthroughs yet, then there is a good chance that: A.) There is nothing to breakthrough...we got what we could out of the technology or B.) The breakthrough will come when other technologies have advanced to the point that it occurs "naturally."
If you voted for this administration in 2008 I'm willing to say you were just duped by distracting bright objects, glitter, promises of hope & change & just plain
ignorance. If you vote for it again in 2012 then you really are just plain stupid.
Solyndra made up 1% of the money coming out of Energy department's loan-guarantee program. Common sense, to me, would say that it would be pretty premature to determine the fate of the other 99% based on that. Which is beside the point, as they have the assets to pay off the loan anyway.
So what about the other 40 projects to receive loans?
@11111110 You mean companies like Lightsquared and Sunpower? Tip of the iceberg. What it boils down to is the heads of these fiascos all are big donors to obama. It is becoming a "donate to Obama and rape the taxpayers" scandal.
@11111110 No they weren't. Solyndra was turned down. BTW, the loans were actually made under Obama, who made a big deal out of visiting some of these plants. I guess that was all Bush's fault he did that. Yeah, Bush made him brag about those loans...
But you still didn't answer my question. Since the Obama administration's support for Solyndra is evidence that some vague bribe took place, then does the Bush administration's support indicate that they too were bribed?
@11111110 nah, he just loans them money... George Kaiser is up to his eyeballs on thiss one. George Kaiser would not waste his time going there if it weren't for business. The guy even has a desk in a van to work while going back and forth to his bank in OKC. Bush didn't support it.... they denied the loan. good try...
George Bush authorized the Dept of Energy to issue loans to green companies and alternative energy projects when he signed the energy policy act of 2005. Following that, the Bush administration received 134 preliminary applications for the loan program in 2007, and they had approved only 16- one of them being Solyndra's. In 2008 they solicited the companies to file full applications, of which Solyndra's was reviewed and again approved for a hearing scheduled in 2009
@11111110 I repeat, the loan was never made under Bush. Approved for a hearing in 2009? Bush was not President in 2009. An application is not an approval.... good try, but typical of Obama supporters, try blaming it Bush..
Everything I stated is a matter of public record. And yes, the Bush admin did approve of Solyndra's loan application. Both times. Honestly, the lengths you are going through to defend the previous administration is making you look bad.
And no, pointing out "that these loans were initially signed off by the previous administration" is not a defense of the Obama administration.
@11111110 Gee, if it was approved during the bush administration, why wasn't it funded? trying to say George Kaiser wasn't involved in the Solyndra is making you look plain stupid.
Do you mean to ask why the loan money wasn't physically handed off during the Bush administration? Because of term limits, the approval process for every company applying to the program takes several years, and Bush's second term expired partway.
@11111110 no, something approved is already in the pipeline. Show me the actual documentation, not some leftist blowhard site. If what you say is true, those documents would have been released. If it were Bush approved, as you say, then Obama wouldn't have picked Solyndra to show off.
@11111110 in fact, it was believed to be George Kaiser that got them to change the pecking order in case of bankruptcy. For the first time in history, private loans were placed ahead of taxpayers in bankruptcy court.
@11111110 Funny thing, George Kaiser gets paid back before the taxpayers, first time in history. Nah, George had nothing to do with this, it just turned out that way... Wake up..
George Kaiser can't get "paid back" since he was never one of Solyndra's investors in the first place. It's difficult to become one of the richest people in America like he did by making bad investments.
@11111110 the Kaiser Family Foundation, which is an arm of George Kaiser, one of many I arms I will add, invested in Solyndra. If you canno find that on the net, you are really in trouble.
Partially true- George Kaiser obviously co-founded the organization. And the foundation invested in Solyndra. But it is not his "arm", he doesn't even have a position on the board of directors, and the foundation gets its funds from the Tulsa Community Foundation- of which George Kaiser also co-founded! But he holds no position in that foundation either and hasn't been listed as a trustee since 1998.
I believe what the facts and evidence say. What you believe is a scenario played out in your head that runs contrary to that aforementioned evidence.
Really, check the foundations' websites yourself. They list their staff members and trustees, like they're required to do. Next you'll tell me that they scrubbed all mention of George in the past week or so.
@11111110 uh? Why would George Kaiser visit the white house so many times in the weeks leading up to the loan. Use your Brain instead of your ideology...
Well, if you don't know the answer for certain, then it MUST be the one particular scenario you've dreamed up! Now you're following the logic of a conspiracy theorist- they point to any gaps of information as proof, PROOF, that the gaps are filled with the nefarious going-ons that they've been preaching.
Though I'm looking at the whitehouse logbook, Kaiser actually visited 17 times over the span of 18 months.
@11111110 You have trouble putting 2+2 together, don't you. I suppose you would have taken the path that Nixon did and saying he did not make recordings.... Uh, I know George Kaiser to be a crook, Google George Kaiser and natural gas lawsuits. 17 times?, better look again, what is the difference 17 or 20? How many times after the loan was awarded? Boy, the depths the left will sink to support their own crooks....
The difference between 17 and 20 is 3. Ironic that you would point me out as having "trouble putting 2+2 together", as its really not that much different than putting 20-17 together.
But since you ask, George Kaiser visited 7 times after the date of the loan (September 4th 2009). You really ought to read that logbook *before* harping about it.
@11111110 Funny, there are alsp reports of 20, but 17 is fine. Kinda' close with the white house huh? I can't wait to see him testify.... By the way, where do you get the log book? I'd like to see visitations from all those democrat bundlers who got government loans.... Nice payback... Again, tell me which of those green companies is viable and can compete in the market place and won't leave the taxpayer with zilch....
@11111110 Wow, found the log book. Kinda' slow, like Obama's presidency. It is kinda' fucked up. Never could get to the K's. you must be a magician. Anyway, I'll take your word for it. George Kaiser wouldn't give Obama the time of day if he weren't gonna make money off him. 17 times, gosh damn, he has definitely raped the taxpayer. You don't know George Kaiser, we in Oklahoma do. type in "George Kaiser lawsuits" .
The logbook was set up on the white house's website in 2009 order to fulfill a campaign promise. It's updated every 30-90 days, and it has a search function. You can search by name or date or any other metric. I typed in "Kaiser George" and got all 17 entries.
I admit, its a pretty odd way of covering up all those nefarious going-ons.
@11111110 I typed in Kaiser and was returned to the A's, but I believe you. 17 visits and those after. Hey Beaco Power, Obama supporters. To be fare however, none of the solar or wind companies are actually commercial in the long run. If you had physics in college, you would know this... they are scams played upon the less educated....
No, it was 10 visits prior to the loan and 7 after, the most recent visit being June of this year.
And do you remember why Solyndra went out of business? Because in the span of a year, their sales of solar panels were torpedoed by cheaper ones now coming from China. And you're arguing that solar panels aren't viable on the market because Solyndra's panels were outsold by...better solar panels. As I recall, declining manufacturing costs are a good thing.
@11111110 Then were there 4 visits in the week or two leading up to the loan since you have so masterfully mastered that list? Solyndra never had a chance, they were broke before they even got the loan. If Solar is viable, why does is need direct government backing? Face it, it cannot compete and if you think they can you are plain ignorant of economics. did you even read the APS story? Everyone of those government guarantees will eventually go bad. Are you that daff?
No sure, the fact that 0.5% of the loaned money is in jeopardy is reason enough to believe that the other 99.5% of it will vanish. If I don't agree with your wild baseless conclusions, I'll get called daff. I don't want that!
Though if oil and natural gas are viable, then why do they get direct government backing? If automobiles are a viable technology, then why do some car companies get government backing? If the concept of banks are viable, then why..etc etc
@11111110 that is just it, the government has no business financing private enterprises and picking companies that are supporters of the president. BTW, show me one government program where the government backed loans to any oil company to drill for oil and gas...
It's not a single government progam or subsidy that grants oil companies $5 billion a year in addition to the $36 billion they made in the first three months of this year alone. There are dozens of them.
But like you said, if the industry needs tax subsidies, then it must be because the industry can't survive on its own. And since some automobile companies got huge government loans, then logic would follow that the automobile is not a commercially viable technology, right?
@11111110 Ah, in other words you could not find any programs that gave government backed loans as you claimed. Show me a tax subsidy, there are none. We get the same tax treatment as any mining company gets. Again, your ideology is seething through. Show me the subsidies they get. BTW, they are one of the heaviest taxed industries in the country.
@11111110 List them here. I want to see all of those subsidies. Do you know what a subsidy actually is? Look it up in a dictionary first, not some leftist website.
Leftist website? It's the Texas state government's website, I linked you to a report from the comptroller's office. Are you insisting that TEXAS is now participating in some anti-oil agenda, or did you just not read it?
@11111110 Well, they are wrong, yes, if they are telling you it takes 5-10 years to bring on fuel supplies they are fucking stupid. It takes 5-10 years to bring on offshore fields, maybe that is what you read, but onshore takes little time...
Oil companies are currently the most profitable institutions on the globe. Last year was a record for Exxon, not only because it was the most profitable year in the company's history, but because it was also the most profitable year for any company in human history. Somehow, I think they'll do just fine.
@11111110 uh, that is because prices are high, what about 1997 or 2000, how profitable were they then? Morons such as yourself like to assume that when prices are high, they are rich, but you ignore the bad times.... Typical leftist dribble...
No, I assume ExxonMobil is rich because they occupy 8 out of the 10 largest corporate quarterly earnings of all time. I assume they were profitable in 1997 because it was another record year for earnings, and because 1998 was the year Exxon and Mobil merged to become the largest company on the planet
Section 199, also known as the Qualified Production Activities Income. Passed in 2004, the GOP leadership decided to hand out a bouquet of targeted tax breaks. The result was one of the greatest lobbying free-for-alls in American history. One element of the law was a top rate of about 32%, and the subsequent decision to expand the definition of "manufacturing" to its breaking point, so as to include any industry with sufficient lobbying clout, the oil industry included.
@11111110 Uh, You don't know what a subsidy is do you. You need to go to your dictionary, none of what you listed is a subsidy. BTW look up by industry who pays what in taxes. Not just Federal, but State too. Start with Oklahoma's Gross Production Tax, 7% off the top, at the wellhead. Imagine if 7% of all the Solar went straight to the State. that is just the beginning.....
@11111110 You might google "How Exxon paid paid zero income tax in 2009" and read the first thing that comes up. Maybe you can grasp the reasons, maybe not.... Btw, 1997 was not a good year for the oil industry. Major oil companies are worldwide companies and most of their business is outside the USA. Now please tell me of all those subsidies the oil industry gets for drilling wells. Do you know what a subsidy actually is?
April 22, 1997- "Exxon Corp. said its first-quarter earnings were the highest of any quarter in its history, climbing 24 percent on increased crude oil and natural gas prices."
@11111110 dumb ass, that was for 96 prices, prices cratered in 1997. google "historical crude prices, read it and weep. If you want the correct profits for 97, look at 98 data.
Hey, you said it was 1997 that was not a good year. If you want to move goalposts, you gotta let me know ahead of time. I can't read your mind ahead of time to find out that NOW you mean 1998.
The data is murky due to the Exxon-Mobil merger, but Exxon alone made $6.37 billion in 1998. I'm playing the world's tiniest violin for them.
@11111110 What is your problem with oil companies making profits overseas? Profits are a damn good thing. Maybe you like bankrupt companies, maybe going broke makes you feel good.
I never said profits were bad, I'm just citing them to demonstrate that oil companies are doing just fine. Better than fine, they're doing better than any other industry on this planet. The idea that they can barely break even underneath all this taxation and regulation is laughable.
@11111110 You checked April 1997, which would have been results for 1996 prices. You have trouble understanding this? BTW, being naive makes you look silly. Turns out George Kaiser is up to his neck in communicating with the White House over Solyndra. You might want to catch up on the latest scandal. I know you believed them when they claimed it was never discussed but e-mails prove otherwise.. Naive, aren't you...
If you can link to any specific emails or articles, I'll read them. But as far as I've read, the only time George Kaiser talked to white house officials about Solyndra was around March 5, 2010- which yet again is long AFTER the loan was made (September 4th 2009)
@11111110 uh, maybe you don't realize the white house won't release the earlier stuff, hence the subpoena. You are going down just like the Nixon supporters.
I take it you're walking back the "George Kaiser is up to his neck in communicating with the White House over Solyndra" claim? Your only evidence being one cited conversation taking place months after the loan was made?
@11111110 Uh, to begin with you said Kaiser had no communication with the White House. Months after? When the White house releases earlier documents, you'll regret being their stooge. You remind me of the Nixon supporters, stupid and blind to facts....
And again, you're wrong. I never ever said that in any of my posts. Re-read them. On the subject, what I actually said was George Kaiser visited the white house 17 times. Which, to me, doesn't sound like the near-opposite of "George Kaiser never communicated with the white house."
@11111110 Looks like Ener1 is your next company to make excuses for. Gee, all that money just wasted. Now tell me, which one of the 30 companies that received loan guarantees will make it.
You keep repeating this, even though its been pointed out, in the gentlest terms, over and over again that the government did not issue any loans without secure backing. Every news article on the subject cites their assets and remaining collateral as being enough to cover their loan, as they were required to. By law. Do you believe those reports to be an elaborate fantasy?
@11111110 Gee, now the government gets their collateral. What makes you think their collateral will be sold for what we have in it. Kinda' naive. BTW, required by law? What happened to Solyndra?
@11111110 You claimed it was the law they had to have collateral to back the loan. Solyndra does not have the collateral to pay back the loan. BTW did you ever find those government backed loans for oil and gas exploration you claimed they got?
Solyndra, if you've actually read about it, has several hundred million in remaining funds. Plus everything they're get from the bankruptcy, plus the manufacturing plant, plus the value of the company patents.
@11111110 Several hundred million? The manufacturing plant is pretty much worthless, except to someone else who wants to make those non-commercial solar whatevers. Patents? Funny. The Solar companies are going down faster than a cheap hooker.
@11111110 Still looking for all those government backed loans for oil companies to drill for oil and gas? don't think you'll find them, as that is a viable energy source and private financing is there. Not so for solar. Not commercial.
@11111110 I pity you. You actually believe solar is a commercial and viable alternative. Every time the price of natural gas goes up, the solar crowd starts these solar scams and people lose their asses because the price of gas falls. I have news for you. The price of natural gas is gonna stay low, low, low for decades. shale gas is very abundant and we've just scratched the surface. If I were you, I wouldn't be investing in solar or you will end up like chumps from previous scams.
Well no, the price of oil is influence largely by demand and speculation. The fact that oil prices took a dive in 2008 along with the economy is no coincidence. More Americans were broke, hence Americans drove less, hence the demand for gas lowered- along with the cost per gallon.
Though it seems counter-intuitive, the most effective way to drive down gas prices is for the country to use less gas.
@11111110 Do you know the difference between gas and natural gas??? Spoken like a true leftist and one who does not comprehend markets. The most effective way to ensure price stability and low prices is to have a secure and plentiful supply. Destroying an economy is no way to keep prices low, that is a leftists way (use less gasoline, keep the economy in the pits). Natural gas is a success story, which we now and for the foreseeable future have a tremendous supply, with low prices.
Sorry, but even if we were to begin new fossil fuel drilling initiatives in and around America, it would be 5-10 years before an ounce of it got into our domestic supply, and 20 years before it affected gas prices. Even then, it would only impact the price by a nickel at most. That's according to a study by the dept of energy- under the Bush administration.
@11111110 I don't know where you got the idea it takes 5-10 years to bring on more fuel supplies, probably a leftist site, but it takes a matter of months. Impact the price by a nickel you say? Natural gas is gonna be less than $4.50 for the foreseeable future. Energy Department, ie Jimmy Carter? They told us we were running out of gas in the 1970's or are you old enough to know this? They don't know dick about Energy....
Next I expect you to insist that every expert quoted is also part of a liberal conspiracy. Take a look, by the oil industry's own optimistic estimates, if ALL federal land went open season for oil drilling, they'd be able to procure an extra 2.8 million barrels of oil a day by 2025. Meanwhile, the world currently consumes 80 million barrels a day, and it will be far higher by 2025. It's accurate to call it a "drop in the bucket"
@11111110 All Federal lands? You have no fucking idea and neither do they. 20 years ago, the Bakken shale was given little potential, now it is a huge field. Careful what you read, especially since you know nothing about the industry... By the way, 2.5 million barrels a day is a lot of oil moron...
Really now? The oil companies themselves have "no fucking idea" about oil production, but you do?
And on a national scale, 2.5 million barrels is not a lot, it is a 2% increase in daily production. If it has any impact on gas prices at all, they will lower by 5 cents per gallon, 15 years from now. AT BEST.
@11111110 uh, you are talking about people guessing..... On a national scale 2.5 million barrels is quite a bit of oil, you moron.... You really are a fucking idiot with no idea what you are talking about. 2.5 million barrels = $1/4 Billion per day you fucking idiot. How fucking stupid are you? Gosh Damn. You sound as stupid as Obama...
@11111110 uh, 2.5 million barrels is a lot of oil pinhead. Those number by the API are only estimates and estimates only you idiot. Tell me, how much oil did the API estimate ten years ago the Bakken shale would be producing today? Smart-ass, go find it...
@11111110 Uh, just what out of API are you referring to, the 2.5 million barrels or what? If you think 2.5 mmbopd isn't much oil, you need your head examined. can you multiply 2.5 mmbopd x $100 per bo? Gosh damn you are stupid... nah, lets not produce it and just keep it in the ground and buy foreign oil. You are a fucking fool...
Here, the API is quoted for their estimate, and even they won't try and claim that more drilling will significantly reduce gas prices. 2.5 million barrels per day seems like a lot, but put it into context. It's a 2% increase in supply. Increasing supply of *anything* by 2% won't significantly lower prices.
A ton of food also seems like a lot, but not when you have an entire nation to feed
@11111110 You are fucked up funny thinking 2.5 mmbo isn't significant. Do the math moron. At $100 per bo that is .25 BILLION dollars per day or $90 Billion per year. are this fucking stupid? Gosh damn man, grow a fucking brain.
Yes, oil is profitable. If the oil companies sold that much oil for $100 a barrel, they would INDEED make a lot of money. What is your point? It's still a 2% increase in supply. Increasing supply of *anything* by 2% won't significantly drive down their price
@11111110 A 2% increase in supply is substantial, you just don't know enough about the business to understand how substantial it is. I suppose you would rather import more from the middle east and venezuela and give them the $90 Billion per year. What is your problem with keeping the $90 Billion here and supplying high paying jobs to people who need them? By the way, that 2% increase is about a trillion dollars in 11 years you'd be giving away.
For some reason, I tend to assume that the API knows more about the oil business than you do. If the API itself doesn't believe that a 2% (at best) increase in production will drive down gas prices, then why should I take your word over theirs?
Really? A moment ago you were insisting the API doesn't know what they're talking about. Now they're a reliable source? Anyway, I posted a link to an API estimate, it'd be nice if you did the same. You know, once you decide whether or not you trust them.
Explain to me again why I should take your word about oil production over the American Petroleum Institute? Promoting the oil industry is only their ENTIRE reason for existence.
@11111110 Better yet, to cut through the solyndra scandal, try Kaiser-Francis Lawsuits, his n0t so green oil company. He stole millions from mineral owners, until he got caught.....
@11111110 Every single solar investment will go bad. the difference between you and me, i understand economics, you follow ideology. No solar or wind farm is commercial without massive subsidies.... i take it you never took an college economics course, like Obama, am I right? Gosh, we will never know about Obama, the transparency president had his college records sealed... Funny...
@11111110 This is funny, especially since you like facts. Kaiser has visited the white house about 20 times since 2009. 4 meetings in the week leading up to the loan. How many times since the awarding of the loan? None. He will be called to testify about these meetings and so will those who attended the meetings. You have no idea what you are spouting, but George Kaiser doesn't go to washington to sleep in the Lincoln bedroom, his time is worth too much.
@11111110 Time to take some responsibility and you'd think that after almost 3 years as President, Obama would take a bit, but no, it is Bush's fault.
@11111110 Maybe you forgot your post trying to tie Solyndra to Bush. Bush folks turned em' down, Obama lifted it from the ashes and made it his. lock stock and barrel.
No, I remember posting that the Bush administration approved of both of Solyndra's loan applications, because that's what actually happened. They never turned them down, or issued any formal rejection, as much as you might wish it so.
Still, for some reason you hear that fact and assume that it's somehow a defense of the Obama administration. Hey, have you considered the obvious conclusion that both administrations are guilty?
@11111110 did any money exchange hands under the Bush administration? No. Obama was their man, Obama bragged about Solyndra.... BTW, Beacon, another Obama disaster just went broke. i take it you aren't into economics. Everyone of those loans are going under. Like Obama, you have taken no economics courses, understand this, natural gas even undercuts coal.....
Sad that there are more people searching for the latest "dancing baby video" on YouTube that learning the truth about Obummer and his corrupt administration's Green energy swindle.
GiacomoKnox 3 days ago
Can't plan centrally plan economic prosperity?
Somebody fucking better, climate change/peak oil
is gonna eat your fucking lunch and make you feel
really fucking stupid when you realize that all the
rich were just in it for them and you'll want to kill them.
Centrally plan prosperity?? THAT'S WHAT THE RICH
HAVE BEEN DOING, but the only prosperity they're
planning is for THEMSELVES!! We need somebody to
centrally kick their fucking asses and take back
everything they've stolen from us!!
rstevewarmorycom 1 week ago
Solyndra playbook
Labour Charter of 1927, the Grand Council of Fascism, article 7: "The corporative State considers private initiative, in the field of production, as the most efficient and useful instrument of the Nation", article 9: "State intervention in economic production may take place only where private initiative is lacking or is insufficient, or when are at stakes the political interest of the State. This intervention may take the form of control, encouragement or direct management."
BrainDeadRepublican 2 months ago in playlist Favorite videos
of course it always works in the interest of those who funded the election campaigns.... that's the problem if these campaigns are so expensive...someone has to fund them and his requests will be granted afterwards :)
senoner90 2 months ago
Isn't the Obama Regime just awful? that would be like having an organization that uses a generic and official sounding name that and pretends to send unbiased information even though they personally have received almost HALF A MILLION US DOLLARS from KOSH and EXXONMOBIL. I wonder how you sleep at night knowing how you say that Obama is slimey for being friends with green companies while you are totally perfect, even though you are payed by big oil himself.
Budviss 3 months ago
Comment removed
Budviss 3 months ago
1996 around $20, the cratering 1997 $18 1998 less than $12. Nice you can pick the good year though, wouldn't expect you pick a bad one....
hopeurforfreedom 3 months ago
@hopeurforfreedom
No, I checked the year you twice told me to check.
Of course, you may be shedding tears for oil companies, but in 1998 the other 99% of us were paying record-low prices for gas.
11111110 3 months ago
@11111110 No tears for the oil industry, but you claimed they got subsidies to drill for oil and gas. You were wrong. You claimed Billionaire George Kaiser had nothing to do with Solyndra, never talked to the White House, never discussed it. You were wrong, again.
hopeurforfreedom 3 months ago
@hopeurforfreedom
"you claimed they got subsidies to drill for oil and gas. You were wrong."
I linked you, twice, to a list of oil and gas subsidies cited by the Texas state government. You refused to read it, I understand that But now you're pretending they don't exist, even when I left the information there staring you right in the face. If you're going to live in your own fantasy world, then how do I communicate with you?
11111110 3 months ago
@11111110 Dumb ass, those are not subsidies. A subsidy is a direct payment. Texas does not give oil & gas producers money to drill with, you idiot.
hopeurforfreedom 3 months ago
@hopeurforfreedom
I can see how you missed the part about subsidies, considering the page only directly mentioned "subsidies" two hundred and forty-three times. Are you telling me this whole time the Texas state government has been operating without even knowing what a subsidy is? That, even though they claim to be spending billions on gas and oil subsidies, they're really not? Am I to take your word over theirs?
11111110 3 months ago
@11111110 Look up what the term subsidy means you fucking goof ball.....
hopeurforfreedom 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hopeurforfreedom
Ah, you forgot to answer my question:
Are you telling me this whole time the Texas state government has been operating without even knowing what a subsidy is? That, even though they claim to be spending billions on gas and oil subsidies, they're really not? Am I to take your word over theirs?
11111110 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hopeurforfreedom
"You claimed Billionaire George Kaiser had nothing to do with Solyndra, never talked to the White House, never discussed it. You were wrong, again."
Again, you're resorting to plain making stuff up in order to win an argument. Quote me on where I claimed any of those things- you can't, because it never happened. They're blatantly false statements, so its unlikely that I would say those things.
11111110 3 months ago
@11111110 99%, how about 100% were paying record low prices. 99%, funny. The OWS crowd are a bunch of losers representing the lower 2-3%, not the 99%. Rapists, drug abusers and anarchists are the Obama crowd, glad he owns OWS, since they are nothing but bums.
hopeurforfreedom 3 months ago
@hopeurforfreedom
I though the 99% were pushing for tax hikes, big government regulations, and outright communism. Now they're anarchists? It seems to change every week. By the way, look at the demographics of the two groups:
tinyurl(dot)com/c96fmxx
The average income among the OWS lies well above the bottom 2-3%. Also they're more likely to be employed than the average tea party protester.
11111110 3 months ago
@11111110 Yes, Anarchists are among the 99%, where in the hell have you been? If they are employed, what are they doing out there everyday and night. You gotta be a moron to support that trash. If you want the America they want, then you are as stupid as they are. Those idiots complaining about Capitalism are too stupid to realize it is capitalism that pays for the park they are loitering in. I say it is time to tell em' go home to mommy and daddy.
hopeurforfreedom 3 months ago
@hopeurforfreedom
My my, how upset you seem to be. Anyway if you've actually looked at the whole makeup of the protesters, there is a small core of dedicated protesters that camp out night after night, but the majority of them are there for just a day or two. They've been going in and out.
11111110 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@11111110 The protestors are made up of losers.... Grow up you fucking kid...
hopeurforfreedom 3 months ago
@hopeurforfreedom
Do you always fall back to obscenities and childish namecalling when corrected?
11111110 3 months ago
@11111110 Fucking little pixie.... I call you names because all you do is play on the computer and watch tv, you a fucking shut-in that gets my tax money? Get a fucking life you leftist money mooching little prick....
hopeurforfreedom 3 months ago
@hopeurforfreedom
I don't collect any government handouts. Sorry to disappoint.
11111110 3 months ago
@11111110 Get a job while you are at it.... All you do is complain about people who actually work for a living. You probably think those moochers who Occupy Wall Street are great folks... They aren't, they are trash like you.... Do something with your life instead of trolling the internet whining about those who actually work for a living...
hopeurforfreedom 3 months ago
@hopeurforfreedom
Actually, the average OWS supporter is more likely to be employed than the average Tea Party supporter:
dangerousminds(dot)net/images/uploads/afiles/OWSvsTeaParty(dot)jpg
Given that there are so many retirees making up the Tea Party, I'd wager they're also more likely to collect medicare/medicaid and social security checks. Who are the socialists again?
11111110 3 months ago
@11111110 Tea Party less employed than OWS, funny. Tea Party has to go to work, your bums have occupied.... Tea Party protests without incidents while OWS is nothing more than rabble. You are funny....
hopeurforfreedom 3 months ago
@hopeurforfreedom
I can't help but notice a pattern here. You typically espouse a factually false statement, I post the data that disproves it, and you ignore it and keep repeating the lie to yourself.
Fact is, OWS protesters are more likely to be employed. More retirees make up the Tea Parties. Retirees, as in, people who don't work and collect government handouts. You know, the type of people you hate. Unemployed moochers
11111110 2 months ago
@11111110 Kinda stupid, aren't you? OWS has little support, except from idiots....
hopeurforfreedom 2 months ago
@hopeurforfreedom
Actually, every poll on the subject shows that OWS is more widely-supported by Americans than the tea parties
11111110 2 months ago
@11111110 Moron, I'm not a Tea Party person.... Look at API estimates yourself. American oil production is up, not declining anymore.
hopeurforfreedom 2 months ago
@11111110 OWS, losers, you idiot. I'm not a Tea Party guy, dumb ass.
hopeurforfreedom 2 months ago
@hopeurforfreedom
That's nice. I never said you were...?
11111110 2 months ago
@11111110 BTW reduce your stupid posts to two or three.
hopeurforfreedom 3 months ago
@hopeurforfreedom
If your post didn't contain outright factual inaccuracies, I wouldn't have to
11111110 3 months ago
@11111110 Try to keep your posts to two or three you idiot. i am tired of responding to an ingrate....
hopeurforfreedom 3 months ago
@hopeurforfreedom
Then stop lying. It's not hard.
11111110 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@11111110 Where have I lied?
hopeurforfreedom 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hopeurforfreedom
Your quote- "You claimed Billionaire George Kaiser had nothing to do with Solyndra, never talked to the White House, never discussed it."
11111110 3 months ago
Natural gas is the bridge fuel until we actually get technology that can compete economically. China builds the hell out of solar crap, why? Because they sell it to us and other dimwitted countries. All the while, they continue to open a coal fired electrical plant every week. Do you comprehend this? They are going for the cheap electricity, not expensive. They even import coal to do this. Solar is a scam, pure and simple, a feel good for economic idiots.
hopeurforfreedom 3 months ago
@hopeurforfreedom
Yes, coal is so much cheaper, especially in China where the environmental regulations are next to nonexistent. Sure, the air is barely breathable and health standards are abysmal, but at least their electric bill is low.
11111110 3 months ago
zexcuuuse me, fare? how about fair? sometimes I type faster than my brain.....
hopeurforfreedom 4 months ago
Six people don't understand that solar power is only good for powering cheap calculators--solar just doesn't scale well. Nor do they understand that after 60+ years and hundreds of billions of dollars worth of R&D if they haven't had any major breakthroughs yet, then there is a good chance that: A.) There is nothing to breakthrough...we got what we could out of the technology or B.) The breakthrough will come when other technologies have advanced to the point that it occurs "naturally."
meangenedrlove 4 months ago
Comment removed
meangenedrlove 4 months ago
If you voted for this administration in 2008 I'm willing to say you were just duped by distracting bright objects, glitter, promises of hope & change & just plain
ignorance. If you vote for it again in 2012 then you really are just plain stupid.
YManCyberDude 4 months ago
@YManCyberDude That was well said...
hopeurforfreedom 4 months ago
@hopeurforfreedom … Thanks !
YManCyberDude 4 months ago
If there is a hell there are going to be some people there answering for this mess...
YManCyberDude 4 months ago
everyone knows this is 'all George Bushs fault'.
letzteschlact2 4 months ago
Obamafascists have been planning this for decades. They engineered the financial crash so that Solyndra would go bankrupt
VvAnarchangelvV 4 months ago
Solyndra made up 1% of the money coming out of Energy department's loan-guarantee program. Common sense, to me, would say that it would be pretty premature to determine the fate of the other 99% based on that. Which is beside the point, as they have the assets to pay off the loan anyway.
So what about the other 40 projects to receive loans?
11111110 4 months ago
@11111110 You mean companies like Lightsquared and Sunpower? Tip of the iceberg. What it boils down to is the heads of these fiascos all are big donors to obama. It is becoming a "donate to Obama and rape the taxpayers" scandal.
hopeurforfreedom 4 months ago
@hopeurforfreedom
Yes, the (complete absence of) tax hikes from this administration are totally comparable to rape.
Also, you are aware that these loans were initially signed off by the previous administration, right? Did they bribe the Bush administration too?
11111110 4 months ago
@11111110 Evergreen Solar, wow these companies that raped the taxpayers, which are big time democrat donors just keep popping up.
hopeurforfreedom 4 months ago
@11111110 No they weren't. Solyndra was turned down. BTW, the loans were actually made under Obama, who made a big deal out of visiting some of these plants. I guess that was all Bush's fault he did that. Yeah, Bush made him brag about those loans...
hopeurforfreedom 4 months ago
@11111110 George Kaiser did not visit the Bush White House 20 times, that was Obama's bribe.
hopeurforfreedom 4 months ago
@hopeurforfreedom
And? George Kaiser owns no stock in the company.
But you still didn't answer my question. Since the Obama administration's support for Solyndra is evidence that some vague bribe took place, then does the Bush administration's support indicate that they too were bribed?
11111110 4 months ago
@11111110 nah, he just loans them money... George Kaiser is up to his eyeballs on thiss one. George Kaiser would not waste his time going there if it weren't for business. The guy even has a desk in a van to work while going back and forth to his bank in OKC. Bush didn't support it.... they denied the loan. good try...
hopeurforfreedom 4 months ago
@hopeurforfreedom
George Bush authorized the Dept of Energy to issue loans to green companies and alternative energy projects when he signed the energy policy act of 2005. Following that, the Bush administration received 134 preliminary applications for the loan program in 2007, and they had approved only 16- one of them being Solyndra's. In 2008 they solicited the companies to file full applications, of which Solyndra's was reviewed and again approved for a hearing scheduled in 2009
11111110 4 months ago
@11111110 I repeat, the loan was never made under Bush. Approved for a hearing in 2009? Bush was not President in 2009. An application is not an approval.... good try, but typical of Obama supporters, try blaming it Bush..
hopeurforfreedom 4 months ago
@hopeurforfreedom
Everything I stated is a matter of public record. And yes, the Bush admin did approve of Solyndra's loan application. Both times. Honestly, the lengths you are going through to defend the previous administration is making you look bad.
And no, pointing out "that these loans were initially signed off by the previous administration" is not a defense of the Obama administration.
11111110 4 months ago
@11111110 Gee, if it was approved during the bush administration, why wasn't it funded? trying to say George Kaiser wasn't involved in the Solyndra is making you look plain stupid.
hopeurforfreedom 4 months ago
@hopeurforfreedom
Do you mean to ask why the loan money wasn't physically handed off during the Bush administration? Because of term limits, the approval process for every company applying to the program takes several years, and Bush's second term expired partway.
11111110 4 months ago
@11111110 no, something approved is already in the pipeline. Show me the actual documentation, not some leftist blowhard site. If what you say is true, those documents would have been released. If it were Bush approved, as you say, then Obama wouldn't have picked Solyndra to show off.
hopeurforfreedom 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hopeurforfreedom
tinyurl(dot)com/3oep79d
There you go. Also:
"If it were Bush approved, as you say, then Obama wouldn't have picked Solyndra to show off."
What the heck does this mean?
11111110 4 months ago
@hopeurforfreedom
No, no, you misunderstand. George Kaiser never owned stock in Solyndra. Meaning he never invested in the company, as in, he never loaned them money.
11111110 4 months ago
@11111110 Try googling George Kaiser - Solyndra and try posting that again....
hopeurforfreedom 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hopeurforfreedom
Yep, the google results haven't changed since the first time I checked.
George Kaiser never owned stock in Solyndra. Meaning he never invested in the company, as in, he never loaned them money.
11111110 4 months ago
@11111110 in fact, it was believed to be George Kaiser that got them to change the pecking order in case of bankruptcy. For the first time in history, private loans were placed ahead of taxpayers in bankruptcy court.
hopeurforfreedom 4 months ago
@hopeurforfreedom
"it was believed" - which is code for "I have absolutely nothing to back this up"
11111110 4 months ago
@11111110 Funny thing, George Kaiser gets paid back before the taxpayers, first time in history. Nah, George had nothing to do with this, it just turned out that way... Wake up..
hopeurforfreedom 4 months ago
@hopeurforfreedom
George Kaiser can't get "paid back" since he was never one of Solyndra's investors in the first place. It's difficult to become one of the richest people in America like he did by making bad investments.
11111110 4 months ago
@11111110 George Kaiser is now first in line at Bancruptcy, taxpayers second. Do a little research...
hopeurforfreedom 4 months ago
@11111110 the Kaiser Family Foundation, which is an arm of George Kaiser, one of many I arms I will add, invested in Solyndra. If you canno find that on the net, you are really in trouble.
hopeurforfreedom 4 months ago
@hopeurforfreedom
Partially true- George Kaiser obviously co-founded the organization. And the foundation invested in Solyndra. But it is not his "arm", he doesn't even have a position on the board of directors, and the foundation gets its funds from the Tulsa Community Foundation- of which George Kaiser also co-founded! But he holds no position in that foundation either and hasn't been listed as a trustee since 1998.
11111110 4 months ago
@11111110 now I'm partially true?Are you that daff to think he has no control over his family foundation? Gee whiz, you are a piece of work...
hopeurforfreedom 4 months ago
@hopeurforfreedom
I believe what the facts and evidence say. What you believe is a scenario played out in your head that runs contrary to that aforementioned evidence.
Really, check the foundations' websites yourself. They list their staff members and trustees, like they're required to do. Next you'll tell me that they scrubbed all mention of George in the past week or so.
11111110 4 months ago
@11111110 uh? Why would George Kaiser visit the white house so many times in the weeks leading up to the loan. Use your Brain instead of your ideology...
hopeurforfreedom 4 months ago
@hopeurforfreedom
Well, if you don't know the answer for certain, then it MUST be the one particular scenario you've dreamed up! Now you're following the logic of a conspiracy theorist- they point to any gaps of information as proof, PROOF, that the gaps are filled with the nefarious going-ons that they've been preaching.
Though I'm looking at the whitehouse logbook, Kaiser actually visited 17 times over the span of 18 months.
11111110 4 months ago
@11111110 You have trouble putting 2+2 together, don't you. I suppose you would have taken the path that Nixon did and saying he did not make recordings.... Uh, I know George Kaiser to be a crook, Google George Kaiser and natural gas lawsuits. 17 times?, better look again, what is the difference 17 or 20? How many times after the loan was awarded? Boy, the depths the left will sink to support their own crooks....
hopeurforfreedom 4 months ago
@hopeurforfreedom
The difference between 17 and 20 is 3. Ironic that you would point me out as having "trouble putting 2+2 together", as its really not that much different than putting 20-17 together.
But since you ask, George Kaiser visited 7 times after the date of the loan (September 4th 2009). You really ought to read that logbook *before* harping about it.
11111110 4 months ago
@11111110 Funny, there are alsp reports of 20, but 17 is fine. Kinda' close with the white house huh? I can't wait to see him testify.... By the way, where do you get the log book? I'd like to see visitations from all those democrat bundlers who got government loans.... Nice payback... Again, tell me which of those green companies is viable and can compete in the market place and won't leave the taxpayer with zilch....
hopeurforfreedom 4 months ago
@11111110 Wow, found the log book. Kinda' slow, like Obama's presidency. It is kinda' fucked up. Never could get to the K's. you must be a magician. Anyway, I'll take your word for it. George Kaiser wouldn't give Obama the time of day if he weren't gonna make money off him. 17 times, gosh damn, he has definitely raped the taxpayer. You don't know George Kaiser, we in Oklahoma do. type in "George Kaiser lawsuits" .
hopeurforfreedom 4 months ago
@hopeurforfreedom
The logbook was set up on the white house's website in 2009 order to fulfill a campaign promise. It's updated every 30-90 days, and it has a search function. You can search by name or date or any other metric. I typed in "Kaiser George" and got all 17 entries.
I admit, its a pretty odd way of covering up all those nefarious going-ons.
11111110 4 months ago
@11111110 I typed in Kaiser and was returned to the A's, but I believe you. 17 visits and those after. Hey Beaco Power, Obama supporters. To be fare however, none of the solar or wind companies are actually commercial in the long run. If you had physics in college, you would know this... they are scams played upon the less educated....
hopeurforfreedom 4 months ago
@hopeurforfreedom
No, it was 10 visits prior to the loan and 7 after, the most recent visit being June of this year.
And do you remember why Solyndra went out of business? Because in the span of a year, their sales of solar panels were torpedoed by cheaper ones now coming from China. And you're arguing that solar panels aren't viable on the market because Solyndra's panels were outsold by...better solar panels. As I recall, declining manufacturing costs are a good thing.
11111110 4 months ago
@11111110 Then were there 4 visits in the week or two leading up to the loan since you have so masterfully mastered that list? Solyndra never had a chance, they were broke before they even got the loan. If Solar is viable, why does is need direct government backing? Face it, it cannot compete and if you think they can you are plain ignorant of economics. did you even read the APS story? Everyone of those government guarantees will eventually go bad. Are you that daff?
hopeurforfreedom 4 months ago
@hopeurforfreedom
No sure, the fact that 0.5% of the loaned money is in jeopardy is reason enough to believe that the other 99.5% of it will vanish. If I don't agree with your wild baseless conclusions, I'll get called daff. I don't want that!
Though if oil and natural gas are viable, then why do they get direct government backing? If automobiles are a viable technology, then why do some car companies get government backing? If the concept of banks are viable, then why..etc etc
11111110 4 months ago
@11111110 that is just it, the government has no business financing private enterprises and picking companies that are supporters of the president. BTW, show me one government program where the government backed loans to any oil company to drill for oil and gas...
hopeurforfreedom 4 months ago
@hopeurforfreedom
It's not a single government progam or subsidy that grants oil companies $5 billion a year in addition to the $36 billion they made in the first three months of this year alone. There are dozens of them.
But like you said, if the industry needs tax subsidies, then it must be because the industry can't survive on its own. And since some automobile companies got huge government loans, then logic would follow that the automobile is not a commercially viable technology, right?
11111110 4 months ago
@11111110 Ah, in other words you could not find any programs that gave government backed loans as you claimed. Show me a tax subsidy, there are none. We get the same tax treatment as any mining company gets. Again, your ideology is seething through. Show me the subsidies they get. BTW, they are one of the heaviest taxed industries in the country.
hopeurforfreedom 3 months ago
@hopeurforfreedom
Here's a list. Granted this study was somewhat limited to the state of Texas, so it might be missing some of the federal tax subsidies:
tinyurl(dot)com/3wfjffs
11111110 3 months ago
@11111110 List them here. I want to see all of those subsidies. Do you know what a subsidy actually is? Look it up in a dictionary first, not some leftist website.
hopeurforfreedom 3 months ago
@hopeurforfreedom
Leftist website? It's the Texas state government's website, I linked you to a report from the comptroller's office. Are you insisting that TEXAS is now participating in some anti-oil agenda, or did you just not read it?
tinyurl(dot)com/3wfjffs
11111110 3 months ago
@11111110 Well, they are wrong, yes, if they are telling you it takes 5-10 years to bring on fuel supplies they are fucking stupid. It takes 5-10 years to bring on offshore fields, maybe that is what you read, but onshore takes little time...
hopeurforfreedom 3 months ago
@11111110 you just can't face economic facts, can you....
hopeurforfreedom 3 months ago
@11111110 So what if they made $36 billion, do you want them to lose money like Solar? Go bankrupt? Maybe you do, but you lack economic sense also.
hopeurforfreedom 3 months ago
@hopeurforfreedom
Oil companies are currently the most profitable institutions on the globe. Last year was a record for Exxon, not only because it was the most profitable year in the company's history, but because it was also the most profitable year for any company in human history. Somehow, I think they'll do just fine.
11111110 3 months ago
@11111110 uh, that is because prices are high, what about 1997 or 2000, how profitable were they then? Morons such as yourself like to assume that when prices are high, they are rich, but you ignore the bad times.... Typical leftist dribble...
hopeurforfreedom 3 months ago
@hopeurforfreedom
No, I assume ExxonMobil is rich because they occupy 8 out of the 10 largest corporate quarterly earnings of all time. I assume they were profitable in 1997 because it was another record year for earnings, and because 1998 was the year Exxon and Mobil merged to become the largest company on the planet
11111110 3 months ago
@11111110 Name the subsidies that go to oil companies for the drilling and producing of oil & gas. Name them. First, look up the term subsidy.
hopeurforfreedom 3 months ago
@hopeurforfreedom
Section 199, also known as the Qualified Production Activities Income. Passed in 2004, the GOP leadership decided to hand out a bouquet of targeted tax breaks. The result was one of the greatest lobbying free-for-alls in American history. One element of the law was a top rate of about 32%, and the subsequent decision to expand the definition of "manufacturing" to its breaking point, so as to include any industry with sufficient lobbying clout, the oil industry included.
11111110 3 months ago
@11111110 Uh, You don't know what a subsidy is do you. You need to go to your dictionary, none of what you listed is a subsidy. BTW look up by industry who pays what in taxes. Not just Federal, but State too. Start with Oklahoma's Gross Production Tax, 7% off the top, at the wellhead. Imagine if 7% of all the Solar went straight to the State. that is just the beginning.....
hopeurforfreedom 3 months ago
@hopeurforfreedom
I can tell you that last year Exxon paid zero in federal income taxes. You're probably paying more to the federal government than they are
11111110 3 months ago
@11111110 You might google "How Exxon paid paid zero income tax in 2009" and read the first thing that comes up. Maybe you can grasp the reasons, maybe not.... Btw, 1997 was not a good year for the oil industry. Major oil companies are worldwide companies and most of their business is outside the USA. Now please tell me of all those subsidies the oil industry gets for drilling wells. Do you know what a subsidy actually is?
hopeurforfreedom 3 months ago
@hopeurforfreedom
spokesman(dot)com/stories/1997/apr/22/exxon-earnings-hit-record-218-billion/
April 22, 1997- "Exxon Corp. said its first-quarter earnings were the highest of any quarter in its history, climbing 24 percent on increased crude oil and natural gas prices."
gasandoil(dot)com/news/features/6d7a996ba52f2beb29f3a6a1dd9c1824
"British Petroleum unveiled a 7.7 % rise in 1997 annual profits to a record -GBP 2.82 bn ($ 4.61 bn)"
Yes, 1997 was a terrible year.
11111110 3 months ago
@11111110 dumb ass, that was for 96 prices, prices cratered in 1997. google "historical crude prices, read it and weep. If you want the correct profits for 97, look at 98 data.
hopeurforfreedom 3 months ago
@hopeurforfreedom
Hey, you said it was 1997 that was not a good year. If you want to move goalposts, you gotta let me know ahead of time. I can't read your mind ahead of time to find out that NOW you mean 1998.
The data is murky due to the Exxon-Mobil merger, but Exxon alone made $6.37 billion in 1998. I'm playing the world's tiniest violin for them.
11111110 3 months ago
@11111110 What is your problem with oil companies making profits overseas? Profits are a damn good thing. Maybe you like bankrupt companies, maybe going broke makes you feel good.
hopeurforfreedom 3 months ago
@hopeurforfreedom
I never said profits were bad, I'm just citing them to demonstrate that oil companies are doing just fine. Better than fine, they're doing better than any other industry on this planet. The idea that they can barely break even underneath all this taxation and regulation is laughable.
11111110 3 months ago
@11111110 you quote April 1997, which would be for 2006 prices you dope. Check out 1998. God, whata dope....
hopeurforfreedom 3 months ago
@hopeurforfreedom
You told me to check 1997, twice. Maybe I am a dope for following your directions
11111110 3 months ago
@11111110 You checked April 1997, which would have been results for 1996 prices. You have trouble understanding this? BTW, being naive makes you look silly. Turns out George Kaiser is up to his neck in communicating with the White House over Solyndra. You might want to catch up on the latest scandal. I know you believed them when they claimed it was never discussed but e-mails prove otherwise.. Naive, aren't you...
hopeurforfreedom 3 months ago
@hopeurforfreedom
If you can link to any specific emails or articles, I'll read them. But as far as I've read, the only time George Kaiser talked to white house officials about Solyndra was around March 5, 2010- which yet again is long AFTER the loan was made (September 4th 2009)
11111110 3 months ago
@11111110 uh, maybe you don't realize the white house won't release the earlier stuff, hence the subpoena. You are going down just like the Nixon supporters.
hopeurforfreedom 3 months ago
@hopeurforfreedom
I take it you're walking back the "George Kaiser is up to his neck in communicating with the White House over Solyndra" claim? Your only evidence being one cited conversation taking place months after the loan was made?
11111110 3 months ago
@11111110 Uh, to begin with you said Kaiser had no communication with the White House. Months after? When the White house releases earlier documents, you'll regret being their stooge. You remind me of the Nixon supporters, stupid and blind to facts....
hopeurforfreedom 3 months ago
@hopeurforfreedom
And again, you're wrong. I never ever said that in any of my posts. Re-read them. On the subject, what I actually said was George Kaiser visited the white house 17 times. Which, to me, doesn't sound like the near-opposite of "George Kaiser never communicated with the white house."
11111110 3 months ago
@11111110 Uh, you said George Kaiser never lobbied for Solyndra, he did....
hopeurforfreedom 3 months ago
@11111110 Looks like Ener1 is your next company to make excuses for. Gee, all that money just wasted. Now tell me, which one of the 30 companies that received loan guarantees will make it.
hopeurforfreedom 4 months ago
@hopeurforfreedom
"all that money just wasted"
You keep repeating this, even though its been pointed out, in the gentlest terms, over and over again that the government did not issue any loans without secure backing. Every news article on the subject cites their assets and remaining collateral as being enough to cover their loan, as they were required to. By law. Do you believe those reports to be an elaborate fantasy?
11111110 4 months ago
@11111110 Gee, now the government gets their collateral. What makes you think their collateral will be sold for what we have in it. Kinda' naive. BTW, required by law? What happened to Solyndra?
hopeurforfreedom 4 months ago
@hopeurforfreedom
Well I suppose if you just assume the government won't get the loan back, then they probably won't get the loan back. No wait, that's dumb
And what do you mean what happened to Solyndra? We've been talking about it the past two days
11111110 4 months ago
@11111110 You claimed it was the law they had to have collateral to back the loan. Solyndra does not have the collateral to pay back the loan. BTW did you ever find those government backed loans for oil and gas exploration you claimed they got?
hopeurforfreedom 4 months ago
@hopeurforfreedom
Solyndra, if you've actually read about it, has several hundred million in remaining funds. Plus everything they're get from the bankruptcy, plus the manufacturing plant, plus the value of the company patents.
11111110 3 months ago
@11111110 Several hundred million? The manufacturing plant is pretty much worthless, except to someone else who wants to make those non-commercial solar whatevers. Patents? Funny. The Solar companies are going down faster than a cheap hooker.
hopeurforfreedom 3 months ago
@hopeurforfreedom
Why do I get the feeling that you have no clue what patents Solyndra holds.
11111110 3 months ago
@11111110 Still looking for all those government backed loans for oil companies to drill for oil and gas? don't think you'll find them, as that is a viable energy source and private financing is there. Not so for solar. Not commercial.
hopeurforfreedom 4 months ago
@11111110 I pity you. You actually believe solar is a commercial and viable alternative. Every time the price of natural gas goes up, the solar crowd starts these solar scams and people lose their asses because the price of gas falls. I have news for you. The price of natural gas is gonna stay low, low, low for decades. shale gas is very abundant and we've just scratched the surface. If I were you, I wouldn't be investing in solar or you will end up like chumps from previous scams.
hopeurforfreedom 4 months ago
@hopeurforfreedom
Well no, the price of oil is influence largely by demand and speculation. The fact that oil prices took a dive in 2008 along with the economy is no coincidence. More Americans were broke, hence Americans drove less, hence the demand for gas lowered- along with the cost per gallon.
Though it seems counter-intuitive, the most effective way to drive down gas prices is for the country to use less gas.
11111110 4 months ago
@11111110 Do you know the difference between gas and natural gas??? Spoken like a true leftist and one who does not comprehend markets. The most effective way to ensure price stability and low prices is to have a secure and plentiful supply. Destroying an economy is no way to keep prices low, that is a leftists way (use less gasoline, keep the economy in the pits). Natural gas is a success story, which we now and for the foreseeable future have a tremendous supply, with low prices.
Cont.
hopeurforfreedom 3 months ago
@hopeurforfreedom
Sorry, but even if we were to begin new fossil fuel drilling initiatives in and around America, it would be 5-10 years before an ounce of it got into our domestic supply, and 20 years before it affected gas prices. Even then, it would only impact the price by a nickel at most. That's according to a study by the dept of energy- under the Bush administration.
11111110 3 months ago
@11111110 I don't know where you got the idea it takes 5-10 years to bring on more fuel supplies, probably a leftist site, but it takes a matter of months. Impact the price by a nickel you say? Natural gas is gonna be less than $4.50 for the foreseeable future. Energy Department, ie Jimmy Carter? They told us we were running out of gas in the 1970's or are you old enough to know this? They don't know dick about Energy....
hopeurforfreedom 3 months ago
@hopeurforfreedom
Here you go: tinyurl(dot)com/44kqb72
Next I expect you to insist that every expert quoted is also part of a liberal conspiracy. Take a look, by the oil industry's own optimistic estimates, if ALL federal land went open season for oil drilling, they'd be able to procure an extra 2.8 million barrels of oil a day by 2025. Meanwhile, the world currently consumes 80 million barrels a day, and it will be far higher by 2025. It's accurate to call it a "drop in the bucket"
11111110 3 months ago
@11111110 All Federal lands? You have no fucking idea and neither do they. 20 years ago, the Bakken shale was given little potential, now it is a huge field. Careful what you read, especially since you know nothing about the industry... By the way, 2.5 million barrels a day is a lot of oil moron...
hopeurforfreedom 3 months ago
@hopeurforfreedom
Really now? The oil companies themselves have "no fucking idea" about oil production, but you do?
And on a national scale, 2.5 million barrels is not a lot, it is a 2% increase in daily production. If it has any impact on gas prices at all, they will lower by 5 cents per gallon, 15 years from now. AT BEST.
11111110 3 months ago
@11111110 uh, you are talking about people guessing..... On a national scale 2.5 million barrels is quite a bit of oil, you moron.... You really are a fucking idiot with no idea what you are talking about. 2.5 million barrels = $1/4 Billion per day you fucking idiot. How fucking stupid are you? Gosh Damn. You sound as stupid as Obama...
hopeurforfreedom 3 months ago
@hopeurforfreedom
Yes, I'm stupid for trusting the words of the American Petroleum Institute over some guy on the internet.
11111110 3 months ago
@11111110 uh, 2.5 million barrels is a lot of oil pinhead. Those number by the API are only estimates and estimates only you idiot. Tell me, how much oil did the API estimate ten years ago the Bakken shale would be producing today? Smart-ass, go find it...
hopeurforfreedom 3 months ago
@11111110 Uh, just what out of API are you referring to, the 2.5 million barrels or what? If you think 2.5 mmbopd isn't much oil, you need your head examined. can you multiply 2.5 mmbopd x $100 per bo? Gosh damn you are stupid... nah, lets not produce it and just keep it in the ground and buy foreign oil. You are a fucking fool...
hopeurforfreedom 3 months ago
@hopeurforfreedom
money(dot)cnn(dot)com/2011/04/25/news/economy/oil_drilling_gas_prices/index(dot)htm
Here, the API is quoted for their estimate, and even they won't try and claim that more drilling will significantly reduce gas prices. 2.5 million barrels per day seems like a lot, but put it into context. It's a 2% increase in supply. Increasing supply of *anything* by 2% won't significantly lower prices.
A ton of food also seems like a lot, but not when you have an entire nation to feed
11111110 3 months ago
@11111110 You are fucked up funny thinking 2.5 mmbo isn't significant. Do the math moron. At $100 per bo that is .25 BILLION dollars per day or $90 Billion per year. are this fucking stupid? Gosh damn man, grow a fucking brain.
hopeurforfreedom 3 months ago
@hopeurforfreedom
Yes, oil is profitable. If the oil companies sold that much oil for $100 a barrel, they would INDEED make a lot of money. What is your point? It's still a 2% increase in supply. Increasing supply of *anything* by 2% won't significantly drive down their price
11111110 3 months ago
@11111110 A 2% increase in supply is substantial, you just don't know enough about the business to understand how substantial it is. I suppose you would rather import more from the middle east and venezuela and give them the $90 Billion per year. What is your problem with keeping the $90 Billion here and supplying high paying jobs to people who need them? By the way, that 2% increase is about a trillion dollars in 11 years you'd be giving away.
hopeurforfreedom 3 months ago
@hopeurforfreedom
For some reason, I tend to assume that the API knows more about the oil business than you do. If the API itself doesn't believe that a 2% (at best) increase in production will drive down gas prices, then why should I take your word over theirs?
11111110 3 months ago
@11111110 No, API does not know more. 2% is a huge increase moron....
hopeurforfreedom 2 months ago
@11111110 API is like government, take a look at the increase in American production. A few years ago, they predicted decline...
hopeurforfreedom 2 months ago
@11111110 checked the API site, you're a fucking liar....
hopeurforfreedom 2 months ago
@hopeurforfreedom
Really? A moment ago you were insisting the API doesn't know what they're talking about. Now they're a reliable source? Anyway, I posted a link to an API estimate, it'd be nice if you did the same. You know, once you decide whether or not you trust them.
Explain to me again why I should take your word about oil production over the American Petroleum Institute? Promoting the oil industry is only their ENTIRE reason for existence.
11111110 2 months ago
@11111110 Moron, take a look at API estimates from 5 years ago. Look a production now....
hopeurforfreedom 2 months ago
@hopeurforfreedom
Ok. What are the API estimates from 5 years ago?
11111110 2 months ago
@11111110 you evidently have no idea how big the oil business is. 2.5 mmboe insignificant. You oughta join a comedy show....
hopeurforfreedom 3 months ago
@11111110 Better yet, to cut through the solyndra scandal, try Kaiser-Francis Lawsuits, his n0t so green oil company. He stole millions from mineral owners, until he got caught.....
hopeurforfreedom 4 months ago
@11111110 Every single solar investment will go bad. the difference between you and me, i understand economics, you follow ideology. No solar or wind farm is commercial without massive subsidies.... i take it you never took an college economics course, like Obama, am I right? Gosh, we will never know about Obama, the transparency president had his college records sealed... Funny...
hopeurforfreedom 4 months ago
@11111110 you are funny though.....
hopeurforfreedom 4 months ago
@11111110 Facts? Then explain all the trips Kaiser took to the White House. Facts only....
hopeurforfreedom 4 months ago
@11111110 This is funny, especially since you like facts. Kaiser has visited the white house about 20 times since 2009. 4 meetings in the week leading up to the loan. How many times since the awarding of the loan? None. He will be called to testify about these meetings and so will those who attended the meetings. You have no idea what you are spouting, but George Kaiser doesn't go to washington to sleep in the Lincoln bedroom, his time is worth too much.
hopeurforfreedom 4 months ago
@11111110 no code, if you cannot put two and two together, you remind me of DOJ Holder. Who gained? The biggest investor, George Kaiser....
hopeurforfreedom 4 months ago
@hopeurforfreedom
Gained? Do you know how investing works? Solyndra is bankrupt, everyone who bought stock in it has lost an enormous amount of money.
11111110 4 months ago
@11111110 Time to take some responsibility and you'd think that after almost 3 years as President, Obama would take a bit, but no, it is Bush's fault.
hopeurforfreedom 4 months ago
@hopeurforfreedom
If you want to imply that none of the responsibility falls on the Obama administration, you're welcome to. I certainly haven't.
11111110 4 months ago
@11111110 Maybe you forgot your post trying to tie Solyndra to Bush. Bush folks turned em' down, Obama lifted it from the ashes and made it his. lock stock and barrel.
hopeurforfreedom 4 months ago
@hopeurforfreedom
No, I remember posting that the Bush administration approved of both of Solyndra's loan applications, because that's what actually happened. They never turned them down, or issued any formal rejection, as much as you might wish it so.
Still, for some reason you hear that fact and assume that it's somehow a defense of the Obama administration. Hey, have you considered the obvious conclusion that both administrations are guilty?
11111110 4 months ago
@11111110 did any money exchange hands under the Bush administration? No. Obama was their man, Obama bragged about Solyndra.... BTW, Beacon, another Obama disaster just went broke. i take it you aren't into economics. Everyone of those loans are going under. Like Obama, you have taken no economics courses, understand this, natural gas even undercuts coal.....
hopeurforfreedom 4 months ago