Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (629783)	9/28/2011 2:33:26 PM
From: joseffy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578283

We don't need to see no stinkin' financial statements. What are you---a racist? or are you against saving the world from global warming? Charles Rangel and Timothy Geithner will do any necessary checking of financial statements. Rest assured, YOUR input is not needed. By the way, when is the last time you donated to progressive causes?

To: i-node who wrote (629783)	9/28/2011 2:35:54 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1578283

DeMint isn’t even trying Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) has an op-ed in the conservative Washington Times this week, making the case against federal loans to clean-energy companies. In the hopes of exploiting the “controversy” surrounding Solyndra’s collapse, DeMint labels the investments themselves, “Venture Socialism.” Billions … have been wasted by politicians betting on favored companies and making Washington bigger, using the brute force of government to force liberal preferences into the economy. Mr. Obama calls them ‘investments,’ but this is really venture socialism. I often wish far-right lawmakers would make it more challenging to ridicule them. The complaints were much the same in the Senate, where DeMint said the Solyndra case exposed the “unintended results when our government tries to pick winners and losers.” That’s a valid criticism, but it would be more valid if DeMint hadn’t been a supporter of the loan-guarantee legislation in 2005. [emphasis added] By DeMint’s reasoning, he was a “venture socialist” during the Bush era, helping create the same loan program that (a) happens to be a good idea; and (b) gave Solyndra a fairly modest loan that ended up not working. How does DeMint explain being for “using the brute force of government to force liberal preferences into the economy” before being against it? He doesn’t.