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 : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Don Hurst who wrote (114704)	10/5/2011 1:13:38 PM
From: Jorj X Mckie	3 Recommendations Respond to of 224749

but then again, we aren't talking about starbucks, are we?

To: Don Hurst who wrote (114704)	10/5/2011 1:15:00 PM
From: longnshort	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224749

Solyndra e-mails: Dept. of Energy was poised to approve $469 million for firm View Photo Gallery — ?Solyndra, a California solar company backed by a half-billion dollars in loan guarantees from the Obama administration, announced it was shutting its doors and laying off 1,100 employees. By Carol D. Leonnig, Wednesday, October 5, 12:14 PM The Obama administration’s Department of Energy was poised last summer to give Solyndra a second major taxpayer loan of $469 million, even as the company’s financial situation was growing more dire. The Energy Department was actively pushing to provide the second loan guarantee to the troubled solar-panel manufacturer in April and May 2010, when Solyndra’s auditors warned the company was in danger of closing due to its rapidly mounting debts and expenses, according to complete e-mails just released by a House committee investigating the original loan. View all Items in this Story Second Solyndra loan was in the works Top Solyndra officials take the Fifth Solyndra employees saw trouble brewing Justice urged to probe Solyndra Solyndra investment raises questions about nonprofit Administration: Giving more money to Solyndra was risky White House lags in effort to create green jobs Lawmakers question loan to solar company Lawmakers question Solyndra loan decision Solyndra execs to plead the Fifth in House hearing White House pressed on $500M loan White House career staffers, who had first raised concerns in the fall of 2009 about the Department of Energy providing Solyndra with its first taxpayer-backed loan of $535 million , wrote e-mails in gallows humor in April 2010 about the prospect of giving Solyndra more money. That spring, industry analysts were publicly questioning how the Silicon Valley startup could so quickly be running out both the federal loan and $933 million in private capital. “Apparently the loan size for Phase II is $469 million,” one Office of Management and Budget analyst wrote of DOE seeking a second loan for Solyndra. The analysts’s name was not released by the committee. “I’ve been told we should expect the see that project soon for conditional commitment.” Another joked: “Possible to close and default on one before closing on a second??? Could be a new record.” The agency didn’t shelve the idea for a second loan until October 2010, a Department of Energy spokesman has confirmed. That was the month that Solyndra executives and investors first warned the department that the company was facing the threat of having to liquidate without emergency cash. Solyndra, which suddenly shut down on Aug. 31 and sought bankruptcy protection, has left taxpayers on the hook for repaying that first half-billion-dollar loan. Its also left many, both Republicans and Democrats, questioning why the Obama administration was so supportive of the startup. Republicans have alleged the administration was showing favoritism to a firm backed primarily by investment funds tied to a major Obama campaign bundler, George Kaiser. Solyndra, the first clean energy company that the fledgling administration backed with a stimulus-funded loan, had been a showcase of Obama’s effort to spur a clean energy industry on U.S. soil. Obama personally visited the firm in May 2010, after being warned not to go by a donor and adviser in the venture capital field who noted the auditors’ warnings the firm could very likely fail. Even in May 2010, Energy Secretary Steven Chu’s top advisers — his senior adviser on stimulus , Matt Rogers, and his chief of staff, Rod O’Connor — were telling the White House not to worry about the auditors’ warnings on Solyndra’s finances. They also referenced the need for more federal money for Solyndra. O’Connor told a top White House adviser to Vice President Biden that the warnings were exaggerated, when a venture capitalist and Obama donor had flagged the company’s finances as a reason the president shouldn’t visit Solyndra as scheduled on May 25. O’Connor also raised the issue of more government support for Solyndra

To: Don Hurst who wrote (114704)	10/5/2011 2:42:59 PM
From: Neeka	3 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224749

Starbucks respects the law! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~` "Starbucks Position on Open Carry Gun Laws (updated March 16, 2010) We recognize that there is significant and genuine passion surrounding the issue of open carry weapons laws. Advocacy groups from both sides of this issue have chosen to use Starbucks as a way to draw attention to their positions. While we deeply respect the views of all our customers, Starbucks long-standing approach to this issue remains unchanged. We comply with local laws and statutes in all the communities we serve. That means we abide by the laws that permit open carry in 43 U.S. states. Where these laws don't exist, openly carrying weapons in our stores is prohibited. The political, policy and legal debates around these issues belong in the legislatures and courts, not in our stores. At the same time, we have a security protocol for any threatening situation that might occur in our stores. Partners are trained to call law enforcement as situations arise. We will continuously review our procedures to ensure the highest safety guidelines are in place and we will continue to work closely with law enforcement. We have examined this issue through the lens of partner (employee) and customer safety. Were we to adopt a policy different from local laws allowing open carry, we would be forced to require our partners to ask law abiding customers to leave our stores, putting our partners in an unfair and potentially unsafe position. As the public debate continues, we are asking all interested parties to refrain from putting Starbucks or our partners into the middle of this divisive issue. As a company, we are extremely sensitive to the issue of gun violence in our society. Our Starbucks family knows all too well the dangers that exist when guns are used irresponsibly and illegally. Without minimizing this unfortunate reality, we believe that supporting local laws is the right way for us to ensure a safe environment for both partners and customers. Starbucks Corporation Stacey Krum, 206-318-7100 press@starbucks.com" news.starbucks.com