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 : The Solyndra Scandal -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wayners who wrote (378)	2/22/2012 5:41:04 PM
From: joseffy	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1400

White House ignores House subpoena for Solyndra documents by Joel Gehrke 2/21/2012 campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com President Obama and his West Wing aides ignored a subpoena of documents pertaining to the Solyndra loan guarantee even after congressional investigators met with White House officials to negotiate the scope of the subpoena, according to the House Energy and Commerce Committee. "The White House's failure to comply with today's document deadline is a sad milestone on the path chosen by this administration to obstruct and delay our investigation rather than cooperate and help deliver answers for taxpayers," committee chairman Fred Upton, R-Mich., and Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee chairman Cliff Stearns R-Fla., said in a statement this evening. House investigators requested 12 categories of documents designed to explore a range of issues, such as Obama donor and Solyndra investor George Kaiser's role in the solar company receiving a loan gaurantee. White House counsel disputed the initial subpoena in November, calling it "a significant intrusion on Executive branch interests." Committee officials met with Obama's attorneys to negotiate the subpoena, but the White House failed to produce the documents by the February 21 deadline. "Despite an all star cast of presidential aides that have their fingerprints on Solyndra," Upton and Stearns observed, "Larry Summers, Carol Browner, Ron Klein, Valerie Jarrett, David Axelrod, Jim Messina, Dan Pfeiffer, Jay Carney, Cecilia Munoz, -- the White House is having great difficult turning over relevant internal documents." The investigators said that Obama's aides have not answered questions about the White House role in restructuring the Solyndra loan, who told Solyndra officials to delay announcing layoffs until after the 2010 midterms, and why the company received so much attention from senior advisers to the president. "How much longer does the White House believe the truth needs to wait?" Upton and Stearns wrote. "The deadline has come, and we will do what is necessary to answer the many outstanding questions surrounding Solyndra."

To: Wayners who wrote (378)	2/24/2012 12:09:32 PM
From: joseffy	Respond to of 1400

Obama’s green energy programs produce the Tesla car electric brick Obamanomics is all about going nowhere, fast. by John Hayward 02/23/2012 humanevents.com You remember Tesla Motors, don’t you? Well, you should. Barack Obama forced you to give them $465 million to develop electric cars, bringing the wonders of sustainable transportation to the common man, provided the common man has $100,000 to drop on a Tesla Roadster. This also created 400 of those wonderful “green jobs,” at a taxpayer cost of $1,087,500.00 per job. It has been heartwarming to watch Obama embrace that “Occupy Wall Street” ethic by spending gigantic amounts of public money to subsidize expensive toys for rich people. Well, it turns out you can only have a limited amount of fun with a Tesla car, because if the battery ever becomes completely discharged, the car turns into a “brick” that will never move again, absent $40,000 in repairs. AutoGuide brings us the exciting tale of how Barack Obama invested our money in the development of The Electric Brick: Essentially a Tesla Roadster can fully discharge in 11 weeks of no usage, from a full 100-percent charge. Reports are coming in that if the vehicle is driven nearly its maximum range and is left unplugged, it could become bricked in as little as a week. So once the Tesla battery completely discharges, it cannot be recovered or recharged, which leads to the $32,000 bill to purchase a new one plus the labor, taxes, and installation charges bringing it closer to $40,000. A regional service manager for Tesla has gone on the record to say that he is aware of at least five vehicles that have become bricked due to battery depletion. If reports of this issue becomes more public and widespread, Tesla could be in for a rough ride in damage control. Unlike their customers, who will have a very smooth ride sitting in their immobile six-figure electric cars, making “vroom vroom” noises and pretending to work the controls, as they experience the most “sustainable” transportation ever developed by crony capitalism. By the way, according to Jalopnik, when a Tesla “bricks,” the wheels lock in place – you can’t even tow it, push it, or roll it downhill while making your “vroom vroom” noises. Also, a Tesla can drop dead even if you’re charging it, “if it isn’t receiving sufficient current to charge, which can be caused by something as simple as using an extension cord.” So, please be certain to park your Obamamobile in the living room, right next to a convenient electric socket. Additionally, you must take your car with you if you’re planning on going on trips lasting longer than a week, if you don’t want it to die. Pro tip: Tesla Roadsters do not fit in the overhead bins on most aircraft. In case you were wondering, no, *this is not* covered by your warranty.** Tesla is brainstorming innovative methods of addressing the problem… such as remotely activating the vehicles’ built-in GPS systems to monitor the cars and warn engineers of impending brickification. Now that’s the true Hope-and-Change spirit! You say “bug,” but our can-do President says “feature.” Tesla thinks everyone should embrace the Zen calm of a fully discharged Roadster, because hey, every one of the fabulously expensive electric toys produced by Obamanomics can potentially turn into a brick. From the company’s statement: All automobiles require some level of owner care. For example, combustion vehicles require regular oil changes or the engine will be destroyed. Electric vehicles should be plugged in and charging when not in use for maximum performance. All batteries are subject to damage if the charge is kept at zero for long periods of time. However, Tesla avoids this problem in virtually all instances with numerous counter-measures. Tesla batteries can remain unplugged for weeks (even months), without reaching zero state of charge. Owners of Roadster 2.0 and all subsequent Tesla products can request that their vehicle alert Tesla if SOC falls to a low level. All Tesla vehicles emit various visual and audible warnings if the battery pack falls below 5 percent SOC. Tesla provides extensive maintenance recommendations as part of the customer experience. Remind me: do real cars become “destroyed” if you drive them around for a while, then leave them sitting in the driveway for a week, without changing their oil? In any event, this is only a minor setback, provided you’re willing to sleep next to your electric car and remain alert for those visual and audible warnings. Also in the true spirit of Hope-and-Change, Jalopnik reports that someone is trying to smear the whisteblower who broke the bricking story. He’s a guy who plunked down $50,000 and waited two years to get his electric car, then made the mistake of dropping it in a garage while his house was being renovated. Two months later, he found himself the proud owner of an electric brick. He says nobody from Tesla ever warned him this could happen. Persons unknown decided to smear this fellow by leaking confidential correspondence to the press, and insinuating he’s just a shakedown artist, an insinuation Tesla was happy to spread via Twitter. None of the leaked emails validate this slander in any way, and the electric brick owner in question, Max Drucker, says he only wanted warranty repairs for his dead $100,000 car. He’s given up on that, and just wants to warn other Tesla owners what might await them, if they don’t pay at least as much attention to their cars as they would to a pony. What a silly man! Everyone knows the first rule of Brick Club is that you do not talk about Brick Club. credit to watsonyouth

To: Wayners who wrote (378)	2/25/2012 12:55:06 AM
From: joseffy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1400

15 Questions The Mainstream Media Would Ask Barack Obama If He Were A Republican by Jeff Carter February 21st, 2012 pointsandfigures.com 1) Numerous Mexican citizens and an American citizen have been murdered with weapons knowingly provided to criminals by our own government during Operation Fast and Furious. If Eric Holder was aware that was going on, do you think he should step down as Attorney General? Were you aware of Fast and Furious and if so, shouldn’t you resign? 2) In 2010 you said Solyndra, a company that donated heavily to your political campaign, was “leading the way toward a brighter and more prosperous future.” Today, Solyndra is bankrupt and the taxpayers lost over $500 million on loans that your administration knew might never be paid off when you made them. How do you respond to citizens who say this is evidence of corruption in your administration? 3) Unions invested a lot of time and money in helping to get you elected. In return, unions gained majority control of Chrysler, the taxpayers lost $14 billion dollars on General Motors, and General Motors received a special $45 billion dollar tax break. What do you say to people who view this as corruption on a scale never before seen in American history? 4) Through dubious means you and your Democrat allies in Congress managed to force through an incredibly unpopular health care bill that helped lead to the worst election night for the Democrat Party in 50 years. Since the bill has passed, many of your claims about the bill have proven to be untrue. For example, we now know the bill won’t lower health care costs and despite your assurances to the contrary, big companies like McDonald’s say they may drop health care because of the health care reform. Congress has exempted themselves from the health care reform and instead has their own taxpayer-funded premium health care plan. Many large companies (that donate to Democrat political campaigns) have received special exemptions from the health care plan. Since the majority of the American people have rejected your health care reform and it doesn’t do what you said it would, shouldn’t you work with the Republicans to repeal it? 5) When you took office, the national average for one gallon of gas was $1.89 per gallon. Since then, you’ve demonized the oil industry, dramatically slowed offshore drilling, blocked ANWAR, and rejected the Keystone Pipeline. Now, gas is $3.54 per gallon and rising and is expected to reach $5 per gallon by May of this year. How much higher do you anticipate driving gas prices? 6) Occupy Wall Street has been protesting against Wall Street and the richest 1 percent in America. You are in the top 1 percent of income earners in America and you have collected more cash from Wall Street than any other President in history. So, aren’t you exactly the sort of politician that Occupy Wall Street wants to get rid of? 7) How do you decide which foreign leaders to submissively bow towards and why do you think that’s appropriate for an American President? If they could, don’t you think the Nobel Committee would take back the Nobel Peace Prize that you were awarded after serving just one month in office? 9) You made bipartisanship one of the central themes of your campaign in 2008. Yet, you’ve worked to push bills through Congress with almost no Republican support, spent much less time negotiating with Congress than George Bush did, and you’ve said things like, “But, I don’t want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking. I want them to get out of the way so we can clean up the mess. I don’t mind cleaning up after them, but don’t do a lot of talking.” Why did you decide to break your campaign promise to pursue bipartisanship? 10) America lost its AAA credit rating for the first time under your watch. What do you think you should have done differently to have prevented that historic failure? 11) You cut more than 500 billion dollars out of Medicare to fund your wildly unpopular health care reform bill. Given that Medicare is running in the red already, don’t you think it’s irresponsible to cut money out of one entitlement program, that millions of seniors depend on — to put it into a risky new entitlement program? 12) Back in July, you said, “Nobody’s looking to raise taxes right now. We’re talking about potentially 2013 and the out years.” Since you plan to raise taxes if you’re elected and you’ve had kind words for a value added tax, shouldn’t every American expect a tax increase if you’re reelected? 13) Why should the American people reelect you when your 10 year budget saddles America with more debt than all previous Presidents combined? 14) Your stimulus bill cost more in real dollars than the moon landing and the interstate highway system combined. Many prominent economists have concluded the stimulus plan was a total failure. What do we have to show for all of that money spent? 15) Members of your administration promised that the trillion dollar stimulus would keep unemployment under 8 percent. Instead, we’ve had 35+ months of 8% and above unemployment. Doesn’t that mean we wasted a trillion dollars on nothing?

To: Wayners who wrote (378)	3/1/2012 4:15:39 AM
From: joseffy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1400

Energy Secretary Chu Admits Administration OK with High Gas Prices news.yahoo.com President Barack Obama's Secretary of Energy Stephen Chu uttered the kind of Washington gaffe that consists of telling the truth when inconvenient. According to Politico, Chu admitted to a House committee that the administration is not interested in lowering gas prices. Chu, along with the Obama administration, regards the spike in gas prices as a feature rather than a bug. High gas prices provide an incentive for alternate energy technology, a priority for the White House, and a decrease in reliance on oil for energy. The Heritage Foundation points out that hammering the American consumer with high gas prices to make electric and hybrid cars more appealing is consistent with Obama administration policy and Chu's philosophy. That explains the refusal to allow the building of the Keystone XL pipeline and to allow drilling in wide areas of the U.S. and offshore areas. The consequences of the policy are not likely to be of benefit to the Obama administration. The Republican National Committee has already issued a video highlighting the spike in gas prices and the failure of the administration to address the issue. Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich has issued a half-hour video touting an energy plan he claims would result in $2.50 a gallon gasoline. The plan is based on unfettered drilling for oil and gas instead of a reliance on green energy. Gingrich has also savaged Obama's touting of algae based biofuel as "weird." Chu has likely highlighted an issue Republicans are going to pick up and run with. Americans are not going to be appreciative of schemes to hit them in the wallet so the American economy can shift to green energy. Besides American traditional adherence to the free market, the idea of being fleeced by a deliberate government policy is likely to be greeted with anger. Add into the mix green energy fiascos like Solyndra, and Chu might well have kindled a full blown scandal. How the Obama administration reacts to the expected firestorm is open to question. Green energy is as part of its fundamental religion as is universal health care, another unpopular Obama policy. If it tries to bull ahead, the electorate will likely punish Obama and the Democrats. If it tries to backtrack, Obama looks weak and facilitating, and likely will still not appease gas strapped Americans experiencing price shock at the gas pump.

To: Wayners who wrote (378)	3/5/2012 8:55:28 PM
From: joseffy	1 Recommendation Respond to of 1400

GM Chevy Volt Halt Confirms Green Energy Policy Failure by Mark Modica on Mon, 03/05/2012 nlpc.org I hate to beat a dead Edsel, but the Chevy Volt story is just too important to let slip away. After last week's announcement by General Motors that it would be temporarily halting production of the Chevy Volt due to low demand, you would think that the evidence would finally be conclusive that the over-hyped, over-subsidized vehicle is a flop. The response by GM and lack of same from the Obama-loving media is worthy of continued criticism from those of us who have recognized that taxpayers have been bilked out of billions of dollars to produce a car that does practically nothing for the environment or foreign oil dependence while being unwanted by the 99% of consumers that can not afford, nor want the car. In fact, most 1 percenters don't want the car either. Americans should closely follow the Chevy Volt saga, as it epitomizes the crony capitalism, deception and taxpayer abuse underlying the Obama Administration's green energy policy. And while far more money has been thrown down the drain producing and subsidizing the Volt compared to Solyndra, the mainstream media has either given a positive spin to the story or laid off the story completely. Let's again review the history of the Volt. The car was initially hyped as GM was making a case to get billions of dollars in bailout aid from the government. When Obama's Auto Task Force (which was put in charge of redistributing wealth from GM bondholders and taxpayers to UAW members) was analyzing GM's business plans, they even test drove the vehicle, which was supposedly to be a "game changer" for the company as well as a savior for the environment and foreign oil dependence. General Electric was one of the main players involved in hyping the vehicle, as they would profit from building the charging stations used. The TV business news network owned by GE dedicated the better part of a day hyping the Volt when it was rolled out, which followed shortly after the GM IPO hoopla. Neither the Volt, nor GM shares have lived up to the hype. For the past year, significant sales for the Volt have not materialized. This did not stop GM or President Obama from declaring the car a huge success. Lies were told about the existence of long waiting lists of customers that were lined up to buy the car, if only GM could keep up with the strong demand. These claims came not only from GM, but also from politicians like Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA) who claimed there were waiting lists in CA and Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) who said Volts were "selling like hot cakes." And of course we had the Salesman in Chief, President Obama, say that he drove the car and it was a great vehicle. He recently backed off this falsehood and said the secret service wouldn't let him drive, but he will buy one in five years. Meanwhile, GM hypocritically complains that the Volt is a political target. GM manufactured excuses about as fast as they manufactured Volts regarding the reasons for low sales. They stretched out the "supply can't keep up with demand" bogus claim as long as they could until it became obvious that they weren't trying real hard to ramp up production and lack of supply wasn't the issue. The latest excuse takes a play right out of President Obama's playbook. Of course, it's the Republican's fault for falsely criticizing a technologically wonderful green machine! The scoundrels have convinced the nation not to buy Chevy Volts in an effort to destroy our planet and oust our leader! GM seems to be sticking to its guns in its backing of the Volt. According to a WSJ report, "Mark Reuss, GM's North American chief, said in an interview the auto maker remains committed to the Volt and is taking a number of steps to improve lagging sales. GM will launch a new national ad campaign this month that features Volt owners praising the car. It also recently dropped the monthly cost of leasing the vehicles to $350 from $399 for a 36-month lease." Bob Lutz, whose legacy is being tainted by his absurd defense of the Volt, stated "The Volt is a bases-loaded home run. It will overcome." So it appears GM will continue to blow millions of dollars on ads to promote a vehicle that the public doesn't want. Perhaps all that ad spending is part of the reason TV networks, other than the Fox Business Network, do not criticize GM or the Obama Administration for dumping billions of dollars on the unwanted car that feeds on a life support line of taxpayer subsidies. A sales boost should occur when crony corporation GE begins purchasing thousands of Volts as promised. The purchases may be timed so that they can occur closer to the presidential election, as President Obama continues to campaign on the perceived success of GM and the Chevy Volt while refusing to sell taxpayers' ownership stake in the company. The public should be aware of the deceit when the media lights up with stories about electrified Volt sales. Look, the bottom line is that the Chevy Volt might be a fine vehicle for those that can afford them and want to buy them, but billions of dollars should not be taken from taxpayers to subsidize a car that can not succeed on its own in the market. Not only should congress reject President Obama's attempt to raise the EV tax credit to $10,000, Rep. Mike Kelly's bill to kill the subsidies all together should be backed. Gas prices are approaching Government Motors' desired $5 level and the Obama-backed Volt obviously does nothing to help lower the price. The facts are the facts, there was no reason to lie about the car and make claims that demand was so high. In doing so, GM and the White House have lost a great deal of credibility. The Volt saga raises the important question, if GM and the Obama Administration can lie so easily to the American public about the Chevy Volt, what else have they, or will they lie to us about?