Comments on: Solyndra's Bankruptcy: Another Watergate — Or Another Whitewater?

By: snarky

snarky — Sat, 17 Dec 2011 04:19:26 +0000

It is too bad the repubs will assail chump change Solyndra, but won’t even consider taking a peek behind the veil of $100 Oil. I am confident there is much more involved with the $100 Oil than the one hundred bucks.

By: jenny.hootyhoo

jenny.hootyhoo — Sat, 29 Oct 2011 05:29:59 +0000

Solyndra was supposed to have a Patent for a NEW, Solar product. Does the U S end up getting that Patent?

By: neutrino13

neutrino13 — Sat, 24 Sep 2011 00:44:05 +0000

I watched CSPAN and I learned that the officials of the Bush Administration decided to reject the grant application because Solyndra’s process was not properly validated. But even this fact is not relevant in the grand scheme of things. Here’s why:
The conversion of energy from solar to electric is still not economically viable because the conversion factor is dismal. Instead of building solar pannel plants with taxpayers’ money which are obsolete before they produce the first pannel, the goverment should put the money into research. Let the chinese invest heavily in building plants that produce ineffient pannels because in the end the better technology will prevail. I want my government to be involved in funding research not in manufacturing. At this stage, research is where the real benefits are and I wouldn’t mind if the government labs would be allowed to license the process to the highest bidders. This way, we the taxpayers, can profit from solar pannels installed anywhere in the world. Plus, when $500 million of taxpayers’ money go to a company in which a major donor to the ruling party is invested heavily, produces a putrid smell that is hard to ignore. This becomes another reason for our dumb congress to avoid doing something about our unemployed fellow citizens. They will be busy investigating the Administration and the DOE.

By: Bassicdave

Bassicdave — Tue, 20 Sep 2011 16:16:37 +0000

China is more competitive than the U.S. because of government investment. Therefore, government support is bad. Ok.

The Solyndra loan was intiated during the Bush Administration. Therefore, the Obama Administration is bad. Check.

Solyndra failed therefore Nancy Pelosi, EPA regulation, high corporate taxes, fraud, the Birkenstock company, or _________ (insert this morning's GOP talking point here) must have been the cause. Right on.

Peteserb and wmumart, next time try substantiating your assertion before writing letters like this. It's good therapy AND you'll look less like a marionette.

By: wmumart

wmumart — Tue, 20 Sep 2011 03:52:06 +0000

California is to over regulated, to strict on business. Building this in most expansive part of USA was totally political gift to Pelosi.
If the product is as good as the owners are barging the world would pick up on this quickly.
Competing with China is not easy same time the wages in China are skyrocketing and by 2015 many jobs will come back to USA. Of course only if we will revoke all the over regulations and close down EPA. Lay off 80 % of admi8nistartion and welfare state.

By: herola

herola — Sun, 18 Sep 2011 14:34:56 +0000

The last time I heard- all the monies for economic recovery did not go to President Obama’s family account. It went into making life easier for Americans. The solyndra project is example how a lot of companies in US is “duping” the American people.Getting money from the “naive” Obama’s government and do nothing but put the money in the stock market to gain money for themselves and save on their taxes while the working class of the country is left holding the empty bag.
Let the “dumning” of Americans continue by the so called “left”. It is just scary, very scary.

By: oz guy

oz guy — Sat, 17 Sep 2011 13:40:44 +0000

You say that it is not productive to give money to businesses. Why then is you kind so anxious to take money from the workers and the poor to give huge tax breaks to corporations?

By: DDavid Patterson

DDavid Patterson — Fri, 16 Sep 2011 21:05:04 +0000

The US cannot compete in the open market with $12 a day labor. Why would we want to? We must subsidize our new products
until our productivity and innovation overcomes the competition from low wage countries. Of course the Chinese workers will
eventually realize they are getting screwed and form unions but by that time it may be too late. Remember, higher wages for our workers mean higher demand for consumer goods and the ability to retire someday at a decent income. Of course, if one
doesn't give a rat's tail about worker welfare or the long term future then one's response to this issue will be different.

By: kurt.lorentzen

kurt.lorentzen — Fri, 16 Sep 2011 19:49:25 +0000

Mother Outlaw is right! And that’s exactly why giving money to businesses doesn’t produce results. It just plain costs too much to produce a competitive product in the US. Rival solar energy companies hit the same wall and one recipient of the same funding is now in chapter 11 citing – you guessed it – inability to compete with Chinese solar products. This is the same problem faced by ALL US business. So think again before you blast the other side for saying over-regulation, union mob tactics (with the NLRB as their taxpayer-financed enforcers) and constantly changing tax codes aren’t a problem. Need revenue? Then create an environment where revenue-producing entities can hire some taxpayers and still make a profit!

By: Jacquelyn Simone

Jacquelyn Simone — Fri, 16 Sep 2011 19:32:12 +0000

Thank you for your comment. Age does not necessarily qualify people to write about politics. Even so, The National Memo does hire people over 25 to write their stories, including Joe Conason, the author of this column. He has more than 35 years of journalistic experience, including The Village Voice, New York Observer, Salon.com, and book projects, to name a few.