Jump to content

Obamanomics at its Finest, or Solyndra II or or A123 Battery


jbg

Recommended Posts

It seems like alternative energy schemes, especially those espoused by Obama, have a high mortality rate. Solyndra. The maker of the abortive Volt battery, A123 (see article excerpts below, link). I don't know if it's Obama's gross incompetence, or more likely the result of trying to force a market where none exists, or maybe both. I do know that as a taxpayer I can find far better uses than pouring it down a rat hole.

Battery Maker Files for Bankruptcy

A123 Scraps China Deal and Will Sell Car Assets to Johnson Controls

Electric-car-battery manufacturer A123 Systems Inc. filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection Tuesday with a plan to sell its auto-business assets to an American rival, Johnson Controls Inc., scrapping a proposed rescue by a Chinese company.

The filing by the recipient of nearly $250 million in federal-government grants and $358 million in start-up funding scuttled a previously announced plan to sell an 80% stake to Chinese auto-parts maker Wanxiang Group Corp. That deal had encountered opposition from lawmakers concerned about the transfer of American taxpayer dollars and technology to China.

A123's bankruptcy also represents a setback for the Obama administration's efforts to foster a market for electric vehicles and develop a homegrown supply of advanced batteries. It provides fodder for Republican presidential challenger Mitt Romney to continue attacking the president for his financial support of renewable-energy firms.

While A123 Systems' tumble into bankruptcy follows that of other stimulus missteps like backing for failed solar-panel manufacturer Solyndra LLC, the futures of the two companies differ markedly.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This story has been largely buried by the media. The bigger scandal is the "saving" of Detroit's auto sector, which was essentially theft of taxpayer funds to be to be shuttled to his union base. In terms of company-specific loans and tax credits, the federal government under Obama's direction sent GM and Chrysler over $100 billion.

This faux "green energy" scandal, which is a favourite tool of corruption from the left in the USA, Europe, and Canada, is BIG business. It's a big part of the financial ruin affecting Ontario, with the shifting of energy production from hydro to "green sources" like wind mills, which cost a hell of a lot more per kW/hour.

This is the Obama economy, where the government takes on a bigger and bigger role in directing things from Washington. Failure and economic ruin is inevitable

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was something about the chevy volt subsidies too...

http://dailycaller.c...sidy-up-to-10k/

http://www.mediaite....t-obama-future/

This is the inevitable consequence of governmental direction of the economy. Massive inefficiencies and corruption. As Romney said, Obama isn't just picking winners.... he's picking losers. This is faux venture capitalism with taxpayer money (mostly borrowed), often going to Obama supporters and bundlers (unions, "green energy" firms, etc).

EDIT - Perfect example of what we're talking about:

STIMULUS-FUNDED WORKERS PAID TO PLAY CARDS

Edited by kraychik
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just so we know. Bain and Romney investment 30% failure rate, Obama green energy program 2-5% failure rate. Only an idiot wouldn't invest in a 2-5% failure rate but I guess that tells us something about the people posting in this thread eh and why they aren't rich?

Even if your dubious numbers are correct they are irrelevant.

First, the Obama investments are with our money, not Obama's. Second of all the Bain investments are by definition in failed or failing companies. A 30% loss rate is quite good. If Obama wants to tell the people he was throwing taxpayer dollars into failed programs, let him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if your dubious numbers are correct they are irrelevant.

First, the Obama investments are with our money, not Obama's. Second of all the Bain investments are by definition in failed or failing companies. A 30% loss rate is quite good. If Obama wants to tell the people he was throwing taxpayer dollars into failed programs, let him.

Yah expect everything you said isn't true. Was staples a failing business? How about Sensata? I agree after a company is with Bain for a little it becomes a failing company because they leverage them to the sky but most companies weren't in trouble until Bain got in the game. You could actually do some research on this instead of making claims that aren't backed up by fact.

Again only an idiot wouldn't invest knowing they are going to have 98 success rate which explains why you think these investments in American jobs are bad ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yah expect everything you said isn't true. Was staples a failing business? How about Sensata? I agree after a company is with Bain for a little it becomes a failing company because they leverage them to the sky but most companies weren't in trouble until Bain got in the game. You could actually do some research on this instead of making claims that aren't backed up by fact.

Again only an idiot wouldn't invest knowing they are going to have 98 success rate which explains why you think these investments in American jobs are bad ones.

I believe, at the time Staples was either new, or failing. As for Sensata I have to plead ignorance.

If a company either didn't need capital or wasn't in trouble why would they involve Bain in the first place?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe, at the time Staples was either new, or failing. As for Sensata I have to plead ignorance.

If a company either didn't need capital or wasn't in trouble why would they involve Bain in the first place?

They don't involve Bain a lot of the time. Most of the time it is Bain buying up the company on the public market but here is the kicker they are able to buy the company by borrowing against the company they are buying. So a company that is doing just fine is bought by Bain and all of a sudden has to much debt that Bain just dumped on them and then they are in real trouble. Don't worry though because Bain can now cut cut cut cut make the company look lean and mean and sell it or borrow more against it. This is why 30% of companies Bain takes over fail. They aren't in the business of making things a success or keeping American jobs they are in the business of making money. Even if that means killing the goose or in this case American jobs and successful American companies.

This is what Mitt "knows how to do" however that is only going to kill America. That isn't the way you run a country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So a company that is doing just fine is bought by Bain and all of a sudden has to much debt that Bain just dumped on them and then they are in real trouble.
A close friend of mine worked under Mitt at Bain in 1979-80. Suffice to say you don't know what you're talking about.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A close friend of mine worked under Mitt at Bain in 1979-80. Suffice to say you don't know what you're talking about.

Considering Bain capital the venture capital group we are talking about didn't exist until 1984 I think I'll stick with my opinions. A Bain which Romney worked for existed I am 1979 but they did a very different thing then Bain capital. I suggest you do do some research because your third hand stories don't really have any legs. Although a family member did work for a successful company Mitt took over to run I to the ground I promise you I know what I am talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Similar Content

    • By Shady
      That's from the Washingto Post. Now, from Politico...
      And then, we can take a look at what the White House press secretary had to say on September 20th.
      So yes, as usual, Obama misrepresented the truth. He seems to have a problem with that these days.
    • By cybercoma
      According to The New Yorker's endorsement of Barack Obama it certainly seems to be. They describe the legacy of George W. Bush and what Obama inherited as he entered office:
      So what is Obama's record? Has he done absolutely nothing as the GOP talking points and their echo boxes on this forum claim? The New Yorker outlines Obama's accomplishments on the above issues that were handed to him by the GOP in 2008 and more.
      And...
      (Read The New Yorker's endorsement HERE.)
      Is the United States better off in 2012 than in 2008? Not to those suffering from Romnesia, but when you look back on the state of America on Inauguration Day and see all that Obama has accomplished amidst some of the worst legislative stonewalling from the GOP in the nation's history, it seems pretty dishonest to say that he has accomplished "nothing" in 4 years.
  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...