Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Solyndra: Obama administration asks company to postpone layoffs


  • Please log in to reply
21 replies to this topic

#1 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,662 posts

Posted 15 November 2011 - 01:00 PM

http://www.washingto...riON_print.html

The Obama administration urged officers of the struggling solar company Solyndra to postpone announcing planned layoffs until after the November 2010 midterm elections, newly released e-mails show.

Solyndra, the now-shuttered California company, had been a poster child of President Obama’s initiative to invest in clean energies and received the administration’s first energy loan of $535 million. But a year ago, in October 2010, the solar panel manufacturer was quickly running out of money and had warned the Energy Department it would need emergency cash to avoid having to shut down.

The new e-mails about the layoff announcement were released Tuesday morning as part of a House Energy and Commerce committee memo, provided in advance of Energy Secretary Steven Chu’s scheduled testimony before the investigative committee Thursday.

Solyndra’s chief executive warned the Energy Department on Oct. 25, 2010, that he intended to announce worker layoffs Oct. 28. He said he was spurred by numerous calls from reporters and potential investors about rumors the firm was in financial trouble and was planning to lay off workers and close one of its two plants.

But in an Oct. 30, 2010, e-mail, advisers to Solyndra’s primary investor, Argonaut Equity, explain that the Energy Department had strongly urged the company to put off the layoff announcement until Nov. 3. The midterm elections were held Nov. 2, and led to Republicans taking control of the U.S. House of Representatives.

“DOE continues to be cooperative and have indicated that they will fund the November draw on our loan (app. $40 million) but have not committed to December yet,” a Solyndra investor adviser wrote Oct. 30. “They did push very hard for us to hold our announcement of the consolidation to employees and vendors to Nov. 3rd – oddly they didn’t give a reason for that date.”


Wow. Can you imagine the outrage if the Bush administration had called Enron and meddled in their day to day business right before their collapse?

#2 pantherfan49

pantherfan49

    Angry inventor

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,416 posts

Posted 15 November 2011 - 01:15 PM

But Barry is different. Hope hope change change balls slurping hope hope change change

#3 Jangler

Jangler

    that funky feeling to get you through

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 47,821 posts

Posted 15 November 2011 - 01:21 PM

:lol:

#4 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • ALL-PRO
  • 23,561 posts

Posted 15 November 2011 - 01:25 PM

Maybe if the Bush Administration had a actual vested interest in Enron they might have?

What the hell is a Solyndra investor adviser? Would be just a bit more believable if they had, you know, something from the DoE on this.

Not saying it's not true but this is really just another anecdote. I agree that from what it says, the people at DoE wanted to hold off on the announcement for their own purposes, but I don't understand what you are riled up about, other than the fact that the Dems didn't want to provide hysterical folks like you more ammunition for what is apparently nothing more than a failed business that the government had an active interest in. Any investor group can make these requests, not just the government - and do all the time.

Your post isn't a complete fail (refreshing), it's just another one putting the cart before the horse.

#5 stirs

stirs

    I Reckon So

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,282 posts

Posted 15 November 2011 - 01:41 PM

The Wash Post reporting this does not bode well for the administration. Once the media turns on the Dems, they do not have a chance. Without the media carrying their water, then they have to run on ideas, or worse, their record.

#6 Jangler

Jangler

    that funky feeling to get you through

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 47,821 posts

Posted 15 November 2011 - 01:51 PM

nah, they still got Huffypoop, Politico, MSNBC...

#7 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • ALL-PRO
  • 23,561 posts

Posted 15 November 2011 - 01:58 PM

Or just perhaps the Post is not the lapdog you think they are. Sometimes the reason some things don't get reported on is because there's nothing factual to report. That's what all you are good for, letting us know the things that might be true and reporting them as if they were true.

#8 The Saltman

The Saltman

    I am always watching so make sure you keep your clothes on

  • Moderators
  • 25,016 posts
  • LocationAtlanta,GA

Posted 15 November 2011 - 02:03 PM

CWG At it again.

#9 stirs

stirs

    I Reckon So

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,282 posts

Posted 15 November 2011 - 02:08 PM

Or just perhaps the Post is not the lapdog you think they are. Sometimes the reason some things don't get reported on is because there's nothing factual to report. That's what all you are good for, letting us know the things that might be true and reporting them as if they were true.


Oh, kinda like the Politico pc on Cains womanizing?

#10 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • ALL-PRO
  • 23,561 posts

Posted 15 November 2011 - 02:28 PM

Are you comparing the Washington Post to Politico? I'm really not that familiar with the latter but it sounds like a place where maybe the journalism standards might be a bit different.

#11 pantherfan49

pantherfan49

    Angry inventor

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,416 posts

Posted 15 November 2011 - 03:08 PM

Liberal rhetoric as it applies to Obama:

He is really just a closet republican and not a true liberal.

oh noes, someone is attacking Obama and he has done nothing wrong. he is the greatest and I will vote for him time and time again.

#12 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • ALL-PRO
  • 23,561 posts

Posted 15 November 2011 - 03:23 PM

You are sounding like a boring broken record. When I said it should be looked at, I meant it.

But if you think I would ever vote for the likes of Gingrich or Cain, then yes, I would vote for Obama time and time again. Romney....theres not much difference between them, but the idea of the current, completely irrational House paired with a Republican President would be a pretty bad idea.

#13 stirs

stirs

    I Reckon So

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,282 posts

Posted 15 November 2011 - 03:49 PM

Any scarier than the Obama, Reid, Pelosi, experiment, whose benefits we are now enjoying?

#14 Claws

Claws

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,100 posts

Posted 15 November 2011 - 04:36 PM

Maybe if the Bush Administration had a actual vested interest in Enron they might have?

What the hell is a Solyndra investor adviser? Would be just a bit more believable if they had, you know, something from the DoE on this.

Not saying it's not true but this is really just another anecdote. I agree that from what it says, the people at DoE wanted to hold off on the announcement for their own purposes, but I don't understand what you are riled up about, other than the fact that the Dems didn't want to provide hysterical folks like you more ammunition for what is apparently nothing more than a failed business that the government had an active interest in. Any investor group can make these requests, not just the government - and do all the time.

Your post isn't a complete fail (refreshing), it's just another one putting the cart before the horse.


So then it's politics?

#15 venom

venom

    oneinfiniteconsciousness

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,923 posts
  • LocationPleiades

Posted 15 November 2011 - 05:41 PM

You are sounding like a boring broken record. When I said it should be looked at, I meant it.

But if you think I would ever vote for the likes of Gingrich or Cain, then yes, I would vote for Obama time and time again. Romney....theres not much difference between them, but the idea of the current, completely irrational House paired with a Republican President would be a pretty bad idea.


What's fundamentally off-base about this comment is that you're implying there are differences between said candidates. Obama, Gingrich, Romney, Cain, etc are all the equivalent of eachother. Due to this fact, any vote for any one of them doesn't matter because you're still voting in an enabler for the status quo occupation and corruption of this country by the global elite.

Edited by venom, 15 November 2011 - 07:18 PM.



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com