SOLYNDRA, a Fremont-based solar panel manufacturer that flared then sputtered, abruptly ceased operations on Wednesday and immediately LAID OFF ALL 1,100 OF ITS WORKERS.
The shutdown marks a high-profile collapse of a company that received more than $1.6 billion in federal and private funding in recent years.
"This was an unexpected outcome and is most unfortunate," Brian Harrison, Solyndra's president and chief executive, said.
THE COMPANY RECEIVED $535 MILLION IN TAXPAYER MONEY FROM THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY and $1.1 billion in private venture capital funding.
"WE HAVE ALWAYS RECOGNIZED THAT NOT EVERY ONE OF THE INNOVATIVE COMPANIES SUPPORTED BY OUR LOANS AND LOAN GUARANTEES WOULD SUCCEED," said Dan Leistikow, a spokesman for the Department of Energy. "But we can't stop investing in game-changing technologies that are key to America's leadership in the global economy."..
So here was in investment of over $486,000 per job lost.
Men of the People
The portrait of Barack Obama's presidency is that of an egocentric -- not only incapable of leadership, but SOMEONE WHO VIEWS THE OFFICE AS A VEHICLE FOR THE SATISFACTION OF HIS DELUSION THAT THE WORLD NOT ONLY OWES HIM A LIVING, BUT A SUMPTUOUS ONE.
A TRAIT COMMON TO MANY WHO ESPOUSE SOCIALISM, INCLUSIVE OF DICTATORS AND DEMOCRATS, IS AN INSATIABLE APPETITE FOR SELF-INDULGENCE. While those on the conservative side of the political spectrum are often accused of hypocrisy when it comes to matters of sex and morality, those on the left are equally guilty, if not more so, in matters of money, paying taxes, and lifestyle.
Regardless of the public image they may convey, BARACK OBAMA AND HIS WIFE NEVER FAIL TO TAKE FULL ADVANTAGE OF A LIFESTYLE THAT WOULD BE THE ENVY OF ANY MODERN-DAY MONARCH while the bulk of the American populace struggles to afford life's necessities.
He is but another in a long line of those who promote socialism and proclaim to be "of the people" with only the interests of the citizens at heart -- as they duplicitously pursue a personal agenda. BEYOND THE UNQUESTIONED BELIEF BY THOSE ON THE LEFT THAT THEY ARE THE MOST CAPABLE, THUS SUPERIOR AND PRE-ORDAINED TO GOVERN THE MASSES, THE TRAITS MOST COMMON TO THE VAST MAJORITY OF SELF-DESCRIBED "PROGRESSIVES" IN POSITIONS OF POWER ARE JEALOUSY, GREED, AND MASSIVELY INFLATED DELUSIONS OF ENTITLEMENT….
Here’s an interesting look at the biggest problem the progressives have when it comes to actually living what they preach. They don’t.
Perry says Sky is Blue: Progressives disagree
We can say one thing of the new GOP front-runner: Governor Rick Perry knows how to fire up a crowd. THE LEFTIST MEDIA BLEW UP THIS WEEK WHEN PERRY REITERATED A POINT FROM HIS BOOK THAT SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE ARE PONZI SCHEMES.
"THERE IS NOTHING AT ALL ABOUT SOCIAL SECURITY THAT IS ANYTHING LIKE A PONZI SCHEME," DECLARES THE WASHINGTON POST'S PLUM LINE BLOG. (Bernie Madoff's lawyers must be wondering where this guy was during jury selection.) The blogger claims Social Security doesn't resemble the "deliberate and outright fraud" of a Ponzi scheme but IS SIMPLY A PROMISE TO TAKE TAXES FROM CHILDREN FOR THE BENEFIT A CERTAIN GROUP. (Whew, thank heaven that's cleared up!)
What this already troubling description of Social Security leaves out is that almost every subdivision of the program includes the word "insurance." WHEN FRANKLIN ROOSEVELT CAMPAIGNED FOR THE LAW, HE ROUTINELY CLAIMED THAT SOCIAL SECURITY WAS SYSTEM OF INSURANCE that would provide a pension income to the elderly. It wasn't until the 1937 SUPREME COURT CASE HELVERLING V. DAVIS WHERE THE SAME ADMINISTRATION ARGUED THAT SOCIAL SECURITY TAXES WERE NOT INSURANCE PREMIUMS AT ALL, BUT A GENERIC TAX TO BE SPENT AS GOVERNMENT SAW FIT. But the deception didn't stop there. To the present day, statements on the policy come regularly to the program's participants, perpetuating the illusion of a traditional retirement plan. But of course, only an uncouth Texan could describe that as "deliberate or outright fraud."…
Truth has a tough time in politics.
Private vs. Public Investment
A single number tells us most of what we need to know about the recession and prospects for recovery. THAT NUMBER IS GROSS PRIVATE DOMESTIC INVESTMENT. It averaged 16% of the GDP in 2006-7, 11% in 2009, 12.4% in 2010. For the first half of 2011, it was 12.6%. This decline is large enough to account for most of the increase in unemployment. It must be reversed; there is no other way of returning to high employment.
HOUSEHOLDS ARE DOING THEIR DUTY, SPENDING 95% OF THEIR INCOME. Consumption is a dependent variable; it will never pull us out of recession. Consumption stimulus policies have failed and wasted tax revenue. Only more jobs and paychecks can do the job.
The Federal Reserve has maintained a discount rate of one quarter of one percent for 3 years to encourage lending and investment. It has done as much as it dared to raise exports and reduce imports by increasing the money supply and devaluing the dollar.
GOVERNMENT HAS INCREASED ITS SHARE OF GDP FROM 19.2% IN 2006-7 TO 20.9% IN 2009 AND 20.6% IN 2010. The increase in the deficit did not reduce unemployment. Can government increase its expenditures enough to counteract the decline in private investment? Can such an increase stimulate private investment? Is it possible to finance compensatory government spending by taxation?
Arguments about the size of government are not just ideological; they are economic. At what point does increased taxation reduce growth? At what higher point does it reduce revenues? IF THE GOVERNMENT SPENDS 20% OF THE GDP, FINANCED BY TAXES, TAX RATES ON THE REST OF THE ECONOMY (BUSINESS, NONPROFITS, HOUSEHOLDS) MUST AVERAGE 25%. If government were to spend 25% OF THE GDP, TAX RATES WOULD HAVE TO AVERAGE 33%. Much depends on how government structures taxes and spends revenues. There is no sure knowledge, but I suspect that the tax rate that begins to reduce economic growth is much closer to 25% than to 33%....
A must read article that will give you a new look at what’s going on in the economy and what must be done to overcome the unemployment crisis.
Is Obama Running Against Congress? He already Is.
Within minutes of agreeing with congressional leaders Wednesday night on an address to a joint session next week, PRESIDENT OBAMA FLASHED OUT AN EMAIL TO MILLIONS OF SUPPORTERS CRITICIZING THE CHAMBERS, THEIR MEMBERS AND VOWING TO PRESSURE THEM TO ENACT HIS AS YET UNSPECIFIED JOB CREATION IDEAS.
"IT'S BEEN A LONG TIME SINCE CONGRESS WAS FOCUSED ON WHAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE NEED THEM TO BE FOCUSED ON," the Democrat charged in an email with the subject line: "Frustrated."
It's not exactly clear how long "a long time" Obama was thinking of. But until midterm voters produced a historic House turnover to Republicans last November, Obama's Democratic Party controlled both houses with substantial majorities and gave him vast spending, reform and healthcare programs….
His comment about “a long time” is very telling. His push to enact healthcare certainly qualifies as NOT being focused on what the American people need them to be focused on. But this is as close as you’ll get to him admitted that.
How Do Obama's Re-Election Chances Stack Up to Hoover's?
This article is making the rounds this morning, suggesting that Obama's got a lock on 2012. ACCORDING TO A MODEL DESIGNED BY AMERICAN UNIVERSITY PROFESSOR ALLAN LICHTMAN, WHICH HAS SUCCESSFULLY PREDICTED EVERY ELECTION SINCE REAGAN, OBAMA HAS ENOUGH OF ITS THIRTEEN "KEYS" TO ENSURE THAT HE WILL RETAIN THE WHITE HOUSE IN 2012. I thought it would be interesting to see how Hoover stacked up on the same model.
1. Party mandate: After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than it did after the previous midterm elections. Says Lichtman, "Even back in January 2010 when I first released my predictions, I was already counting on a significant loss." OBAMA LOSES THIS KEY. SO DOES HOOVER.
2. Contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination. Says Lichtman on Obama's unchallenged status, "I never thought there would be any serious contest against Barack Obama in the Democratic primary." OBAMA WINS THIS KEY. SO DOES HOOVER.
3. Incumbency: The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president. EASY WIN HERE FOR OBAMA. SO DOES HOOVER….
…. Yet HOOVER DIDN'T JUST BARELY LOSE--HE WAS BEATEN LIKE A RENTED MULE. The problem is obvious, I think: unlike the economic models that rely on external metrics, perception is doing a lot of the work here. Do we count Obama's stimulus but not Hoover's? And if so, why? I understand you might say that Obama's was larger, more effective, etc but this is a political model--it's about perception, not the economic effect, which is captured in other variables. Hoover's deficit spending was perceived as a big deal, and became an issue in the 1932 election.
Lichtman’s article got a lot of response from both sides. This is a fun and interesting comparison. Perhaps Obama isn’t the shoe in that Lichtman declared he was.
Perry 44% Obama 41%; President Leads Other GOP Hopefuls
FOR THE FIRST TIME THIS YEAR, TEXAS GOVERNOR RICK PERRY LEADS PRESIDENT OBAMA IN A NATIONAL ELECTION 2012 SURVEY. OTHER REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES TRAIL THE PRESIDENT BY SINGLE DIGITS.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows Perry picking up 44% of the vote while the president earns support from 41%. Given the margin of sampling error (+/- 3 percentage points) and the fact that the election is more than a year away, THE RACE BETWEEN THE TWO MEN IS EFFECTIVELY A TOSS-UP. Just over a week ago, the president held a three-point advantage over Perry. (To see question wording, click here.)
Perry leads by nine among men but trails by five among women. AMONG VOTERS UNDER 30, THE PRESIDENT LEADS WHILE PERRY HAS THE EDGE AMONG THOSE OVER 30. The president leads Perry by 16 percentage points among union members while Perry leads among those who do not belong to a union.
FORMER MASSACHUSETTS GOVERNOR MITT ROMNEY CURRENTLY TRAILS THE PRESIDENT BY FOUR PERCENTAGE POINTS, 43% TO 39%. That’s a slight improvement for the Republican compared to a week ago. Earlier in the year, Romney held a one-point edge when matched against the president. Prior to today’s release, that was the only time a named Republican has held any kind of lead over President Obama. A Generic Republican currently leads the president 48% to 40%.
Pollster Dick Morris argues that any candidate who keeps Obama under 50% would beat him. He’s contention is that with an incumbent president, the undecided will basically break completely against him (they already know who Obama is). It is significant that with both Perry and Romney, Obama’s support is 43%. This is not a good sign for Democrats.