What We Can Learn About Liberals From Solyndra and Social Security
By Philip Klein
Published September 22, 2011
| The Washington Examiner
If you want to understand how liberals view the relationship between individuals and the government, compare their reactions to the Solyndra scandal to their statements on Social Security reform.
Earlier this month, Solyndra, the solar panel maker that received $535 million in federal loan guarantees and was touted as the symbol of President Obama's "green jobs" initiative, declared bankruptcy and had its offices raided by the FBI.
The failure of a company Obama described as "a true engine of economic growth" has raised obvious questions about the advisability of squandering taxpayer money on such endeavors. But Obama's surrogates have countered by arguing that failure is merely a natural byproduct of progress.
"The reason why fledgling, cutting-edge industries need this kind of assistance is because they can be high risk as well as high reward," White House press secretary Jay Carney said. He also observed that "what happened here is an investment did not pan out."
"what happened here is an investment did not pan out."
This statement is a JOKE! How about they tell the TRUTH and just admit that there was little if any consideration given to the company's financial situation or in it's ability to compete in the market?
Those who have trust in this administration's ability to properly invest our scarce dollars really need to wake the hell up. These loans are still being given to other "green" companies.....I woud think this would be a good time to put the brakes on, but we've already seen this administration double down on bad ideas....more stimulus anyone?
The left is angry because they are now being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
"The reason why fledgling, cutting-edge industries need this kind of assistance is because they can be high risk as well as high reward," White House press secretary Jay Carney said. He also observed that "what happened here is an investment did not pan out."
Which is the primary reason that investments should be made based on the monetary profit potential instead of the political profit potential. Since the only profit that government is interested in is political, it should refrain from guaranteeing the investments that others are making. Removing the risk, which is to say socializing the loss should it occur, and leaving only a reward is how the mortgage industry got so twisted, wasn't it? Did the power hungry folks in DC not learn anything from their earlier mistake of removing the risks from financial institutions and individuals associated with lending money?
