Thursday, May 31, 2012

Romney falls on his face over Solyndra, again. That is what happens when a Presidential Candidate stands on Half-Truths.

Republican presidential candidate, (click here) former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney holds a news conference outside the Solyndra manufacturing facility, Thursday, May 31, 2012, in Fremont, Calif. (AP Photo/Mary Altaffer)
But, Romney only represents a 'Wise Man After the Fact' no different than the other investment companies. The Solyndra 'deal' was brokered by the company where the former Secretary of the Treasury, Paulson was once CEO. That's right. The entire mess that is Solyndra was brokered by Goldman Sachs. I am sure the former Governor of Massachusetts remembers the monies he obtained at Bain to broker deals. Well, this one was no different. As a matter of fact, it was Goldman Sachs that was underwriting the Solyndra IPO which when it was deemed unworthy by Price-Waterhouse. Interesting, isn't it?

Let's look at the facts and why it is easy to find half-truths in Romney's rantings.

...The company (click here) has said it intends to auction off its assets as quickly as possible, in part with the help of former Massachusetts governor William Weld, a partner in the law firm McDermott, Will & Emery, where he charges $895 an hour.

On Sept. 8, the Solyndra plot thickened again, when the FBI raided the company’s offices in connection with an investigation by the Department of Energy’s inspector general. And last week Solyndra executives pleaded the Fifth Amendment during their congressional hearing.

You would think that this kind of dicey situation would be one that a savvy Wall Street player like Goldman Sachs would know to avoid. Surely, you would think, Goldman would have some sort of internal credit committee that would put its foot down and insist that Goldman’s reputation was too important to be mixed up with a company with both an arrogant management team and a questionable business plan. (Solyndra’s advisers on the Treasury loan, including Goldman, split some $10 million in fees, according to a filing Solyndra made about the loan.)

You would also think the firm’s reputation police would put the kibosh on Solyndra, too. But Goldman, which Solyndra credited as the “exclusive financial adviser” on its Treasury loan application, kept the firm as a client through thick and thin....

The story goes on and I am sure most people can discern the fact that money was at play and having an endorsement for a government loan from a well established Wall Street investment firm where a former Secretary of the Treasury still resides over its dealings was a safe venture for the USA Energy Department. After all, this was Hank Paulson the savior of the banking world and his investment company, and on top of that they were going to be underwriting the IPO, so what was more safe than that? I mean when Solyndra was looking for funds it was just a matter of time by those involved before an IPO would bring it the monies it needed to get serious about a much larger footprint in the solar industry.

No one is going to convince me that cheap solar imports from China wasn't a factor, it was. And to President Obama's credit, he has placed surcharges on those imports. That action alone by President Obama would never have occurred under the previous administration. Not with the such affections for China as Mr. Bush's brother had and the deep abiding relationship Paulson sought while US Treasury Secretary with China. China was safe to carry out any insult to the American workforce it wanted and the profitability of American companies.

I mean let's get real here.

What was equally as interesting is how the Founder of Solyndra was this really talented guy called, Chris Gronet and all of a sudden he just moves on in his career.

Odd, isn't it?

Solyndra founder Chris Gronet to move on (click here)

Date: Saturday, August 20, 2011, 8:02am PDT  Last Modified: Monday, August 22, 2011, 5:47am PDT

Solyndra LLC disclosed in a blog post on Friday that its founder and former CEO Chris Gronet would transition to an adviser and consultant role, "pursuing new opportunities and challenges in clean-tech."

The brief announcement didn't specify details of Gronet's new role nor any financial arrangements it may entail.

The Fremont solar power company has been under fire from opponents of Pres. Barack Obama's energy policies, held up as an example of a failed effort to fund clean-tech energy alternatives....

Chris Gronet was an exceptionally talented guy. There was no technical flaw in the solar industry he could not over come. So, by every measure Solyndra was suppose to surpass expectations. The investment by the USA Energy Department was not misguided it was exploited.

...In December 2009, Solyndra filed an initial public offering to raise an unspecified amount of other people’s money to continue to finance its nonsensical business plan, including the build-out of its second production facility and to pay off the Argonaut loan. Goldman was the IPO’s lead underwriter; Morgan Stanley was the only other underwriter listed on the SEC filing, called an S-1....
...What was atypical was that the amended filing also contained a “going concern” qualification from the company’s auditors, PricewaterhouseCoopers. “There can be no assurance that, in the event the Company requires additional financing, such financing will be available on terms which are favorable or at all,” according to the amended S-1....

I didn't get the name exactly correct, now did I? Memory didn't serve me well and today perhaps memory didn't serve Romney well. I really do dislike politicians that hide the truth about hopeful lending by the American people to an industry abandoned as frivolous compared to the petroleum industry which is literally destroying the benevolent troposphere of Earth. But, alas, Earth is not a Romney crony.

So, goes the lies and cult-ure of Wall Street and Willard Mitt Romney.
Oh, one other thing, how is Howard Hamm working out as the energy advisor for good, ole' Mitt? Oil guy, ya know? Not into solar, wind and stuff like that.

Former First Lady Laura Bush made the best speech today.

But, no one described her. She was truly wonderful in the only way Laura Bush can be. She completely removed herself as the focus of the ceremony and honored the citizens of the USA. It was nice to hear. Her gracious humility speaks eons to how she served our country so well. I remember her best post Katrina. She harnessed the people of Texas to come to the rescue and then attended to the details. She is very nice lady and shared the spotlight today with some of the nicest people on this Earth, the American citizen. I thank her.

...Bush is pictured (click here) standing in the Oval Office, in front of a painting titled “A Charge to Keep” that hung in the office throughout his presidency.  He said the inclusion of that background detail was appropriate. “I asked John to include it because it reminds me of the wonderful people with whom I was privileged to serve.  Whether they served in the Cabinet or on the presidential staff, these men and women, many of whom are here, worked hard and served with honor.  We had a charge to keep and we kept the charge," he said....

Buddy Roemer suspends his campaign.

By Adam Wollner 
May 31, 2012 4:46 PM 

In an election year (click here) in which record amounts of money will likely be spent, Buddy Roemer really didn't stand a chance. The former governor of Louisiana, who from the start of his campaign pledged to refuse contributions larger than $100 and any money from political action committees,officially ended his longshot presidential bid Tuesday.
Roemer ran an unorthodox campaign, to say the least -- especially from a fundraising standpoint. He stuck to his promise and didn't accept any large donations or PAC funds, continually denouncing the influence of corporations and lobbyists in politics. 

This is not governing, it is unconstitutional besides a ridiculous measure.

A fetus is not a citizen. It cannot sustain discrimination. It is also a law that is not enforceable. If a woman does not want a pregnancy because of the gender on an ultrasound, there are other reasons they can use to obtain the same goal. The House Republicans don't care about governing, they care about moralism and its oppression on the country. This has nothing to do with China or any other country, this is the complete moronity of self-righteous politicians that practice religion from the front of the US House of Representatives.

Abortion is not about babies. Abortion is about pregnancy. If a woman does not want a pregnancy she will end it, one way or another. The USA House of Representatives does not belong legislating 'body parts' and their purpose. A woman's uterus and whether or not she contributes to the economic growth of Wall Street is not an issue of government.

This is a country where a citizen has rights.

All citizens are equal under the law, including to marry the people they love. The Political Right Wing of the USA is "W"rong to victimize any citizen of the USA. What can happen to one can happen to all. The GOP ought to hang its head in shame for their priorities in victimizing women, minorities including the Hispanics STILL waiting for the Dream Act and the Gay Community.

Defense of Marriage Act
By Globe Staff    
  MAY 31, 2012
Elected officials and activists (click here) from around Massachusetts and around the country are reacting to the First US Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in Boston that the federal Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional:
“Society should protect and strengthen marriage, not undermine it. The federal Defense of Marriage Act provides that type of protection, and we trust the U.S. Supreme Court will reverse the 1st Circuit’s erroneous decision.”
“In allowing one state to hold the federal government, and potentially other states, hostage to redefine marriage, the 1st Circuit attempts a bridge too far. Under this rationale, if just one state decided to accept polygamy, the federal government and perhaps other states would be forced to accept it, too. The federal government had the right to step in against polygamy at one time in our nation’s history, and it has the right to step in against this attempt at marriage redefinition as well.”
— Dale Schowengerdt, legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, an alliance of Christian attorneys

The trial of John Edwards was nothing but vicious North Carolina politics

The man is among the few Democrats able and willing to lead the nation with the understanding there is a two class system in the USA. THAT, is why he is on trial and has nothing to do with his relationship with ANYONE, including Bunny Melon!

These relationships between people of potential to change the face of injustice in the country is the Southern Culture and either you survive and thrive in it or you are destine to live a life of futility forever.

I have never witnessed such a vicious political culture in my life. I sincerely hope former Senator Edwards goes on to find happiness with all his children and continues to be the voice of reason.

What exactly is our military defending exactly, itself?

Something the USA military needs to assess is the extent our "Defense" inhibits and hurts the citizens. What do I mean by that?

Number in Poverty and Poverty Rates from 1959 to 2010 (click here)

We know for a fact. FACT! When a country is dedicated to war there is impact at home. The current poverty rate in the USA is over 15 %. It is directly related to the global economic collapse ushered in during the Bush years. There are twice before levels matching that, under Ronald Reagan in 1983 and under Clinton in 1993. It is interesting to realize when the USA is perceived by citizens as doing well there is actually an increase in poverty. That is due to monies in the economy sequestered in the upper income brackets. Wall Steet did exceptionally well under both Reagan and Clinton. In 1993, Wall Street claimed a lot of success in the face of oppositional odds, while culling the herd of employees. The increase in poverty in 1993 was also due to deficit reduction if I remember correctly.

Wall Street clawed its way to a third straight winning year in 1993, (click here) overcoming early doubts about the economy, later fears of higher interest rates and a growing diversion of U.S. investors' cash to red-hot foreign markets. The Dow Jones industrial average jumped 13.7% for the year and closed just under its all-time high. The Dow began the year at 3,301.11 and ended at 3,754.09, for a 452.98-point gain....

1993 Deficit Reduction: A lesson on taxes, economic growth, and jobs—as reported by America’s premier CONSERVATIVEfinancial daily news publication:

The Wall Street Journal

Conservative politicians always threaten the public (click here) that, if Congress or the President raises taxes on the wealthy, the economy will slow down, unemployment will go up, and workers' wages will go down.
     Conservatives’ hidden agenda: we want to allow our wealthy supporters—the ones who benefited most from the economic policies that forced huge sacrifices onto American workers during the 1980s and 90s—to be able to keep more of their money.
     Reality: Raising taxes on the wealthy is much more likely to reduce the deficit and make more money available to proactively solve America’s problems—and save money in the long run. In addition, it may have absolutely no negative effect on economic growth, jobs or wages.
     Here’s what conservative politicians said about the 1993 deficit reduction legislation that raised taxes on the top 1.2% of our wealthiest citizens: 
"Clearly, this is a job-killer in the short-run. The impact on job creation is going to be devastating."

—Rep. Dick Armey, (Republican, Texas) 
"The tax increase will…lead to a recession…and will actually increase the deficit."

—Rep. Newt Gingrich (Republican, Georgia)
"I will make you this bet. I am willing to risk the mortgage on it…the deficit will be up; unemployment will be up; in my judgment, inflation will be up."

—Sen. Robert Packwood (Republican, Oregon)
"The deficit four years from today will be higher than it is today, not lower."

—Sen. Phil Gramm (Republican, Texas)
"The President promised a middle-class tax cut, yet he and his party imposed the largest tax increase in American history. We hope his higher taxes will not cut short the economic recovery and declining interest rates he inherited… Instead of stifling growth through higher taxes and increased government regulations, Republicans would take America in a different direction."

—Sen. Robert Dole (Republican, Kansas)
That article was long before Rupert Murdoch took over the Wall Street Journal, one of his propaganda rags, now. No different than "News of the World," a paper that stood for 100 years was destroyed when Murdoch bought the paper. But, that isn't what this is about. This is about how military spending escalates along with the USA poverty rate. It would seem as though the USA military is only concerned for itself and to extent our national debt when it believes it will be reduced in spending. It never seems to worry about the quality of life Americans have or how the GDP is growing to support such a huge military by paying taxes and participating in the economy.
What the Joint Chiefs never do is concern themselves with the health of the American Middle Class, the backbone of the country and their quality of life and their ability to pay taxes and increase GDP. I am confident the Joint Chiefs are concerned with the quality of life of spouses to our soldiers and the families and rightfully so. But, if they sincerely are worried about the percent of GDP of the USA National Debt they need to realize when economics are toyed with for political volleys that means their 'cut of the taxes' has to change.

Basically, the USA military can't bite the hand that feeds them. They can't oppress the citizens while expecting to maintain a healthy portion of the USA taxes. If the USA Middle Class cannot sustain itself and contribute to the USA economy through good wages and paid taxes, does the USA military believe they can actually justify such a huge amount of spending in the face of poverty of its citizens?

It is a moral quandary the military has to answer. It is the Middle Class and the Poor of the USA that provides the soldiers it proclaims as the best in the world. I would think the military leadership of this country would be more than concerned about the plight of the families, friends and neighbors faced when their sons and daughters are being asked to go to war. 

There is a stark reality the country in general has to contend with. It is the fact their tax dollars support a military whom's cost oppresses their 'common good' and the economy of their country.

First Posted: 08/11/11 05:12 PM ET Updated: 10/11/11 06:12 AM ET
In America today, (click here) even men and women returning from war can't expect their families to be exempt from the foreclosure crisis.
On the same day that soldier Aaron Collette returned from a tour of duty in Iraq to his father Tim's home in Bend, Oregon, that very house was bought back at auction due to foreclosure, local news KTVZ reports. According to ThinkProgess, a campaign by Senator Jeff Merkely (D-OR ) had delayed the foreclosure proceedings. But still, despite promising to work with the Collettes, JPMorgan Chase eventually went through with reportedly repurchasing the home.
Aaron and his dad are no different from the millions of people who have been foreclosed upon due to a crisis that has seen also affected numbers of military personnel....

It isn't enough for the leadership of the USA military to say the National Debt is a security risk. The USA military has to define what is occurring with the National Debt in relation to GDP to state it is a national security risk. In other words, when the GDP falls because of a draconian wealth class, there is significant reasons to be concerned for the overall well being of the country and its ability to support a military that works to protect it. Cutting spending isn't answering the problem to a shrinking tax base and falling GDP.