Discussion on:
Top
Rated
Rated
You forgot to mention a few things.
Edited by Hates Idiots
Updated - 5th Jun
Just
In
In
My only point.
Posted by Hates Idiots
6th Jun
Show:
+2
Votes
Solar film maker
Are we ever going to get that, for now, solar is not the energy we need to be focusing on right now. What is the problem with our country that we don't know this. Please no more throwing good money after bad in this arena.
Posted by cavalierking55@...
4th Jun
+3
Votes
You forgot to mention a few things.
In total they recieved just over $20 million in taxpayer loans/grants since 2003.
The $1.5 million loan from 2003 has already been paid back to the state. Chalk that up as a good investment for taxpayers from the businessman turned gov.
The bulk of the $20 million was paid out in the past 3 years was from current MA gov. Deval Patrick (D) and the Obama administration. Most of it in the form of grants that are not paid back.
A $1.5 million loan made 9 years ago and already paid off is chump change to over $18 million in the past 3 years. Much of it will never be seen again.
The $1.5 million loan from 2003 has already been paid back to the state. Chalk that up as a good investment for taxpayers from the businessman turned gov.
The bulk of the $20 million was paid out in the past 3 years was from current MA gov. Deval Patrick (D) and the Obama administration. Most of it in the form of grants that are not paid back.
A $1.5 million loan made 9 years ago and already paid off is chump change to over $18 million in the past 3 years. Much of it will never be seen again.
Posted by Hates Idiots
Updated - 5th Jun
0
Votes
Not all of that $20M came from US taxpayers
Yes, in all Konarka says it received "$20 million government research grants." Thanks for the additional info. However, I'm not sure I agree with the bulk of its has come from the Obama admin/Gov. Patrick.
Much of that funding came from European governments, according to Konarka. And another chunk of government research money came, such as the National Science Foundation's award and a US Army contract in the company's early days. I think it's safe to say a lot of government entities as well as numerous venture capital firms, major corporations and private equity thought it was worth investing in this company's tech.
Much of that funding came from European governments, according to Konarka. And another chunk of government research money came, such as the National Science Foundation's award and a US Army contract in the company's early days. I think it's safe to say a lot of government entities as well as numerous venture capital firms, major corporations and private equity thought it was worth investing in this company's tech.
Posted by kirsten korosec
5th Jun
+2
Votes
Agreed, but you are streching credibility.
A lot of taxpayer money floated this company for 9 years, BUT...
To compare Romneys $1.5 million taxpayer backed loan, that was paid back, to the losses of taxpayer dollars seen by both Patrick ($56 million to Evergreen) and Obama ($500 million to Solyndra) is a bit of a stretch.
To compare Romneys $1.5 million taxpayer backed loan, that was paid back, to the losses of taxpayer dollars seen by both Patrick ($56 million to Evergreen) and Obama ($500 million to Solyndra) is a bit of a stretch.
Posted by Hates Idiots
5th Jun
0
Votes
It wasn't a comparison
So, would it be more creditable then to ignore the Mitt Romney connection and simply not mention it? And to be clear, I didn't make a comparison to Patrick or Obama. I included the investors who supported the company and made special note of a couple of government grants and loans as well, including financing support it received from BOTH Romney and Patrick. It would be totally irresponsible to leave out the loan given to the company while Romney was in office and just keep the Patrick-endorsed loan listed.
Yes, it's tiny compared to other loan guarantees that have been issued to other companies, including Solyndra. But this wasn't an article comparing Solyndra and Konarka. The piece was about Konarka, its money woes and the numerous investors and government agencies that supported the company. So, I listed its investors and noted some of the government support its received, the vast majority of which occurred between 2003 and 2007.
Further, the connection had to be mentioned; and it would need to be for any presidential candidate who's current positions don't reflect previous behavior or stances.
Yes, it's tiny compared to other loan guarantees that have been issued to other companies, including Solyndra. But this wasn't an article comparing Solyndra and Konarka. The piece was about Konarka, its money woes and the numerous investors and government agencies that supported the company. So, I listed its investors and noted some of the government support its received, the vast majority of which occurred between 2003 and 2007.
Further, the connection had to be mentioned; and it would need to be for any presidential candidate who's current positions don't reflect previous behavior or stances.
Posted by kirsten korosec
6th Jun
+1
Vote
My only point.
It seems the only purpose to mention Romney is to link him to the failure.
As both Patrick and Obama have been linked to their respective failures.
The broken link to the failure is the fact the much smaller loan had been paid off.
Making the mention of Romney factually pointless unless there was a political motive to try and link him to the failure.
As both Patrick and Obama have been linked to their respective failures.
The broken link to the failure is the fact the much smaller loan had been paid off.
Making the mention of Romney factually pointless unless there was a political motive to try and link him to the failure.
Posted by Hates Idiots
6th Jun