Speakeasy forum

General discussion

An Obamanation. $16 Billion to "Obama Related Companies"

by James Denison / November 19, 2011 9:04 PM PST

The stink of this just grows bigger and smellier the more that's revealed about it.

An Obamanation Of Favoritism & Corruption.

Secretary Chu denied politics played a role in decisions to grant $535
million of loan guarantees to Solyndra, which was run by Obama bundler
George Kaiser.

Of the $20 billion of government grants and loan guarantees made to
green-tech companies by the DOE since 2009, over $16 billion were
allocated to "Obama-related companies," Schweizer tells me in the
accompanying video. "By that I mean either the chief executive or
leading investor was a member of his campaign finance committee or was a
bundler for his campaign."

Obama administration may have conducted "the greatest -- and most expensive -- example of crony capitalism in American history."

Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: An Obamanation. $16 Billion to "Obama Related Companies"
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: An Obamanation. $16 Billion to "Obama Related Companies"
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
Re: guarantees
by Kees_B Forum moderator / November 19, 2011 9:12 PM PST
Collapse -
That's different Kees...
by grimgraphix / November 19, 2011 11:43 PM PST
In reply to: Re: guarantees

... yours are examples of Republican fiscal cronyism. From a conservative point of view that is totally acceptable.

Collapse -
Sheesh !!
by Mike_Hanks / November 20, 2011 1:28 AM PST
In reply to: Re: guarantees

Yet another "Haliburton" straw man argument.

Collapse -
I don't know what the term "bundler" means....
by Josh K / November 20, 2011 10:42 PM PST
In reply to: Sheesh !!

....as used in that article. I do know that **** Cheney directly benefited financially from those Halliburton deals. He had resigned as CEO but he still owned stock in the company when all those no-bid contracts were given to them.

As far as the article goes, "tip of the iceberg" appears to be the writer's suspicion but I didn't see much to back that up.

The Solyndra business is embarrassing enough as it is.

Collapse -
"tip of the iceburg"
by TONI H / November 20, 2011 11:04 PM PST
Collapse -
None of those links....
by Josh K / November 20, 2011 11:16 PM PST
In reply to: "tip of the iceburg"

.....relate to the premise of the article.

Collapse -
Well known term, Josh...
by J. Vega / November 21, 2011 12:52 AM PST

Josh, "bundler" is a well known term. It is someone who gathers together contributions from many sources and presents them to the campaign in a single "bundle". It lets the bundler funnel far more money to campaigns than they could personally give under campaign finance laws.
George Kaiser bundled in the range of $50,000 to $100,000.
Overall, 184 of 556, or about one-third, of Obama bundlers or their spouses joined the administration in some role. But the percentages are much higher for the big-dollar bundlers. Nearly 80 percent of those who collected more than $500,000 for Obama took "key administration posts," as defined by the White House. More than half the ambassador nominees who were bundlers raised more than half a million.

Collapse -
Thanks, J
by Josh K / November 21, 2011 1:16 AM PST

I'd never heard of it. How do Obama's numbers compare with past presidents? I've never liked the practice and am curious to know whether Obama has done this more, less or about the same as his predecessors.

Collapse -
Try reading the link
by Mike_Hanks / November 21, 2011 2:22 AM PST

It debunks itself.

You don't know what a "bundler" is???

Then why participate in the conversation?

Collapse -
I do now; didn't before
by Josh K / November 21, 2011 2:50 AM PST
In reply to: Try reading the link

I learned something by participating in the conversation. Ever had that happen?

Collapse -
by Mike_Hanks / November 21, 2011 3:13 AM PST

Would rather find something out first.
Wouldn't want to look foolish. But others are free to do so.

Now, did you read the link so that you could "learn" that Cheney did NOT profit so that you'll never make that mistake again?

Collapse -
More's the pity
by Josh K / November 21, 2011 3:34 AM PST
In reply to: Nope

I'm not too proud to admit learning something here.

And yes, I read the article, but apparently you didn't, at least not very carefully.

The Vice President has sought to stem criticism by signing an
agreement to donate the after-tax profits from these stock options to
charities of his choice, and his lawyer has said he will not take any
tax deduction for the donations.

However, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) concluded
in Sept. 2003 that holding stock options while in elective office does
constitute a "financial interest" regardless of whether the holder of
the options will donate proceeds to charities. CRS also found that
receiving deferred compensation is a financial interest.

Cheney told "Meet the Press" in 2003 that he didn't have any financial ties to the firm.

"Since I left Halliburton to become George Bush's vice president,
I've severed all my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my
financial interest," the Vice President said. "I have no financial
interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven't had, now, for over three

Cheney continues to received a deferred salary from the company.
According to financial disclosure forms, he was paid $205,298 in 2001;
$262,392 in 2002; $278,437 in 2003; and $294,852 in 2004.

So, yes, I read the link, and in the section I pasted above Cheney is blatantly lying.

Collapse -
Sigh !!!!!!!!!!!!
by Mike_Hanks / November 21, 2011 6:21 AM PST
In reply to: More's the pity
Collapse -
Somehow ...
by Kees_B Forum moderator / November 21, 2011 6:42 AM PST
In reply to: Sigh !!!!!!!!!!!!

this thread went from "companies getting money from the government" in James' thread opener to "politician getting money from company". That's strange.


Collapse -
YEP !!!!!!!!
by Mike_Hanks / November 21, 2011 8:53 AM PST
In reply to: Somehow ...


Collapse -
don't you think they go "hand in hand"?
by James Denison / November 22, 2011 1:31 AM PST
In reply to: Somehow ...

"you grease my palm and I'll grease yours"?

Collapse -
Both links say the same thing
by Josh K / November 21, 2011 8:31 AM PST
In reply to: Sigh !!!!!!!!!!!!

The money was in the form of deferred payments. He was still receiving those payments while Vice President. Therefore he had a personal, direct interest in the welfare of that company while serving as VP.

Collapse -
NO read it again
by Mike_Hanks / November 21, 2011 8:54 AM PST

You are completely WRONG (yet again).

Collapse -
(NT) I can believe you never learned from listening.
by Roger NC / December 2, 2011 7:07 AM PST
In reply to: Nope
Collapse -
I'm curious
by James Denison / December 2, 2011 8:21 AM PST

why go all the way back to Nov 21 to deliver an insulting comment?

Collapse -
Why is it a straw man?
by Diana Forum moderator / November 21, 2011 9:51 AM PST
In reply to: Sheesh !!

Government has a long history of to the victors go the spoils - and not just our government.


Collapse -
Straw man
by Steven Haninger / November 21, 2011 7:34 PM PST
In reply to: Why is it a straw man?

Target that's set up in such a way that it's easy to knock down. It could be such as using a poor example of an affect that might be created by some scenario or a distortion of what was actually said. The media does this all the time. The best examples I've seen are in political ads. I recall one such in my state having to do with a senate bill that would reduce the collective bargaining rights of public employees. One ad to kill the bill suggested that, if it passed, there might not be enough firemen available to prevent ones house from burning down...or that no policeman might come to your aid if you called 911 during a break-in. We're so used to hearing "straw man" arguments that we cannot recognize them anymore.

Collapse -
Childish Ploy
by James Denison / November 22, 2011 1:33 AM PST
In reply to: Straw man

Child gets in trouble. First thing he does is point to someone else who did the same and maybe got off fro any punishment in hopes he will reap the same result. It's sort of an equality argument that hopes to ignore or avoid the true focus on the right or wrong of their action.

Collapse -
OHHHHH, I see...
by Josh K / November 22, 2011 2:21 AM PST
In reply to: Childish Ploy

So, for example, it would be childish to defend or excuse things like Abu Ghraib on the grounds that "they do it too."

Have I got that right?

Collapse -
You are speaking to the wrong person
by James Denison / November 22, 2011 8:40 AM PST
In reply to: OHHHHH, I see...

I don't recall ever defending the excesses of Abu Ghraib.

Collapse -
I found this for you.
by James Denison / November 22, 2011 9:24 AM PST
In reply to: OHHHHH, I see...
Collapse -
(NT) How do you feel about torture?
by Josh K / November 22, 2011 8:50 PM PST
In reply to: I found this for you.
Collapse -
There are a few instances where I feel it's justified
by James Denison / November 22, 2011 9:36 PM PST

Mainly where there is a time factor in rescuing someone from harm, particularly children. Remember the schoolbus of children that was buried in a hole some years ago? If they'd caught the person before the children escaped, I'd had no problem with using increasing methods of extracting information from the person so the children could be saved in time before suffocation.

The use of such would have to be extremely limited and based on known circumstances involving recovery of hostages, kidnapped persons particularly children, and similar. It should be non-maiming if possible on a graduated scale of increased force as necessary.

It should be limited to where we KNOW the person has information concerning lives which we KNOW are in imminent peril. In such a situation, one man tortured compared to a life or many lives saved, I think justifies it.

Collapse -
Van Jones...
by lylesg / November 20, 2011 2:24 AM PST

<font size="3" face="Times New Roman">
<span style="'font-family:" "Arial","sans-serif";'><font size="3">Obama's <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> self professed *commie* <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> and former Green Jobs Czar, was
around when Solyndra's loan talk began.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> Perhaps we'll soon find out how he profited off the Solyndra scandal.</font>
<font size="3" face="Times New Roman">

Popular Forums
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
Laptops 21,181 discussions
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
Phones 17,137 discussions
Security 31,287 discussions
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
Windows 10 2,657 discussions

Does BMW or Volvo do it best?

Pint-size luxury and funky style

Shopping for a new car this weekend? See how the BMW X2 stacks up against the Volvo XC40 in our side-by-side comparison.