Skip to main content

View Diary: Senate votes on Buffett Rule (115 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  It is not about "comparison". (0+ / 0-)

    Good rhetoric.  Sad that we taxpayers spent that kind of money on a failed company.

    If you are okay with it and find rhetoric and defenses to it to make it seem fine with you, then that's good.  I know it cost us ... we taxpayers a lot of money and it was a sad "investment" .

    Only horses should wear blinders.

    by independantman on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 04:31:14 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  I find statistics to be fine. No rhetoric needed. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Odysseus

      1.3% of the value of loans, belonging to a single company, under this entire program have failed. Interest on remaining loans should cover the lost value. This is ignoring other positive factors from the entire loan portfolio.

      The program, overall, has created useful clean energy jobs and helped develop newer, cleaner energy sources. Since I find those other investments made under the program to be generally sound, I consider that an acceptable failure rate.

      If the failure rate was higher, I would be concerned. But it's not.

      We cannot audit and be angered at every single facet of every program the government funds. Solyndra is one of those "small things" that the right wing has decided to pounce on. It's part of a larger program; look at that, not random components.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site