|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 21 2014 12:02 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2014 11:57 JonnyBNoHo wrote:How is it on the right track (honestly asking)? unemployment going down, tax surplus. from where it was that's pretty much the right track don't make it so hard, my initial point was KS vs. CA in regards to liberal/republican policies. I am done defending an ailing horse I am not even a huge fan of lol.
Meh, sounds like CA as usual. Unemployment is worse than nationally and the budget surplus is very fragile.
|
Yeah I was on phone, but what you see there was quoted in its entirety. Mimics my thoughts on it, in defiance of all these commentators making this out to be justified or no big deal.
As for my state: Deep and continuing education problems. The impossibility of firing failing teachers due to union-negotiated rules and others (though two cases in the courts may help on that issue). The trouble educating hundreds of thousands of young kids where spanish is the primary language spoken at home, stressing teachers. The overall failings of common core and CA remains low for educational outcomes.
Budget and funding of long-term shortfalls in Calpers Calstrs. They aren't fully funded, but yay budgets it still makes numbers look pretty with little thought to unfunded liabilities (but the nations in the hundreds of trillions so not unique). Ongoing issues spending money on things that matter like planning for droughts, which reflects poor planning and budgeting. All the accounting gimmicks put together to assemble piecemeal a very thick pair of rose-colored glasses.
The wtf plastic bag ban. Passed by white liberals to make them feel good about themselves, damaging to the poor etc. The wtf yes means yes what does this law even mean. It's supposed to protect women now that every guy has only a checklist romance, and everything's sexual harassment (but yay for pretty names and for good intentions). The wtf high speed rail, connecting two locations nobody wanted to go to, and costing many times more than was approved.
Taxes and business regulations, particularly environmental regulations but also reporting, that have driven millions of businesses out of state, killing jobs. Little thought in Sacramento is given to the real effects their feel-good laws have, written by people that have never been in business, but studied to call themselves experts nonetheless.
|
Let's also remember that as California goes, a lot of its strengths (and why it's silly to compare it to any other state on a head-to-head basis) are down to industries that have a legacy of establishment there, like tech for the last few decades and film for most of the last century. Being the landing pad for a lot of high-skilled immigration is also a pretty serious advantage.
As opposed to Kansas, which is best known as being an emblematically boring place in a movie that pre-dates the Cold War.
|
On November 21 2014 15:06 Danglars wrote:Yeah I was on phone, but what you see there was quoted in its entirety. Mimics my thoughts on it, in defiance of all these commentators making this out to be justified or no big deal. As for my state: Deep and continuing education problems. The impossibility of firing failing teachers due to union-negotiated rules and others (though two cases in the courts may help on that issue). The trouble educating hundreds of thousands of young kids where spanish is the primary language spoken at home, stressing teachers. The overall failings of common core and CA remains low for educational outcomes.
What is the problem of common core? I would think a system like that would be good, even if some portions of it might need fine tuning.
|
The U.S. government expects to earn $5 billion to $6 billion from the renewable-energy loan program that funded flops including Solyndra LLC, supporting President Barack Obama’s decision to back low-carbon technologies.
The Department of Energy has disbursed about half of $32.4 billion allocated to spur innovation, and the expected return will be detailed in a report due to be released as soon as tomorrow, according to an official who helped put together the data.
The results contradict the widely held view that the U.S. has wasted taxpayer money funding failures including Solyndra, which closed its doors in 2011 after receiving $528 million in government backing. That adds to Obama’s credibility as he seeks to make climate change a bigger priority after announcing a historic emissions deal with China.
A $5 billion return to taxpayers exceeds the returns from many venture capital and private equity investments in clean energy, said Michael Morosi, an analyst at Jetstream Capital LLC, which invests in renewable energy.
“People make a big deal about Solyndra and everything, but there’s a lot of VC capital that got torched right alongside the DOE capital,” Morosi said. “A positive return over 20 years in cleantech? That’s not a bad outcome.”
Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn, a Tennessee Republican, said that while the loan program may be well intended, “what we have seen is incredible mismanagement, and it’s become the poster child for crony capitalism.”
U.S. Expects $5 Billion From Program That Funded Solyndra
|
A deadline to resolve a 12-year-old dispute over Iran's nuclear program may be extended from Monday to March because of sharp disagreements between Tehran and Western powers, officials close to the talks said Thursday.
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry arrived in Vienna on Thursday evening for what Washington and its allies had hoped would be the culmination of months of difficult diplomacy between Iran and the so-called P5+1 — the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China.
The aim is to remove sanctions on Tehran in exchange for curbs on its nuclear program, but the talks have long been deadlocked. The timing for lifting sanctions and future scope of Iran's uranium enrichment are key stumbling blocks.
Yukiya Amano, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, on Thursday highlighted another hurdle: Iran has yet to explain suspected atomic bomb research to the U.N.’s nuclear agency, one of the conditions of the six powers for lifting sanctions.
"Important points of difference remain," French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius told reporters at a joint news conference with Kerry in Paris.
The latest round of talks between the powers began on Tuesday and is likely to last right up to the self-imposed Nov. 24 deadline for a final agreement. Talks have been delayed once already after the initial July deadline was extended six months.
Source
|
Everyone shits on California, but when you ask them "if you could live anywhere in the US", they usually say say California or something lol. I never understood that...
Also, doesn't Texas receive more federal money that California?
|
I found this it might help. Its from the last census and the fiscal transfers from the states to the fed and the fed back to the states. Its confusing at first but give it time.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On November 22 2014 03:16 ticklishmusic wrote:
Everyone shits on California, but when you ask them "if you could live anywhere in the US", they usually say say California or something lol. I never understood that...
Also, doesn't Texas receive more federal money that California?
The government is rightly criticized, but the state itself is a fine place to live. As long as it's not too far inland or too treeless- those places are far too hot. But that's just me.
|
On November 22 2014 03:58 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2014 03:16 ticklishmusic wrote:
Everyone shits on California, but when you ask them "if you could live anywhere in the US", they usually say say California or something lol. I never understood that...
Also, doesn't Texas receive more federal money that California? The government is rightly criticized, but the state itself is a fine place to live. As long as it's not too far inland or too treeless- those places are far too hot. But that's just me.
And yet there is a difference between reasonable critique and doom and gloom speak some like to use. That just increases the polarization and does nothing else, won't you agree?
|
If you believe coincidence explains how the Statehouse works, there's no mystery about the bureaucratic stall given to a $435,000 report on green energy jobs in Ohio. But you also have no sense of smell.
The Columbus Dispatch revealed Sunday that a report commissioned in 2012 by the state's Development Services Agency, finished early in 2013, found Ohio had more than 31,000 "alternative energy economy jobs." That's 25 percent more than the 25,000 jobs that clean-energy proponents cited last spring in a losing fight to keep clean-energy standards on schedule.
The study was competitively bid to Virginia contractor ICF International; a federal grant covered much of the costs. (Wright State University was an ICF subcontractor.) The report was finished in February 2013. Then, Development Services seemingly developed laryngitis. "[State agency] email about the report stops" after then, the Dispatch found.
Some 13 months later, last March, someone tipped the Dispatch to the report. The Dispatch requested a copy. Only then, the newspaper said, did state officials raise concerns about the ICF report's research methods and conclusions.
Development Services has denied it was trying to hide anything. The agency, a spokeswoman said, "provided the document promptly to [the Dispatch] and others who requested it. The confusion may be between 'release' and 'publicize.'"
Whoever splits hairs at Development Services has a very sharp blade.
The Dispatch reported, however, that while the state quickly provided the newspaper with a copy of the ICF report, not until June 13 did it fulfill the rest of the paper's request for related records.
And another coincidence -- June 13 was the date Republican Gov. John Kasich signed Substitute Senate Bill 310 that freezes, for 2015 and 2016, the phased-in efficiency, renewable and solar energy benchmarks Ohio law had scheduled for electric utilities.
Source
|
On November 22 2014 04:14 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +If you believe coincidence explains how the Statehouse works, there's no mystery about the bureaucratic stall given to a $435,000 report on green energy jobs in Ohio. But you also have no sense of smell.
The Columbus Dispatch revealed Sunday that a report commissioned in 2012 by the state's Development Services Agency, finished early in 2013, found Ohio had more than 31,000 "alternative energy economy jobs." That's 25 percent more than the 25,000 jobs that clean-energy proponents cited last spring in a losing fight to keep clean-energy standards on schedule.
The study was competitively bid to Virginia contractor ICF International; a federal grant covered much of the costs. (Wright State University was an ICF subcontractor.) The report was finished in February 2013. Then, Development Services seemingly developed laryngitis. "[State agency] email about the report stops" after then, the Dispatch found.
Some 13 months later, last March, someone tipped the Dispatch to the report. The Dispatch requested a copy. Only then, the newspaper said, did state officials raise concerns about the ICF report's research methods and conclusions.
Development Services has denied it was trying to hide anything. The agency, a spokeswoman said, "provided the document promptly to [the Dispatch] and others who requested it. The confusion may be between 'release' and 'publicize.'"
Whoever splits hairs at Development Services has a very sharp blade.
The Dispatch reported, however, that while the state quickly provided the newspaper with a copy of the ICF report, not until June 13 did it fulfill the rest of the paper's request for related records.
And another coincidence -- June 13 was the date Republican Gov. John Kasich signed Substitute Senate Bill 310 that freezes, for 2015 and 2016, the phased-in efficiency, renewable and solar energy benchmarks Ohio law had scheduled for electric utilities. Source
shamed be he who thinks evil of it.
|
On November 22 2014 04:07 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2014 03:58 Introvert wrote:On November 22 2014 03:16 ticklishmusic wrote:
Everyone shits on California, but when you ask them "if you could live anywhere in the US", they usually say say California or something lol. I never understood that...
Also, doesn't Texas receive more federal money that California? The government is rightly criticized, but the state itself is a fine place to live. As long as it's not too far inland or too treeless- those places are far too hot. But that's just me. And yet there is a difference between reasonable critique and doom and gloom speak some like to use. That just increases the polarization and does nothing else, won't you agree?
This question feels like bait...
Yeah, I agree with the idea, though I suspect the devil is in the details.
|
On November 22 2014 02:55 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +The U.S. government expects to earn $5 billion to $6 billion from the renewable-energy loan program that funded flops including Solyndra LLC, supporting President Barack Obama’s decision to back low-carbon technologies.
The Department of Energy has disbursed about half of $32.4 billion allocated to spur innovation, and the expected return will be detailed in a report due to be released as soon as tomorrow, according to an official who helped put together the data.
The results contradict the widely held view that the U.S. has wasted taxpayer money funding failures including Solyndra, which closed its doors in 2011 after receiving $528 million in government backing. That adds to Obama’s credibility as he seeks to make climate change a bigger priority after announcing a historic emissions deal with China.
A $5 billion return to taxpayers exceeds the returns from many venture capital and private equity investments in clean energy, said Michael Morosi, an analyst at Jetstream Capital LLC, which invests in renewable energy.
“People make a big deal about Solyndra and everything, but there’s a lot of VC capital that got torched right alongside the DOE capital,” Morosi said. “A positive return over 20 years in cleantech? That’s not a bad outcome.”
Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn, a Tennessee Republican, said that while the loan program may be well intended, “what we have seen is incredible mismanagement, and it’s become the poster child for crony capitalism.” U.S. Expects $5 Billion From Program That Funded Solyndra
Any link to the report? This sounds like portfolio gains which don't include financing or admin costs. From the way that it says deals are structured (+X bps over treasuries), it sounds like a net money loser for taxpayers.
Edit: Nvmd, found it here. + Show Spoiler +* Calculated without respect to Treasury’s borrowing cost.
Edit 2: If the program is truly necessary I don't see why they can't just charge more.
|
On November 22 2014 04:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2014 02:55 farvacola wrote:The U.S. government expects to earn $5 billion to $6 billion from the renewable-energy loan program that funded flops including Solyndra LLC, supporting President Barack Obama’s decision to back low-carbon technologies.
The Department of Energy has disbursed about half of $32.4 billion allocated to spur innovation, and the expected return will be detailed in a report due to be released as soon as tomorrow, according to an official who helped put together the data.
The results contradict the widely held view that the U.S. has wasted taxpayer money funding failures including Solyndra, which closed its doors in 2011 after receiving $528 million in government backing. That adds to Obama’s credibility as he seeks to make climate change a bigger priority after announcing a historic emissions deal with China.
A $5 billion return to taxpayers exceeds the returns from many venture capital and private equity investments in clean energy, said Michael Morosi, an analyst at Jetstream Capital LLC, which invests in renewable energy.
“People make a big deal about Solyndra and everything, but there’s a lot of VC capital that got torched right alongside the DOE capital,” Morosi said. “A positive return over 20 years in cleantech? That’s not a bad outcome.”
Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn, a Tennessee Republican, said that while the loan program may be well intended, “what we have seen is incredible mismanagement, and it’s become the poster child for crony capitalism.” U.S. Expects $5 Billion From Program That Funded Solyndra Any link to the report? This sounds like portfolio gains which don't include financing or admin costs. From the way that it says deals are structured (+X bps over treasuries), it sounds like a net money loser for taxpayers. Edit: Nvmd, found it here. + Show Spoiler +* Calculated without respect to Treasury’s borrowing cost. Edit 2: If the program is truly necessary I don't see why they can't just charge more.
Treasury borrows at below inflation rates to invest in technology that undermines fascist russia and islamist saudi arabia, conservative guy mad that it is only mildly instead of spectacularly profitable.
|
On November 22 2014 05:00 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2014 04:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 22 2014 02:55 farvacola wrote:The U.S. government expects to earn $5 billion to $6 billion from the renewable-energy loan program that funded flops including Solyndra LLC, supporting President Barack Obama’s decision to back low-carbon technologies.
The Department of Energy has disbursed about half of $32.4 billion allocated to spur innovation, and the expected return will be detailed in a report due to be released as soon as tomorrow, according to an official who helped put together the data.
The results contradict the widely held view that the U.S. has wasted taxpayer money funding failures including Solyndra, which closed its doors in 2011 after receiving $528 million in government backing. That adds to Obama’s credibility as he seeks to make climate change a bigger priority after announcing a historic emissions deal with China.
A $5 billion return to taxpayers exceeds the returns from many venture capital and private equity investments in clean energy, said Michael Morosi, an analyst at Jetstream Capital LLC, which invests in renewable energy.
“People make a big deal about Solyndra and everything, but there’s a lot of VC capital that got torched right alongside the DOE capital,” Morosi said. “A positive return over 20 years in cleantech? That’s not a bad outcome.”
Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn, a Tennessee Republican, said that while the loan program may be well intended, “what we have seen is incredible mismanagement, and it’s become the poster child for crony capitalism.” U.S. Expects $5 Billion From Program That Funded Solyndra Any link to the report? This sounds like portfolio gains which don't include financing or admin costs. From the way that it says deals are structured (+X bps over treasuries), it sounds like a net money loser for taxpayers. Edit: Nvmd, found it here. + Show Spoiler +* Calculated without respect to Treasury’s borrowing cost. Edit 2: If the program is truly necessary I don't see why they can't just charge more. Treasury borrows at below inflation rates to invest in technology that undermines fascist russia and islamist saudi arabia, conservative guy mad that it is only mildly instead of spectacularly profitable.
so feisty and cheeky :D
|
On November 22 2014 05:00 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2014 04:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 22 2014 02:55 farvacola wrote:The U.S. government expects to earn $5 billion to $6 billion from the renewable-energy loan program that funded flops including Solyndra LLC, supporting President Barack Obama’s decision to back low-carbon technologies.
The Department of Energy has disbursed about half of $32.4 billion allocated to spur innovation, and the expected return will be detailed in a report due to be released as soon as tomorrow, according to an official who helped put together the data.
The results contradict the widely held view that the U.S. has wasted taxpayer money funding failures including Solyndra, which closed its doors in 2011 after receiving $528 million in government backing. That adds to Obama’s credibility as he seeks to make climate change a bigger priority after announcing a historic emissions deal with China.
A $5 billion return to taxpayers exceeds the returns from many venture capital and private equity investments in clean energy, said Michael Morosi, an analyst at Jetstream Capital LLC, which invests in renewable energy.
“People make a big deal about Solyndra and everything, but there’s a lot of VC capital that got torched right alongside the DOE capital,” Morosi said. “A positive return over 20 years in cleantech? That’s not a bad outcome.”
Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn, a Tennessee Republican, said that while the loan program may be well intended, “what we have seen is incredible mismanagement, and it’s become the poster child for crony capitalism.” U.S. Expects $5 Billion From Program That Funded Solyndra Any link to the report? This sounds like portfolio gains which don't include financing or admin costs. From the way that it says deals are structured (+X bps over treasuries), it sounds like a net money loser for taxpayers. Edit: Nvmd, found it here. + Show Spoiler +* Calculated without respect to Treasury’s borrowing cost. Edit 2: If the program is truly necessary I don't see why they can't just charge more. Treasury borrows at below inflation rates to invest in technology that undermines fascist russia and islamist saudi arabia, conservative guy mad that it is only mildly instead of spectacularly profitable.
Marxist mad he can't do math, makes up political bullshit as if it were a substitute. Typical.
|
On November 22 2014 05:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2014 05:00 Sub40APM wrote:On November 22 2014 04:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 22 2014 02:55 farvacola wrote:The U.S. government expects to earn $5 billion to $6 billion from the renewable-energy loan program that funded flops including Solyndra LLC, supporting President Barack Obama’s decision to back low-carbon technologies.
The Department of Energy has disbursed about half of $32.4 billion allocated to spur innovation, and the expected return will be detailed in a report due to be released as soon as tomorrow, according to an official who helped put together the data.
The results contradict the widely held view that the U.S. has wasted taxpayer money funding failures including Solyndra, which closed its doors in 2011 after receiving $528 million in government backing. That adds to Obama’s credibility as he seeks to make climate change a bigger priority after announcing a historic emissions deal with China.
A $5 billion return to taxpayers exceeds the returns from many venture capital and private equity investments in clean energy, said Michael Morosi, an analyst at Jetstream Capital LLC, which invests in renewable energy.
“People make a big deal about Solyndra and everything, but there’s a lot of VC capital that got torched right alongside the DOE capital,” Morosi said. “A positive return over 20 years in cleantech? That’s not a bad outcome.”
Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn, a Tennessee Republican, said that while the loan program may be well intended, “what we have seen is incredible mismanagement, and it’s become the poster child for crony capitalism.” U.S. Expects $5 Billion From Program That Funded Solyndra Any link to the report? This sounds like portfolio gains which don't include financing or admin costs. From the way that it says deals are structured (+X bps over treasuries), it sounds like a net money loser for taxpayers. Edit: Nvmd, found it here. + Show Spoiler +* Calculated without respect to Treasury’s borrowing cost. Edit 2: If the program is truly necessary I don't see why they can't just charge more. Treasury borrows at below inflation rates to invest in technology that undermines fascist russia and islamist saudi arabia, conservative guy mad that it is only mildly instead of spectacularly profitable. Marxist mad he can't do math, makes up political bullshit as if it were a substitute. Typical.
"Net Money Loser"? How much do you think those costs were?
|
On November 22 2014 05:52 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2014 05:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 22 2014 05:00 Sub40APM wrote:On November 22 2014 04:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 22 2014 02:55 farvacola wrote:The U.S. government expects to earn $5 billion to $6 billion from the renewable-energy loan program that funded flops including Solyndra LLC, supporting President Barack Obama’s decision to back low-carbon technologies.
The Department of Energy has disbursed about half of $32.4 billion allocated to spur innovation, and the expected return will be detailed in a report due to be released as soon as tomorrow, according to an official who helped put together the data.
The results contradict the widely held view that the U.S. has wasted taxpayer money funding failures including Solyndra, which closed its doors in 2011 after receiving $528 million in government backing. That adds to Obama’s credibility as he seeks to make climate change a bigger priority after announcing a historic emissions deal with China.
A $5 billion return to taxpayers exceeds the returns from many venture capital and private equity investments in clean energy, said Michael Morosi, an analyst at Jetstream Capital LLC, which invests in renewable energy.
“People make a big deal about Solyndra and everything, but there’s a lot of VC capital that got torched right alongside the DOE capital,” Morosi said. “A positive return over 20 years in cleantech? That’s not a bad outcome.”
Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn, a Tennessee Republican, said that while the loan program may be well intended, “what we have seen is incredible mismanagement, and it’s become the poster child for crony capitalism.” U.S. Expects $5 Billion From Program That Funded Solyndra Any link to the report? This sounds like portfolio gains which don't include financing or admin costs. From the way that it says deals are structured (+X bps over treasuries), it sounds like a net money loser for taxpayers. Edit: Nvmd, found it here. + Show Spoiler +* Calculated without respect to Treasury’s borrowing cost. Edit 2: If the program is truly necessary I don't see why they can't just charge more. Treasury borrows at below inflation rates to invest in technology that undermines fascist russia and islamist saudi arabia, conservative guy mad that it is only mildly instead of spectacularly profitable. Marxist mad he can't do math, makes up political bullshit as if it were a substitute. Typical. "Net Money Loser"? How much do you think those fees were?
They report interest earned over losses incurred as $30 million out of about $22 billion disbursed. If the Treasury is paying just 1% interest on the amount disbursed, taxpayers are deep in the red.
Edit: Also, if it were a private loan, the government could tax the interest. So there's some revenue foregone as well.
|
On November 22 2014 06:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2014 05:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 22 2014 05:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 22 2014 05:00 Sub40APM wrote:On November 22 2014 04:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 22 2014 02:55 farvacola wrote:The U.S. government expects to earn $5 billion to $6 billion from the renewable-energy loan program that funded flops including Solyndra LLC, supporting President Barack Obama’s decision to back low-carbon technologies.
The Department of Energy has disbursed about half of $32.4 billion allocated to spur innovation, and the expected return will be detailed in a report due to be released as soon as tomorrow, according to an official who helped put together the data.
The results contradict the widely held view that the U.S. has wasted taxpayer money funding failures including Solyndra, which closed its doors in 2011 after receiving $528 million in government backing. That adds to Obama’s credibility as he seeks to make climate change a bigger priority after announcing a historic emissions deal with China.
A $5 billion return to taxpayers exceeds the returns from many venture capital and private equity investments in clean energy, said Michael Morosi, an analyst at Jetstream Capital LLC, which invests in renewable energy.
“People make a big deal about Solyndra and everything, but there’s a lot of VC capital that got torched right alongside the DOE capital,” Morosi said. “A positive return over 20 years in cleantech? That’s not a bad outcome.”
Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn, a Tennessee Republican, said that while the loan program may be well intended, “what we have seen is incredible mismanagement, and it’s become the poster child for crony capitalism.” U.S. Expects $5 Billion From Program That Funded Solyndra Any link to the report? This sounds like portfolio gains which don't include financing or admin costs. From the way that it says deals are structured (+X bps over treasuries), it sounds like a net money loser for taxpayers. Edit: Nvmd, found it here. + Show Spoiler +* Calculated without respect to Treasury’s borrowing cost. Edit 2: If the program is truly necessary I don't see why they can't just charge more. Treasury borrows at below inflation rates to invest in technology that undermines fascist russia and islamist saudi arabia, conservative guy mad that it is only mildly instead of spectacularly profitable. Marxist mad he can't do math, makes up political bullshit as if it were a substitute. Typical. "Net Money Loser"? How much do you think those fees were? They report interest earned over losses incurred as $30 million out of about $22 billion disbursed. If the Treasury is paying just 1% interest on the amount disbursed, taxpayers are deep in the red. Edit: Also, if it were a private loan, the government could tax the interest. So there's some revenue foregone as well.
Well not all of the (already financed) projects are paying interest yet? @EDIT:You did read why they did the program in the first place right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/original-size/20110806_WOC321.png)
