Most Transparent Government in history.... /sarcasm off

[Cancel 2016.2]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newswe...ative-energy-programs-became-green-graft.html

In the 1705 government-backed-loan program, for example, $16.4 billion of the $20.5 billion in loans granted as of Sept. 15 went to companies either run by or primarily owned by Obama financial backers—individuals who were bundlers, members of Obama’s National Finance Committee, or large donors to the Democratic Party.

But I am sure those on the left will say this is just coincidence. Right? Nothing to see here, move along.

One might think that the Department of Energy’s Loan Program Office, which has doled out billions in taxpayer-guaranteed loans, would be directed by a dedicated scientist or engineer. Or perhaps a civil servant with considerable financial knowledge. Instead, the department’s loan and grant programs are run by partisans who were responsible for raising money during the Obama campaign from the same people who later came to seek government loans and grants. Steve Spinner, who served on the Obama campaign’s National Finance Committee and was a bundler himself, was the campaign’s “liaison to Silicon Valley.” His responsibilities included fundraising, recruiting more bundlers, and managing Obama’s relationship with a cadre of very wealthy donors. After the 2008 campaign, Spinner joined the Department of Energy as the “chief strategic operations officer” for the loan programs. A lot of the money he helped hand out went to that same cadre of wealthy Silicon Valley campaign donors. He also sat on the White House Business Council, which is made up of Obama-supporting corporate executives.

So an Obama bundler was put in charge of handing out the loans? Well, that explains why so much went to the people he raised money from.

The Government Accountability Office has been highly critical of the way guaranteed loans and grants were doled out by the Department of Energy, complaining that the process appears “arbitrary” and lacks transparency. In March 2011, for example, the GAO examined the first 18 loans that were approved and found that none were properly documented.

None. NONE of the first 18 were even documented properly? Who is in charge? Mickey Mouse? Oh wait, it was a bundler for Obama that was put in charge... not someone who knew what they were doing.

The GAO further declared that the Department of Energy “had treated applicants inconsistently in the application review process, favoring some applicants and disadvantaging others.” The Department of Energy’s inspector general, Gregory Friedman, who was not a political appointee, chastised the alternative-energy loan and grant programs for their absence of “sufficient transparency and accountability.” He has testified that contracts have been steered to “friends and family.”

Hopefully the mainstream media starts highlighting more of this. Especially when Saint Obama is stamping his feet proclaiming how Reps just want to help their friends and screw everyone else over.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

It's almost as if we have a situation in this country of "heads the 1% win, tails, everyone else loses".

But that can hardly be the case since Obama is a Marxist.

 

[Bonestorm]

It's curious that there are no links to the underlying documents in that piece so that the reader can evaluate the GAO and IG reports themselves. I'm sure there is a whole hell of a lot more in those reports than the little snippets provided. Like this one, for example:

The Department of Energy’s inspector general, Gregory Friedman, who was not a political appointee, chastised the alternative-energy loan and grant programs for their absence of “sufficient transparency and accountability.”

Compare to this:

To be clear, we did not assert that loan-making decisions were flawed. We did, however, conclude that the Program record keeping and documentation policies and practices did not meet standards for Federal financial programs and, as such, did not provide sufficient transparency and accountability, especially given that the Department may guarantee up to an estimated $71 billion in loans. While we recognize that there may be professional disagreements as to the materiality, relevance and sufficiency of documentation, simply put, in our opinion, the readily available record supporting the due diligence process was not sufficiently organized and maintained.

Curious. You would think that we would get the opinion of the Inspector General as to whether loan making decisions were flawed in a piece asserted that loan-making decisions were flawed. I mean, the author notes that the IG is not a political appointee and the author apparently believes the IG is trustworthy and important. I wonder why the author didn't tell us that the IG did not assert that the decision-making was flawed.

It should also be noted that there is no March GAO report on the loan guarantee program. The report he is referring to is an IG report. Sloppy. And, by the way, the report did not find that none of the 18 loans were properly documented. Instead, what the IG found was the the records were not maintained in electronic form, not that they did not exist.

It makes you wonder whether this former Palin advisor maybe is just another partisan hack trying to sell a book or something.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

It's almost as if we have a situation in this country of "heads the 1% win, tails, everyone else loses".

But that can hardly be the case since Obama is a Marxist.

you should learn what a Marxist is. Obama is not a Marxist. He is an ideological nut who 99% of the time is too scared to make a decision.

Obama: 'Can I just push the expenses of Obama care until after my potential re-election'?
Obama: 'Can I just push the pipeline decision until after my potential re-election?'
Obama: 'Can I just blame Republicans for everything, call them obstructionists, even while I refuse to put forth any plans'... where is my budget again Senator Reid?'

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

It's curious that there are no links to the underlying documents in that piece so that the reader can evaluate the GAO and IG reports themselves. I'm sure there is a whole hell of a lot more in those reports than the little snippets provided. Like this one, for example:



Compare to this:




Curious. You would think that we would get the opinion of the Inspector General as to whether loan making decisions were flawed in a piece asserted that loan-making decisions were flawed. I mean, the author notes that the IG is not a political appointee and the author apparently believes the IG is trustworthy and important. I wonder why the author didn't tell us that the IG did not assert that the decision-making was flawed.

It should also be noted that there is no March GAO report on the loan guarantee program. The report he is referring to is an IG report. Sloppy. And, by the way, the report did not find that none of the 18 loans were properly documented. Instead, what the IG found was the the records were not maintained in electronic form, not that they did not exist.

It makes you wonder whether this former Palin advisor maybe is just another partisan hack trying to sell a book or something.

I will keep this in mind every time you post an article that mentions a report yet fails to link to the actual report. Obviously the actual reports provide more detailed information. The only way for that not to be the case is if the author printed the entire report. You douche bag. But note.... the 'snippet' says the program had an absence of 'sufficient transparency and accountability'. Your 'more detailed snippet' said, "it did not provide sufficient transparency and accountability."

Thanks douche bag.

Keep defending your Dem masters.... you good little puppet/parrot you....

 

[Bonestorm]

I will keep this in mind every time you post an article that mentions a report yet fails to link to the actual report. Obviously the actual reports provide more detailed information. The only way for that not to be the case is if the author printed the entire report. You douche bag. But note.... the 'snippet' says the program had an absence of 'sufficient transparency and accountability'. Your 'more detailed snippet' said, "it did not provide sufficient transparency and accountability."

Thanks douche bag.

Keep defending your Dem masters.... you good little puppet/parrot you....

Right. So an article that claims improper loan awards that references a IG report just so happens to not mention the fact that the IG said it did assert that loans were improperly awarded?

Hilarious.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Right. So an article that claims improper loan awards that references a IG report just so happens to not mention the fact that the IG said it did assert that loans were improperly awarded?

Hilarious.

Yes, your constant defense of your masters is indeed hilarious. Though it is beginning to border on pathetic.

In the 1705 government-backed-loan program, for example, $16.4 billion of the $20.5 billion in loans granted as of Sept. 15 went to companies either run by or primarily owned by Obama financial backers—individuals who were bundlers, members of Obama’s National Finance Committee, or large donors to the Democratic Party.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Right. So an article that claims improper loan awards that references a IG report just so happens to not mention the fact that the IG said it did assert that loans were improperly awarded?

Hilarious.

The article points out WHO received the loans. You apparently didn't read the article. It also talks about Obama's bundler being put in a position of control over the loan process. It also discusses how much went to his bundlers/donors etc.... But I know, you don't care about that. You just want to try and bash everything because it didn't have a link.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Right. So an article that claims improper loan awards that references a IG report just so happens to not mention the fact that the IG said it did assert that loans were improperly awarded?

Hilarious.

The article points out WHO received the loans. You apparently didn't read the article. It also talks about Obama's bundler being put in a position of control over the loan process. It also discusses how much went to his bundlers/donors etc.... But I know, you don't care about that. You just want to try and bash everything because it didn't have a link.

 

[Bonestorm]

I heard you the first time. I question the veracity of the author and don't accept his representations as true.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

you should learn what a Marxist is. Obama is not a Marxist. He is an ideological nut who 99% of the time is too scared to make a decision.

Obama: 'Can I just push the expenses of Obama care until after my potential re-election'?
Obama: 'Can I just push the pipeline decision until after my potential re-election?'
Obama: 'Can I just blame Republicans for everything, call them obstructionists, even while I refuse to put forth any plans'... where is my budget again Senator Reid?'

Eh, financially he's doing the same thing Republicans would do except slower, and with a slight mitigation of the pain. You can get all excited if you want, but I know better.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I heard you the first time. I question the veracity of the author and don't accept his representations as true.

Translation: "He said mean things about Democrats, thus I will just ignore the entire article and attack the author. Long live my Masters!!!"

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Eh, financially he's doing the same thing Republicans would do except slower, and with a slight mitigation of the pain. You can get all excited if you want, but I know better.

Yeah, that is why Republicans are trying to stop his idiocy, because it is 'the same thing they would do'.

You quite obviously do NOT know better.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

Yeah, that is why Republicans are trying to stop his idiocy, because it is 'the same thing they would do'.

You quite obviously do NOT know better.

They want to make sure they get the money to give to their backers and bundlers. They're not stopping anything. And you know it.

 

[Bonestorm]

Translation: "He said mean things about Democrats, thus I will just ignore the entire article and attack the author. Long live my Masters!!!"

No, he said things that are false, things that are incorrect or misleading (or both) and left out relevant information. I have no reason to believe that his unverifiable assertions are true where the immediately verifiable assertions were false or misleading.

Now, you can sit back and felch all you wish, but don't ask me to join you. I'm not really into that sort of thing.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

No, he said things that are false, things that are incorrect or misleading (or both) and left out relevant information. I have no reason to believe that his unverifiable assertions are true where the immediately verifiable assertions were false or misleading.

Now, you can sit back and felch all you wish, but don't ask me to join you. I'm not really into that sort of thing.

LMAO... the 'snippet' you quoted was the SAME thing as was stated in the report. It was a shorter version. That was it.

You immediately started attacking the author because that is what you do. Quote the portion of the article that was misleading. Please... just link it to us and show that you aren't just apologizing for your masters.

 

[Bonestorm]

LMAO... the 'snippet' you quoted was the SAME thing as was stated in the report. It was a shorter version. That was it.

You immediately started attacking the author because that is what you do. Quote the portion of the article that was misleading. Please... just link it to us and show that you aren't just apologizing for your masters.

He omitted the part that directly undercut the main thrust of his piece. He wrote an entire piece about how the award of loans was improper and left out the part of the IG report where the IG made clear that he didn't find flawed loan decisions. Get real.

And the following is incorrect on two counts:

In March 2011, for example, the GAO examined the first 18 loans that were approved and found that none were properly documented.

First, there is no such March 2011 GAO report. He's referring to a March IG report. Second, the IG did not find that none of the loans were properly documented. Instead, the IG found that the documents were not maintained in the DOE electronic document repository, not that the documents did not exist.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

He omitted the part that directly undercut the main thrust of his piece. He wrote an entire piece about how the award of loans was improper and left out the part of the IG report where the IG made clear that he didn't find flawed loan decisions. Get real.

IG? as in Inspector General? that person that works for the Obama administration? that Obama administration that made the loans? isnt that kind of like Internal affairs clearing it's cops of any wrongdoing, even when there's video?

 

[Bonestorm]

IG? as in Inspector General? that person that works for the Obama administration? that Obama administration that made the loans? isnt that kind of like Internal affairs clearing it's cops of any wrongdoing, even when there's video?

I didn't raise the IG as a source in the first instance, the original author did. Having said that, the present IG has been there for quite some time and is not an Obama hire. Do you have any specific reason to question his credibility?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I didn't raise the IG as a source in the first instance, the original author did. Having said that, the present IG has been there for quite some time and is not an Obama hire. Do you have any specific reason to question his credibility?

I have specific reason to question ANY government agent, elected or not.