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

[Cancel 2016.2]

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.

Thank you for proving beyond a doubt that you hadn't actually read the piece and instead you just assumed it said whatever you wanted it to say and you began your attack in defense of your masters.

He stated.... "The so-called 1705 Loan Guarantee Program and the 1603 Grant Program channeled billions of dollars to all sorts of energy companies. The grants were earmarked for alternative-fuel and green-power projects, so it would not be a surprise to learn that those industries were led by liberals. Furthermore, these were highly competitive grant and loan programs—not usually a hallmark of cronyism. Often fewer than 10 percent of applicants were deemed worthy.

Nevertheless, a large proportion of the winners were companies with Obama-campaign connections. Indeed, at least 10 members of Obama’s finance committee and more than a dozen of his campaign bundlers were big winners in getting your money. At the same time, several politicians who supported Obama managed to strike gold by launching alternative-energy companies and obtaining grants. How much did they get? According to the Department of Energy’s own numbers ... a lot. 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. "

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.

Where in his comments did he say that the documents did not exist? he said that "none were properly documented". So genius... tell us... were they supposed to be in the DOE electronic depository? If so, then they were not properly documented.

As for stating it was the DOE report instead of the IG... he was mistaken.... but hardly an error worthy of you trashing his motives and pretending he was trying to mislead people deliberately. You have made far more errors on this thread alone. But then, yours ARE deliberate. You are actively trying to attack the author rather than address the FACTS presented.

The bulk of the loans went to Obama's bundlers/donors/people that worked for him.

 

[Bonestorm]

Thank you for proving beyond a doubt that you hadn't actually read the piece and instead you just assumed it said whatever you wanted it to say and you began your attack in defense of your masters.

He stated.... "The so-called 1705 Loan Guarantee Program and the 1603 Grant Program channeled billions of dollars to all sorts of energy companies. The grants were earmarked for alternative-fuel and green-power projects, so it would not be a surprise to learn that those industries were led by liberals. Furthermore, these were highly competitive grant and loan programs—not usually a hallmark of cronyism. Often fewer than 10 percent of applicants were deemed worthy.

Nevertheless, a large proportion of the winners were companies with Obama-campaign connections. Indeed, at least 10 members of Obama’s finance committee and more than a dozen of his campaign bundlers were big winners in getting your money. At the same time, several politicians who supported Obama managed to strike gold by launching alternative-energy companies and obtaining grants. How much did they get? According to the Department of Energy’s own numbers ... a lot. 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. "

I read the piece. The above is the stuff that is not easily verified and I have reason to doubt the truth of it based on the other inaccuracies. (Note also that, according to the DOE, the 1705 program has awarded $16.124 billion in loan guarantees, not 20.5 billion).

Where in his comments did he say that the documents did not exist? he said that "none were properly documented". So genius... tell us... were they supposed to be in the DOE electronic depository? If so, then they were not properly documented.

They were properly documented. The documents simply were not in the electronic archive. The documents were not properly filed. There's a big difference and I'm sure you know it.

As for stating it was the DOE report instead of the IG... he was mistaken.... but hardly an error worthy of you trashing his motives and pretending he was trying to mislead people deliberately. You have made far more errors on this thread alone. But then, yours ARE deliberate. You are actively trying to attack the author rather than address the FACTS presented.

Yes, he was mistaken. In conjunction with the rest of the errors and omissions, the "mistake" is just a little icing on the cake. And this is excerpted from a book? Don't publishers hire fact-checkers anymore? Apparently, not. By the way, please point out my errors in this thread. I would appreciate it.

The bulk of the loans went to Obama's bundlers/donors/people that worked for him.

I have no reason to believe that is true. And I love how the author only looks at one program for this assertion instead of looking at the entirety of the DOE loan program. If I were a betting man, which I am, I would put good money on the loan program as a whole looking a whole hell of a lot better when you look at the other programs as well. I mean, why leave out over half of the loan guarantee program? I'm sure if the trend was similar in the other programs he could throw out a higher number.

Perhaps, and this is just a guess here, looking at the loan program as a whole you end up seeing what you'd expect to see for an industry dominated by liberals.

 

[tinfoil]

just admit your view is formed through your constant falling into confirmation bias. Learn to learn, dummy

 

[Bonestorm]

just admit your view is formed through your constant falling into confirmation bias. Learn to learn, dummy

That's hilarious given piece quoted in the OP.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I read the piece. The above is the stuff that is not easily verified and I have reason to doubt the truth of it based on the other inaccuracies. (Note also that, according to the DOE, the 1705 program has awarded $16.124 billion in loan guarantees, not 20.5 billion).

Yes, your 'reason' being that your masters told you to. Understood. I cannot believe you just posted that without linking. Were you not just bitching about his using data without linking to the actual source of the data????

They were properly documented. The documents simply were not in the electronic archive. The documents were not properly filed. There's a big difference and I'm sure you know it.

LINK. Show us they were properly documented. Can't believe you would again make a claim without a link to back it up. Was that not what you were originally bitching about?

Yes, he was mistaken. In conjunction with the rest of the errors and omissions, the "mistake" is just a little icing on the cake. And this is excerpted from a book? Don't publishers hire fact-checkers anymore? Apparently, not. By the way, please point out my errors in this thread. I would appreciate it.

LOL... you mean like you pointed out his errors? Ok.... I have reason to doubt your claims as they are not easily verified. Therefore everything you stated is an error.

I have no reason to believe that is true. And I love how the author only looks at one program for this assertion instead of looking at the entirety of the DOE loan program. If I were a betting man, which I am, I would put good money on the loan program as a whole looking a whole hell of a lot better when you look at the other programs as well. I mean, why leave out over half of the loan guarantee program? I'm sure if the trend was similar in the other programs he could throw out a higher number.

Perhaps, and this is just a guess here, looking at the loan program as a whole you end up seeing what you'd expect to see for an industry dominated by liberals.

His point was that you would see more liberals given the nature of the industry. I am glad you can agree with him.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I read the piece. The above is the stuff that is not easily verified and I have reason to doubt the truth of it based on the other inaccuracies. (Note also that, according to the DOE, the 1705 program has awarded $16.124 billion in loan guarantees, not 20.5 billion).

Yes, your 'reason' being that your masters told you to. Understood. I cannot believe you just posted that without linking. Were you not just bitching about his using data without linking to the actual source of the data????

They were properly documented. The documents simply were not in the electronic archive. The documents were not properly filed. There's a big difference and I'm sure you know it.

LINK. Show us they were properly documented. Can't believe you would again make a claim without a link to back it up. Was that not what you were originally bitching about?

Yes, he was mistaken. In conjunction with the rest of the errors and omissions, the "mistake" is just a little icing on the cake. And this is excerpted from a book? Don't publishers hire fact-checkers anymore? Apparently, not. By the way, please point out my errors in this thread. I would appreciate it.

LOL... you mean like you pointed out his errors? Ok.... I have reason to doubt your claims as they are not easily verified. Therefore everything you stated is an error.

I have no reason to believe that is true. And I love how the author only looks at one program for this assertion instead of looking at the entirety of the DOE loan program. If I were a betting man, which I am, I would put good money on the loan program as a whole looking a whole hell of a lot better when you look at the other programs as well. I mean, why leave out over half of the loan guarantee program? I'm sure if the trend was similar in the other programs he could throw out a higher number.

Perhaps, and this is just a guess here, looking at the loan program as a whole you end up seeing what you'd expect to see for an industry dominated by liberals.

His point was that you would see more liberals given the nature of the industry. I am glad you can agree with him.