Obama Payback for Soros with YOUR Tax Dollars

[MaggieMae]

Now thats what I call transparent government.

Indeed, more transparent than financing a private oil company with bin Laden family money.

 

[MaggieMae]

I find it ironic these fucking idiots won't drill off their own shores, and reap all the economic benefits from it, but are all to willing to send 2Billion taxpayer dollars to a buddy to do it in another country. Does that make any sense at all?

In a global economy, it most certainly does. Brazil is also the country whose economy has been thriving in part by its investment in sugar cane as an alternative fuel. The U.S. needs to learn their technology.

 

[BolshevikHunter]

I find it ironic these fucking idiots won't drill off their own shores, and reap all the economic benefits from it, but are all to willing to send 2Billion taxpayer dollars to a buddy to do it in another country. Does that make any sense at all?

In a global economy, it most certainly does. Brazil is also the country whose economy has been thriving in part by its investment in sugar cane as an alternative fuel. The U.S. needs to learn their technology.

~BH

 

[MaggieMae]

Why do you think this is a payback for Soros? Lots of smart people own PetroBras. It is a good operating company and is one of the few large oil companies with a significant growth profile.

If you want exposure to emerging markets and oil, PetroBras is probably your single best option.

He thinks this because George Soros is still a boogeyman to conspiracy theorists. So if he just happens to be one of many who won stock in this company, then it must mean the Prez is paying Soros back for whatever evil deeds he did in the Prez's favor cons believe he's guilty of.

Yes, so its just coincedence that Soros's LARGEST holding gets thrown this bone backed by taxpayer dollars that Obama refuses to allow in the USA.

For one thing, Obama has never "refused to allow" drilling in the U.S. His argument has always been that offshore drilling must be part of an expanded program for energy requirements. If we're going to go back to drill baby drill and nothing else, we're right back to Square One the next time an oil shortage exists. And it WILL happen again.

 

[MaggieMae]

Yes, so its just coincedence that Soros's LARGEST holding gets thrown this bone backed by taxpayer dollars that Obama refuses to allow in the USA.

So you're a conspiracist, too?

Then right back atcha.

Realist actually.

If you don't see how this looks then you aern't looking at all.

That's the problem. All that matters to you people is how it "looks" (a' la the headlines), and you're off and running with yet another bunch of misinformation to spew.

 

[MaggieMae]

one of many who won stock in this company

How did they win it? And how many won, and how come we didn't get to play for it?

But seriously, isn't Brazil the model for getting off oil? They have that "great" sugar beet to ethanol program!

Why are we giving them 2 BILLION dollars when we have starving people in America?

I wondered the same thing about ethanol as well, apparently it's not as good as what it has been described to be.

I think it's hilarious that Obama, who has said numerous times that he is against drilling, authorizes a loan of 2 billion to a Brazilion oil company, but no one can really explain why. Then when you have an obvious reason, payback to one of his biggest contributors, it's all a conspiracy. I just love how his supporters have to bend over and kiss their own asses in order to rationalize everything he does.

I explained why, and you would have known too if you had taken the time to do minor research. But you people never do. Ever. This same story will have the same embellished implications in it next week, next month, next year.

 

[MaggieMae]

Really? I never knew that. And that's better for the environment how??

It's not better. Like most all other "alternatives" it's actually worse for the environment.

I bet most folks don't know any of these secrets:

Dirty little secrets of Ethanol: Yeah, it's "cleaner" if you believe CO2 is really really bad, because it does produce less when combusted. But it also produces the definite pollutant and definite poison to all living things -- CO (Carbon Monoxide) 100 times more than gasoline! Also, it takes 1,200 gallons of water to make a gallon of this crap!

Wind power's dirty little secret: It takes 4 barrels of oil per year, per wind turbine, for the gearbox. And another five barrels for the transformer below each turbine. And these turbines leak and sling this oil. Great for the groundwater!

Multiply those figures times a million, two million wind turbines planned -- and you see why oil magnates like Pickens are pushing this. They stand to sell millions of barrels of oil!

And lets not talk about the MASSIVE amounts of steel and concrete needed for just one of these. Enough steel to build 3000 hybrid cars. Enough concrete to build 200 miles of highway. Imagine if you will, the 50 foot hole that must be dug in the ground for each one of these.

We won't talk about the massive NEW infrastructure that is needed for these, millions of miles of NEW power lines, millions of wood and steel poles, etc.

Dirty little secret of solar: The production of solar panels involves nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) emissions be released. NF3 is about 17,000 times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. The concentration of it in the atmosphere has increased 20 fold during the last two decades by its use in manufacturing processes. The level is increasing 11 percent per year.

The weaker CO2 stays in the atmosphere up to 100 years. NF3 stays in the atmosphere for 700 years or more. But you never hear anything about NF3, because it's not a product of that evil fossil fuels combustion!

Dirty little secret of Hydrogen: Water Vapor is the product of combustion. Sounds great, right? But -- Water vapor is far and away the #1 greenhouse gas. This according to the IPCC and every other scientist on both sides of the issue. It's the one thing they do ALL agree on. Hmmm...

Cleaner little secret of gasoline powered internal combustion: Today's engines put out 95% fewer emissions than their 1970 counterparts!

Cleaner little secret of Nuclear power: It's zero emissions. Zero. NO carbon output. And Toshiba now has one, called a Nuclear Battery, that is the size of a school bus and is buried 500 feet deep, lasts 50 years and can power half a small city by itself. Perfect for retrofitting existing coal and gas fired power plants, utilizing their land and electrical infrastructure. But oops, can't use it here.

It's what they DON'T tell us that really winds up hurting the environment in the long haul.

None of them are a realistic replacement for oil either unfortunately unless there is quite a reversal of how we live today. It's the same with all of the so-called 'green' cars as well that take several huge batteries to operate. They never show the area around the plants where those batteries are built, complete dead zones. Nor do they mention where they're going to all go whenever they're done being used.

Great, I'm all for continuing to use oil too. But that also means playing nice with the Saudis, the Iranians and the other OPEC nations, the Venezuelans, the Mexicans, the Russians, the Canadians for the extended future. Your choice.

 

[MaggieMae]

That water isnt destroyed it returns to the cycle.

It does not. You actually believe all water used in processes such as watering your yard even, returns to the water table? Evaporation. (From which, SOME of the H20 returns to earth in the form of precipitation.) Retention. Corn is one of the thirstiest crops there is to grow. Corn kernels RETAIN water. Then the millions of gallons of water used for the refining process is unusable for anything else afterword.

It's stupid, it's a boondoggle, the resulting fuel isn't near as efficient, and pollutes MORE.

I thought we were talking about sugar. That's what Brazil uses for its ethanol, not corn.

 

[Meister]

Why do you think this is a payback for Soros? Lots of smart people own PetroBras. It is a good operating company and is one of the few large oil companies with a significant growth profile.

If you want exposure to emerging markets and oil, PetroBras is probably your single best option.

He thinks this because George Soros is still a boogeyman to conspiracy theorists. So if he just happens to be one of many who won stock in this company, then it must mean the Prez is paying Soros back for whatever evil deeds he did in the Prez's favor cons believe he's guilty of.

Sounds like he has also won stock with the democrats, he should have stock in them by now because he sure has paid his share to them. I don't know...might be on the board of directors.

 

[MaggieMae]

unless there is quite a reversal of how we live today.

Which is, the goal of the environazi movement. Social justice. We here in the US have it way too much better than the rest of the world, and it isn't fair.

That's the sad truth about all of the left's 'causes', for the most part they really don't give a damn about what they're advocating. Like you said, it's supposedly about social justice, I think it's more about power over people. That's why you see the blatant hypocrisy everywhere. The war was a huge 'cause' when Bush was in office, now not so much. Women's equal rights were a big 'cause', yet when Clinton was shown for his disgusting behavior towards women, not a peep. And the list goes on.

You keep saying "not a peep." Hello? Did you just enter the political arena last year? Do you know ANYTHING about recent history concerning the issues you insist presently appear as hypocrisy? You make these absurd blanket statements. Educate yourself, will ya?

 

[MaggieMae]

Sorry to ruin your day further newby but ethanol could cause a FOOD shortage a well.

I guess those environazis love starving children too.

The sheer stupidity of converting our agricultural food production acreage and resources to growing corn for fuel, burning our food, should be obvious to all.

Shouldn't it?

(And I hope you don't mind me fixing your quote for you.)

I don't think Senator Grassley thinks so. However, corn production for fuel has been going on for about four years now, and I haven't read any horror stories yet about starving children. The edible corn on the cob in my local supermarkets is about the same price as it has been year in and year out, depending on the season, and it's readily available.

 

[MaggieMae]

I find it ironic these fucking idiots won't drill off their own shores, and reap all the economic benefits from it, but are all to willing to send 2Billion taxpayer dollars to a buddy to do it in another country. Does that make any sense at all?

In a global economy, it most certainly does. Brazil is also the country whose economy has been thriving in part by its investment in sugar cane as an alternative fuel. The U.S. needs to learn their technology.

~BH

Is that supposed to mean something, child?

 

[Meister]

No matter how you dice it...it doesn't look very good.

After consistently opposing drilling for oil and gas, Barack Obama ultimately decided to literally buy into off-shore drilling and has committed billions of U.S. taxpayer’s dollars to the cause.
While this may seem like a good thing considering the immense and rising percentage of crude the U.S. is forced to float across the oceans in foreign-flagged ships from the Middle East through pirate-infested regions, there is a problem.
Turns out Obama is going to lend billions of taxpayer’s deficit dollars to Brazil's state-owned oil company, Petrobras, to finance exploration of the huge offshore discovery in Brazil's Tupi oil field in the Santos Basin near Rio de Janeiro.
Sweet deal, you say? Not really. Should one estimate the tens of millions spent by Soros on behalf of Obama and the Democratic Party, Soros is only asking the Democrats for what is due him. The problem is that Obama and the Democrats are using your money to pay Soros, and if you happen not to support off-shore drilling for crude or (God forbid) you are Republican or a conservative, you still have to pay Mr. Soros, courtesy of Barack Obama. George Soros indirectly underwrote much of Obama’s campaign, not to mention spending tens of millions to help get Democratic Party candidates elected since 2000. Unfortunately, since Obama is using taxpayer dollars to fund the Brazilian off-shore drilling project – we all must financially support the Democratic Party. What a country!
Billionaire investor George Soros bought an $811 million stake in Petroleo Brasileiro SA in the second quarter, making the Brazilian state-controlled oil company his investment fund's largest holding. Now, had George W. Bush concocted this off-shore drilling arrangement with, say, anyone, The Pelosi-led House would be screaming for an investigation after she had convicted him of sins against the planet and our nation during several press conferences. Now you know that’s right.
According to an article in the Bloomberg Press dated August 15, as of June 30, the stake in Petrobras, as the Rio de Janeiro-based oil producer is known, made up 22 percent of the $3.68 billion of stocks and American depositary receipts held by Soros Fund Management LLC, according to a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Petrobras has since slumped 28 percent.
In a Wall Street Journal editorial article dated August 18, the editor laments, “If President Obama has embraced offshore drilling in Brazil, why not in the old U.S.A.? The land of the sorta free and the home of the heavily indebted has enormous offshore oil deposits, and last year ahead of the November elections, with gasoline at $4 a gallon, Congress let a ban on offshore drilling expire . . .” Seven months into his term, Barack Obama’s administration seems to be running out of gas when it comes to driving home credible records on his pledge to reduce deficit spending and his promise of ethical governance.

Opinion: Obama commits to off-shore drilling

Something just isn't right here....and it looks like conflict of interest

 

[Midnight Marauder]

That water isnt destroyed it returns to the cycle.

It does not. You actually believe all water used in processes such as watering your yard even, returns to the water table? Evaporation. (From which, SOME of the H20 returns to earth in the form of precipitation.) Retention. Corn is one of the thirstiest crops there is to grow. Corn kernels RETAIN water. Then the millions of gallons of water used for the refining process is unusable for anything else afterword.

It's stupid, it's a boondoggle, the resulting fuel isn't near as efficient, and pollutes MORE.

The corn is dried the water evaporates and returns the the cycle.
Same with water used in making plaster, cements and concrete.

It doesn't ALL return. You know that. You're simply dishonest, trying to somehow defend the most idiotic fuel debacle mankind has ever envisioned.

The process water at the distillery where ethanol is made, is useless, cannot be returned to the ground, must be boiled off to atmosphere.... Emitting the #1 greenhouse gas in the process.

A small percentage of this precipitates back to earth. Very small. The 1200 gallons figure is AFTER any reclamation is done and assumes known laws of precipitation. It's the actual, lost water.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

That water isnt destroyed it returns to the cycle.

It does not. You actually believe all water used in processes such as watering your yard even, returns to the water table? Evaporation. (From which, SOME of the H20 returns to earth in the form of precipitation.) Retention. Corn is one of the thirstiest crops there is to grow. Corn kernels RETAIN water. Then the millions of gallons of water used for the refining process is unusable for anything else afterword.

It's stupid, it's a boondoggle, the resulting fuel isn't near as efficient, and pollutes MORE.

I thought we were talking about sugar. That's what Brazil uses for its ethanol, not corn.

Sugar beets. And that's worse than corn. Brazil plows up rain forests, you dumbass, to grow sugar beets for ethanol production.

You're both stupid and dishonest, actually trying to defend ethanol, especially where Brazil is concerned. What do they need oil for, again? Enlighten us.

I don't think Senator Grassley thinks so.

You're right, you don't think. And Grassley is just like any other politician, he's for anything that lines the pockets of himself and his special interests, no matter how bad it is.

However, corn production for fuel has been going on for about four years now, and I haven't read any horror stories yet about starving children. The edible corn on the cob in my local supermarkets is about the same price as it has been year in and year out, depending on the season, and it's readily available.

Complete strawman argument. Corn for ethanol hasn't gobbled up a significant amount of US acreage yet. Hopefully it never will.

 

[The T]

No matter how you dice it...it doesn't look very good.

After consistently opposing drilling for oil and gas, Barack Obama ultimately decided to literally buy into off-shore drilling and has committed billions of U.S. taxpayer’s dollars to the cause.
While this may seem like a good thing considering the immense and rising percentage of crude the U.S. is forced to float across the oceans in foreign-flagged ships from the Middle East through pirate-infested regions, there is a problem.
Turns out Obama is going to lend billions of taxpayer’s deficit dollars to Brazil's state-owned oil company, Petrobras, to finance exploration of the huge offshore discovery in Brazil's Tupi oil field in the Santos Basin near Rio de Janeiro.
Sweet deal, you say? Not really. Should one estimate the tens of millions spent by Soros on behalf of Obama and the Democratic Party, Soros is only asking the Democrats for what is due him. The problem is that Obama and the Democrats are using your money to pay Soros, and if you happen not to support off-shore drilling for crude or (God forbid) you are Republican or a conservative, you still have to pay Mr. Soros, courtesy of Barack Obama. George Soros indirectly underwrote much of Obama’s campaign, not to mention spending tens of millions to help get Democratic Party candidates elected since 2000. Unfortunately, since Obama is using taxpayer dollars to fund the Brazilian off-shore drilling project – we all must financially support the Democratic Party. What a country!
Billionaire investor George Soros bought an $811 million stake in Petroleo Brasileiro SA in the second quarter, making the Brazilian state-controlled oil company his investment fund's largest holding. Now, had George W. Bush concocted this off-shore drilling arrangement with, say, anyone, The Pelosi-led House would be screaming for an investigation after she had convicted him of sins against the planet and our nation during several press conferences. Now you know that’s right.
According to an article in the Bloomberg Press dated August 15, as of June 30, the stake in Petrobras, as the Rio de Janeiro-based oil producer is known, made up 22 percent of the $3.68 billion of stocks and American depositary receipts held by Soros Fund Management LLC, according to a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Petrobras has since slumped 28 percent.
In a Wall Street Journal editorial article dated August 18, the editor laments, “If President Obama has embraced offshore drilling in Brazil, why not in the old U.S.A.? The land of the sorta free and the home of the heavily indebted has enormous offshore oil deposits, and last year ahead of the November elections, with gasoline at $4 a gallon, Congress let a ban on offshore drilling expire . . .” Seven months into his term, Barack Obama’s administration seems to be running out of gas when it comes to driving home credible records on his pledge to reduce deficit spending and his promise of ethical governance.

Opinion: Obama commits to off-shore drilling

Something just isn't right here....and it looks like conflict of interest

As long as it is done by rich LEFTISTS...it's OK. Obama has once again exposed himself, and his party. The Democrats should change their Name to the Hypocrite Party...Seriously.

These past few months have shown that they are indeed wearing no clothes.

 

[Toro]

No matter how you dice it...it doesn't look very good.

After consistently opposing drilling for oil and gas, Barack Obama ultimately decided to literally buy into off-shore drilling and has committed billions of U.S. taxpayer’s dollars to the cause.
While this may seem like a good thing considering the immense and rising percentage of crude the U.S. is forced to float across the oceans in foreign-flagged ships from the Middle East through pirate-infested regions, there is a problem.
Turns out Obama is going to lend billions of taxpayer’s deficit dollars to Brazil's state-owned oil company, Petrobras, to finance exploration of the huge offshore discovery in Brazil's Tupi oil field in the Santos Basin near Rio de Janeiro.

In all due respect, this appears to be utter disingenuous bullshit. The President of the United States does not approve loans from the Export-Import Bank.

The author appears to be either an idiot or a liar. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he's an idiot.

Facts About the Proposed Ex-Im Bank Loans for Petrobras' Brazilian Offshore Oil Exploration and Development
Background on Ex-Im Bank:

* The Export-Import Bank of the United States’ (Ex-Im Bank) mission is to help create and sustain jobs for American workers. The Bank does this at no cost to the American taxpayer; in the past sixteen years the Bank has netted the American people $4.9 billion and the jobs those exports have supported.
* More than 80% of Bank authorizations during the last fiscal year directly benefited small businesses.

Charges and facts:

Charge: The U.S. government is giving away more than $2 billion in taxpayer dollars to Brazil’s largest oil and gas company to drill for oil in Brazil.

Fact: The Bank has approved a preliminary commitment to lend up to $2 billion to Petrobras for the purchase of American-made goods and services. The funds will go to American exporters as payment for their sales to the company. Of note, the Bank is self-sustaining and no taxpayer dollars are involved.

Charge: The loans to Petrobras represent a giveaway of U.S. tax dollars.

Fact: The Bank’s activities do not cost the American taxpayer a dime. In fact, since 1992 the American people netted more than $4.9 billion and the jobs those exports created.

Charge: America is exporting jobs to Brazil as a result of the loans.

Fact: Only American made goods and services qualify for Ex-Im Bank loans or guarantees. This is the government doing what it's supposed to do - helping to create U.S. jobs, making sure that Americans get a fair shot at selling goods and services, and helping American workers compete on a level playing field against foreign competition.

Charge: The loan to Petrobras represents a reversal of the Obama Administration’s policies on off-shore drilling.

Fact: The Bank’s bipartisan Board unanimously approved the preliminary commitment to Petrobras on April 14, 2009, before any Obama appointees joined the Bank. In fact, at the time the Bank’s Board consisted of three Republicans and two Democrats, all of whom were appointed by George W. Bush.

Read Chairman Hochberg's Letter to the Editor that appeared in the August 21, 2009 editions of the Wall Street Journal.

Ex-Im Bank :: Facts About the Proposed Ex-Im Bank Loans for Petrobras' Brazilian Offshore Oil Exploration and Development

Letter to the Editor, Wall Street Journal
Brazil Loan Helps U.S. Manufacturers

Your editorial "Obama Underwrites Offshore Drilling" (Aug. 18) more correctly should have read, "Obama Underwrites U.S. Jobs." That's because the mandate of the Export-Import Bank of the U.S. (Ex-Im Bank) is to help create and sustain U.S. jobs by financing U.S. exports. Our offer to provide financing to Brazil's state-owned oil company Petrobras does exactly that.

That's what is behind our decision to offer at least $2 billion in loans or loan guarantees to help finance purchases of U.S. goods and services by Petrobras. This increases the likelihood that American—not foreign—
workers will be employed to satisfy part of the company's planned $175 billion investment during the next five years.

Ex-Im Bank does not make U.S. policy. In fact, our charter prohibits us from turning down financing for either nonfinancial or noncommercial reasons, except in rare circumstances including failure to meet our environmental standards.

We make no grants. The vast majority of our financing consists of guarantees of loans made by commercial lenders, not Ex-Im Bank direct loans. The foreign buyers that use Ex-Im Bank products pay us in full. Over the past 16 years the fees that we collect have netted American taxpayers more than $4.9 billion plus the jobs those exports have created. Thanks to the fees we charge, the bank is self-sustaining and does not receive any appropriated funds from Congress.

At a time when jobs, and exports, are more important than ever in helping our economy recover, Ex-Im Bank is achieving its mission to keep Americans working, and we're doing it without burdening the U.S. taxpayer.

Fred P. Hochberg
Chairman and President
Export-Import Bank of the U.S
Washington

Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A12, August 21, 2009

Ex-Im Bank :: Brazil Loan Helps U.S. Manufacturers

 

[Meister]

No matter how you dice it...it doesn't look very good.

After consistently opposing drilling for oil and gas, Barack Obama ultimately decided to literally buy into off-shore drilling and has committed billions of U.S. taxpayer’s dollars to the cause.
While this may seem like a good thing considering the immense and rising percentage of crude the U.S. is forced to float across the oceans in foreign-flagged ships from the Middle East through pirate-infested regions, there is a problem.
Turns out Obama is going to lend billions of taxpayer’s deficit dollars to Brazil's state-owned oil company, Petrobras, to finance exploration of the huge offshore discovery in Brazil's Tupi oil field in the Santos Basin near Rio de Janeiro.

In all due respect, this appears to be utter disingenuous bullshit. The President of the United States does not approve loans from the Export-Import Bank.

The author appears to be either an idiot or a liar. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he's an idiot.

Facts About the Proposed Ex-Im Bank Loans for Petrobras' Brazilian Offshore Oil Exploration and Development
Background on Ex-Im Bank:

* The Export-Import Bank of the United States’ (Ex-Im Bank) mission is to help create and sustain jobs for American workers. The Bank does this at no cost to the American taxpayer; in the past sixteen years the Bank has netted the American people $4.9 billion and the jobs those exports have supported.
* More than 80% of Bank authorizations during the last fiscal year directly benefited small businesses.

Charges and facts:

Charge: The U.S. government is giving away more than $2 billion in taxpayer dollars to Brazil’s largest oil and gas company to drill for oil in Brazil.

Fact: The Bank has approved a preliminary commitment to lend up to $2 billion to Petrobras for the purchase of American-made goods and services. The funds will go to American exporters as payment for their sales to the company. Of note, the Bank is self-sustaining and no taxpayer dollars are involved.

Charge: The loans to Petrobras represent a giveaway of U.S. tax dollars.

Fact: The Bank’s activities do not cost the American taxpayer a dime. In fact, since 1992 the American people netted more than $4.9 billion and the jobs those exports created.

Charge: America is exporting jobs to Brazil as a result of the loans.

Fact: Only American made goods and services qualify for Ex-Im Bank loans or guarantees. This is the government doing what it's supposed to do - helping to create U.S. jobs, making sure that Americans get a fair shot at selling goods and services, and helping American workers compete on a level playing field against foreign competition.

Charge: The loan to Petrobras represents a reversal of the Obama Administration’s policies on off-shore drilling.

Fact: The Bank’s bipartisan Board unanimously approved the preliminary commitment to Petrobras on April 14, 2009, before any Obama appointees joined the Bank. In fact, at the time the Bank’s Board consisted of three Republicans and two Democrats, all of whom were appointed by George W. Bush.

Read Chairman Hochberg's Letter to the Editor that appeared in the August 21, 2009 editions of the Wall Street Journal.

Ex-Im Bank :: Facts About the Proposed Ex-Im Bank Loans for Petrobras' Brazilian Offshore Oil Exploration and Development

Letter to the Editor, Wall Street Journal
Brazil Loan Helps U.S. Manufacturers

Your editorial "Obama Underwrites Offshore Drilling" (Aug. 18) more correctly should have read, "Obama Underwrites U.S. Jobs." That's because the mandate of the Export-Import Bank of the U.S. (Ex-Im Bank) is to help create and sustain U.S. jobs by financing U.S. exports. Our offer to provide financing to Brazil's state-owned oil company Petrobras does exactly that.

That's what is behind our decision to offer at least $2 billion in loans or loan guarantees to help finance purchases of U.S. goods and services by Petrobras. This increases the likelihood that American—not foreign—
workers will be employed to satisfy part of the company's planned $175 billion investment during the next five years.

Ex-Im Bank does not make U.S. policy. In fact, our charter prohibits us from turning down financing for either nonfinancial or noncommercial reasons, except in rare circumstances including failure to meet our environmental standards.

We make no grants. The vast majority of our financing consists of guarantees of loans made by commercial lenders, not Ex-Im Bank direct loans. The foreign buyers that use Ex-Im Bank products pay us in full. Over the past 16 years the fees that we collect have netted American taxpayers more than $4.9 billion plus the jobs those exports have created. Thanks to the fees we charge, the bank is self-sustaining and does not receive any appropriated funds from Congress.

At a time when jobs, and exports, are more important than ever in helping our economy recover, Ex-Im Bank is achieving its mission to keep Americans working, and we're doing it without burdening the U.S. taxpayer.

Fred P. Hochberg
Chairman and President
Export-Import Bank of the U.S
Washington

Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A12, August 21, 2009

Ex-Im Bank :: Brazil Loan Helps U.S. Manufacturers

No matter how good of a deal it is....if there is a hint of conflict of interest, (which undeniably there is) They need to back off. This just reeks of a payback. Just like the second stimulus bill paying back the unions.

 

[Toro]

No matter how good of a deal it is....if there is a hint of conflict of interest, (which undeniably there is) They need to back off. This just reeks of a payback. Just like the second stimulus bill paying back the unions.

If that is your yardstick, then pretty much everything the government does will look like a conflict of interest.

To repeat - a $2 billion loan to a company with a $156 billion balance sheet that can easily tap the credit markets is inconsequential to the stock price. There is no quid pro quo. There is no payoff.

 

[Meister]

No matter how good of a deal it is....if there is a hint of conflict of interest, (which undeniably there is) They need to back off. This just reeks of a payback. Just like the second stimulus bill paying back the unions.

If that is your yardstick, then pretty much everything the government does will look like a conflict of interest.

To repeat - a $2 billion loan to a company with a $156 billion balance sheet that can easily tap the credit markets is inconsequential to the stock price. There is no quid pro quo. There is no payoff.

I understand your position, but with Soros involved I feel there is a quip pro quo. I don't trust our government, and I certainly don't trust a man that has given millions of dolllars to a party and not expecting a return at some point.