Report: Trump’s Sons Behind Nonprofit Selling Access To President-Elect For Millions

[Toddsterpatriot]

the program that supplied their money absorbed the loss, and went on to make 5 to 6 BILLION in profit for the tax payers

^
^
Your claim.........


The $5 billion to $6 billion figure was calculated based on the average rates and expected returns of funds dispersed so far, paid back over 20 to 25 years.

^
^
^
Your link.

Let's see if you can figure out your error........

Here is a newer link
Solyndra who? The Energy Department's loan program is now profitable.

Thanks.

According to a report by the Department of Energy, interest payments to the government from projects funded by the Loan Programs Office were $810 million as of September - higher than the $780 million in losses from loans it sustained from startups including Fisker Automotive, Abound Solar and Solyndra, which went bankrupt after receiving large government loans intended to help them bring their advanced green technologies to market.........

Of the $30.3 billion in loans and loan guarantees issued by the Loan Programs Office, $21.71 billion has been disbursed. At least one company has yet to draw down its DOE loan.

$30 million in "profits" on $21.71 billion in loans.
Pretend the government funded those loans with a sale of 10 year Treasury Bonds (current yield 2.54%).
The program has to make $551 million a year to break even. $30 million over 7 years adds up to a big loss.

No, lets don't pretend anything. Make your point with facts.

The claim that they made a profit while ignoring the cost of their funds is accounting malpractice.

OK, so give me the numbers you use to determine how much of the Solyndra loss was not made up and exceeded.

2.5% a year is a decent number. Times 6 years, $3.3 billion.
So they made $30 million more than their write-offs, they're still $3.27 billion in the hole.

 

[BULLDOG]

I do pretty good with my plusses and minuses, and my timesing ain't bad. Please explain.

In FY 2008, the Feds spent just under $3 trillion and the interest on the debt was $451 billion.
In FY 2015, the Feds spent almost $3.7 trillion and the interest on the debt was $402 billion.

And?

Lower interest on the debt, higher spending on him.

So there was less spent on interest. Does that automatically mean Obama's spending made the difference, or did that go toward retiring the principal? I've been told that congress controls all the spending anyway, so wouldn't that be money they spent?

Less interest paid, $700 billion more spent. Sounds like the spending, not the interest is to blame.
And doesn't the President typically sign off on spending?
Or did he continue his Illinois habits and vote "Present"? LOL!

And who has been whining that we need to spend more the last 6 years, mean Republicans
or President Spend-A-Lot?

So what did that 700 billion get spent on? You said you had the answers, so let's see them.
We're talking about what has been spent, not what could have been spent.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

In FY 2008, the Feds spent just under $3 trillion and the interest on the debt was $451 billion.
In FY 2015, the Feds spent almost $3.7 trillion and the interest on the debt was $402 billion.

And?

Lower interest on the debt, higher spending on him.

So there was less spent on interest. Does that automatically mean Obama's spending made the difference, or did that go toward retiring the principal? I've been told that congress controls all the spending anyway, so wouldn't that be money they spent?

Less interest paid, $700 billion more spent. Sounds like the spending, not the interest is to blame.
And doesn't the President typically sign off on spending?
Or did he continue his Illinois habits and vote "Present"? LOL!

And who has been whining that we need to spend more the last 6 years, mean Republicans
or President Spend-A-Lot?

So what did that 700 billion get spent on? You said you had the answers, so let's see them.
We're talking about what has been spent, not what could have been spent.

He boosted transfer payments, a lot.

 

[BULLDOG]

Here is a newer link
Solyndra who? The Energy Department's loan program is now profitable.

Thanks.

According to a report by the Department of Energy, interest payments to the government from projects funded by the Loan Programs Office were $810 million as of September - higher than the $780 million in losses from loans it sustained from startups including Fisker Automotive, Abound Solar and Solyndra, which went bankrupt after receiving large government loans intended to help them bring their advanced green technologies to market.........

Of the $30.3 billion in loans and loan guarantees issued by the Loan Programs Office, $21.71 billion has been disbursed. At least one company has yet to draw down its DOE loan.

$30 million in "profits" on $21.71 billion in loans.
Pretend the government funded those loans with a sale of 10 year Treasury Bonds (current yield 2.54%).
The program has to make $551 million a year to break even. $30 million over 7 years adds up to a big loss.

No, lets don't pretend anything. Make your point with facts.

The claim that they made a profit while ignoring the cost of their funds is accounting malpractice.

OK, so give me the numbers you use to determine how much of the Solyndra loss was not made up and exceeded.

2.5% a year is a decent number. Times 6 years, $3.3 billion.
So they made $30 million more than their write-offs, they're still $3.27 billion in the hole.

So you're still pretending. I suspect you don't know nearly as much as you pretend to know. If you don't know the real interest rate, your other numbers are meaningless.

 

[BULLDOG]

And?

Lower interest on the debt, higher spending on him.

So there was less spent on interest. Does that automatically mean Obama's spending made the difference, or did that go toward retiring the principal? I've been told that congress controls all the spending anyway, so wouldn't that be money they spent?

Less interest paid, $700 billion more spent. Sounds like the spending, not the interest is to blame.
And doesn't the President typically sign off on spending?
Or did he continue his Illinois habits and vote "Present"? LOL!

And who has been whining that we need to spend more the last 6 years, mean Republicans
or President Spend-A-Lot?

So what did that 700 billion get spent on? You said you had the answers, so let's see them.
We're talking about what has been spent, not what could have been spent.

He boosted transfer payments, a lot.

OK. What transfer payments, and to whom? Were those payments for spending he caused, or were they debts that were made before he was president?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Thanks.

According to a report by the Department of Energy, interest payments to the government from projects funded by the Loan Programs Office were $810 million as of September - higher than the $780 million in losses from loans it sustained from startups including Fisker Automotive, Abound Solar and Solyndra, which went bankrupt after receiving large government loans intended to help them bring their advanced green technologies to market.........

Of the $30.3 billion in loans and loan guarantees issued by the Loan Programs Office, $21.71 billion has been disbursed. At least one company has yet to draw down its DOE loan.

$30 million in "profits" on $21.71 billion in loans.
Pretend the government funded those loans with a sale of 10 year Treasury Bonds (current yield 2.54%).
The program has to make $551 million a year to break even. $30 million over 7 years adds up to a big loss.

No, lets don't pretend anything. Make your point with facts.

The claim that they made a profit while ignoring the cost of their funds is accounting malpractice.

OK, so give me the numbers you use to determine how much of the Solyndra loss was not made up and exceeded.

2.5% a year is a decent number. Times 6 years, $3.3 billion.
So they made $30 million more than their write-offs, they're still $3.27 billion in the hole.

So you're still pretending. I suspect you don't know nearly as much as you pretend to know. If you don't know the real interest rate, your other numbers are meaningless.

So you're still pretending.

Pick your own cost of funds. Do the math (LOL!).
Post your results.

If you don't know the real interest rate,

Based on the line....."20 or more years", 2.5% was low.......

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Lower interest on the debt, higher spending on him.

So there was less spent on interest. Does that automatically mean Obama's spending made the difference, or did that go toward retiring the principal? I've been told that congress controls all the spending anyway, so wouldn't that be money they spent?

Less interest paid, $700 billion more spent. Sounds like the spending, not the interest is to blame.
And doesn't the President typically sign off on spending?
Or did he continue his Illinois habits and vote "Present"? LOL!

And who has been whining that we need to spend more the last 6 years, mean Republicans
or President Spend-A-Lot?

So what did that 700 billion get spent on? You said you had the answers, so let's see them.
We're talking about what has been spent, not what could have been spent.

He boosted transfer payments, a lot.

OK. What transfer payments, and to whom? Were those payments for spending he caused, or were they debts that were made before he was president?

Transfer payments to people the government sends checks to....what are you 12?
Get a clue.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Lower interest on the debt, higher spending on him.

So there was less spent on interest. Does that automatically mean Obama's spending made the difference, or did that go toward retiring the principal? I've been told that congress controls all the spending anyway, so wouldn't that be money they spent?

Less interest paid, $700 billion more spent. Sounds like the spending, not the interest is to blame.
And doesn't the President typically sign off on spending?
Or did he continue his Illinois habits and vote "Present"? LOL!

And who has been whining that we need to spend more the last 6 years, mean Republicans
or President Spend-A-Lot?

So what did that 700 billion get spent on? You said you had the answers, so let's see them.
We're talking about what has been spent, not what could have been spent.

He boosted transfer payments, a lot.

OK. What transfer payments, and to whom? Were those payments for spending he caused, or were they debts that were made before he was president?

Historical Tables

Knock yourself out.

 

[BULLDOG]

No, lets don't pretend anything. Make your point with facts.

The claim that they made a profit while ignoring the cost of their funds is accounting malpractice.

OK, so give me the numbers you use to determine how much of the Solyndra loss was not made up and exceeded.

2.5% a year is a decent number. Times 6 years, $3.3 billion.
So they made $30 million more than their write-offs, they're still $3.27 billion in the hole.

So you're still pretending. I suspect you don't know nearly as much as you pretend to know. If you don't know the real interest rate, your other numbers are meaningless.

So you're still pretending.

Pick your own cost of funds. Do the math (LOL!).
Post your results.

If you don't know the real interest rate,

Based on the line....."20 or more years", 2.5% was low.......

Got it. You don't know. What about those transfer payments. You know anything about them, or was that just a term you heard somewhere?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

DERP!

 

[BULLDOG]

So there was less spent on interest. Does that automatically mean Obama's spending made the difference, or did that go toward retiring the principal? I've been told that congress controls all the spending anyway, so wouldn't that be money they spent?

Less interest paid, $700 billion more spent. Sounds like the spending, not the interest is to blame.
And doesn't the President typically sign off on spending?
Or did he continue his Illinois habits and vote "Present"? LOL!

And who has been whining that we need to spend more the last 6 years, mean Republicans
or President Spend-A-Lot?

So what did that 700 billion get spent on? You said you had the answers, so let's see them.
We're talking about what has been spent, not what could have been spent.

He boosted transfer payments, a lot.

OK. What transfer payments, and to whom? Were those payments for spending he caused, or were they debts that were made before he was president?

Transfer payments to people the government sends checks to....what are you 12?
Get a clue.

People he sends checks to? You mean like Social Security that people paid for throughout their working carer, or funding for roads that is a reasonable expense that the federal government should pay? Tell me about those checks. Were they spending that he was responsible for, or just the standard expense of a country?

 

[Papageorgio]

New Texas-based group not legally required to disclose its donors

A new Texas nonprofit led by Donald Trump’s grown sons is offering access to the freshly-minted president during inauguration weekend — all in exchange for million-dollar donations to unnamed “conservation” charities, according to interviews and documents reviewed by the Center for Public Integrity.

And the donors’ identities may never be known.

Prospective million-dollar donors to the “Opening Day 2017” event — slated for Jan. 21, the day after inauguration, at Washington, D.C.’s Walter E. Washington Convention Center — receive a “private reception and photo opportunity for 16 guests with President Donald J. Trump,” a “multi-day hunting and/or fishing excursion for 4 guests with Donald Trump, Jr. and/or Eric Trump, and team,” as well as tickets to other events and “autographed guitars by an Opening Day 2017 performer.”

Website TMZ.com first published a brochure hyping the happening. The brochure says that “all net proceeds from the Opening Day event will be donated to conservation charities,” but it does not name the charities or detail how net proceeds will be calculated.

Who’s behind the get-together?

More: Report: Trump’s Sons Behind Nonprofit Selling Access To President-Elect For Millions

Wow, talk about pay for play! Why is Trump almost always guilty of whatever he claims about others? He is a master of projection - which not a praiseworthy human trait.

When did you decide you were against selling access. The Clinton's were masters and the left loved it so much it followed Clinton into her campaign. Look who Obama rewarded after his elections. Solyndra is a prime example. Why is this now bad?

Still can't let that old Solyndra whining point go, even after it has been shown to be bullshit so many times. Yes, Solyndra went broke, just as a large percentage of new businesses do, but the program that supplied their money absorbed the loss, and went on to make 5 to 6 BILLION in profit for the tax payers. That's a pretty good deal, and it makes your worn out whining point silly.

the program that supplied their money absorbed the loss, and went on to make 5 to 6 BILLION in profit for the tax payers

Link?

Solyndra Program Vilified by Republicans Turns a Profit

Based over. 20-25 years on expected profit, not realized profit. So it has yet to happen.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Like I said before, imagine what it would have been if he didn't change the way republicans had been spending.

He spent much, much more than Bush. How can you claim that was an improvement?

The much larger part of spending is based on the debt that has already been acquired. The much larger part of Obama's spending is based on debt that was acquired before he was president.

Isn't that strange how it's never his fault?

Only if you are intent on blaming him for everything, no matter what the facts say.

Would you like me to post the FactCheck link? I have it right here!

You said congress controls the money, so how did Obama run the debt up? Does he control the money, or congress?

Much of his spending was done in his first couple of years when he had the power. Yes, the Congress does control the spending, but in this instance, when the Congress cuts spending, the President threatens to veto and the government shuts down. When that happens, the Democrat machine kicks in and MSM reports it's the Republicans fault.

However if you look at the deficit chart, the deficit went on a decline after the Republicans gained leadership in Congress. Without DumBama, we may have had a balanced budget if Republicans had control of the Senate as well.

 

[BULLDOG]

New Texas-based group not legally required to disclose its donors

A new Texas nonprofit led by Donald Trump’s grown sons is offering access to the freshly-minted president during inauguration weekend — all in exchange for million-dollar donations to unnamed “conservation” charities, according to interviews and documents reviewed by the Center for Public Integrity.

And the donors’ identities may never be known.

Prospective million-dollar donors to the “Opening Day 2017” event — slated for Jan. 21, the day after inauguration, at Washington, D.C.’s Walter E. Washington Convention Center — receive a “private reception and photo opportunity for 16 guests with President Donald J. Trump,” a “multi-day hunting and/or fishing excursion for 4 guests with Donald Trump, Jr. and/or Eric Trump, and team,” as well as tickets to other events and “autographed guitars by an Opening Day 2017 performer.”

Website TMZ.com first published a brochure hyping the happening. The brochure says that “all net proceeds from the Opening Day event will be donated to conservation charities,” but it does not name the charities or detail how net proceeds will be calculated.

Who’s behind the get-together?

More: Report: Trump’s Sons Behind Nonprofit Selling Access To President-Elect For Millions

Wow, talk about pay for play! Why is Trump almost always guilty of whatever he claims about others? He is a master of projection - which not a praiseworthy human trait.

When did you decide you were against selling access. The Clinton's were masters and the left loved it so much it followed Clinton into her campaign. Look who Obama rewarded after his elections. Solyndra is a prime example. Why is this now bad?

Still can't let that old Solyndra whining point go, even after it has been shown to be bullshit so many times. Yes, Solyndra went broke, just as a large percentage of new businesses do, but the program that supplied their money absorbed the loss, and went on to make 5 to 6 BILLION in profit for the tax payers. That's a pretty good deal, and it makes your worn out whining point silly.

the program that supplied their money absorbed the loss, and went on to make 5 to 6 BILLION in profit for the tax payers

Link?

Solyndra Program Vilified by Republicans Turns a Profit

Based over. 20-25 years on expected profit, not realized profit. So it has yet to happen.

Much of it has, and the majority is in utility companies who are quite safe.

 

[BULLDOG]

The much larger part of spending is based on the debt that has already been acquired. The much larger part of Obama's spending is based on debt that was acquired before he was president.

Isn't that strange how it's never his fault?

Only if you are intent on blaming him for everything, no matter what the facts say.

Would you like me to post the FactCheck link? I have it right here!

You said congress controls the money, so how did Obama run the debt up? Does he control the money, or congress?

Much of his spending was done in his first couple of years when he had the power. Yes, the Congress does control the spending, but in this instance, when the Congress cuts spending, the President threatens to veto and the government shuts down. When that happens, the Democrat machine kicks in and MSM reports it's the Republicans fault.

However if you look at the deficit chart, the deficit went on a decline after the Republicans gained leadership in Congress. Without DumBama, we may have had a balanced budget if Republicans had control of the Senate as well.

Well make up your mind. Either the economy is vastly improved during the Obama presidency, or it has not. You can't have it both ways.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Isn't that strange how it's never his fault?

Only if you are intent on blaming him for everything, no matter what the facts say.

Would you like me to post the FactCheck link? I have it right here!

You said congress controls the money, so how did Obama run the debt up? Does he control the money, or congress?

Much of his spending was done in his first couple of years when he had the power. Yes, the Congress does control the spending, but in this instance, when the Congress cuts spending, the President threatens to veto and the government shuts down. When that happens, the Democrat machine kicks in and MSM reports it's the Republicans fault.

However if you look at the deficit chart, the deficit went on a decline after the Republicans gained leadership in Congress. Without DumBama, we may have had a balanced budget if Republicans had control of the Senate as well.

Well make up your mind. Either the economy is vastly improved during the Obama presidency, or it has not. You can't have it both ways.

We were discussing the deficit and not the economy. As far as the economy goes, it is better, but you can't pin that on Obama just because he happened to be there. The economy will always bounce back like it always does. If you want to credit somebody for the improvement, you have to show what they did exactly that created a better economy. Given the fact DumBama is the most anti-business President in our lifetime, you can't give him any credit at all.

 

[BULLDOG]

Only if you are intent on blaming him for everything, no matter what the facts say.

Would you like me to post the FactCheck link? I have it right here!

You said congress controls the money, so how did Obama run the debt up? Does he control the money, or congress?

Much of his spending was done in his first couple of years when he had the power. Yes, the Congress does control the spending, but in this instance, when the Congress cuts spending, the President threatens to veto and the government shuts down. When that happens, the Democrat machine kicks in and MSM reports it's the Republicans fault.

However if you look at the deficit chart, the deficit went on a decline after the Republicans gained leadership in Congress. Without DumBama, we may have had a balanced budget if Republicans had control of the Senate as well.

Well make up your mind. Either the economy is vastly improved during the Obama presidency, or it has not. You can't have it both ways.

We were discussing the deficit and not the economy. As far as the economy goes, it is better, but you can't pin that on Obama just because he happened to be there. The economy will always bounce back like it always does. If you want to credit somebody for the improvement, you have to show what they did exactly that created a better economy. Given the fact DumBama is the most anti-business President in our lifetime, you can't give him any credit at all.

So the deficit is in great shape. What are you whining about? Point out where you think Obama caused a bad economy, caused the big increase in the debt, or prevented the improvement in the deficit. You and the entire AltRight keep claiming Obama hurt us financially. Show me where and how.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Would you like me to post the FactCheck link? I have it right here!

You said congress controls the money, so how did Obama run the debt up? Does he control the money, or congress?

Much of his spending was done in his first couple of years when he had the power. Yes, the Congress does control the spending, but in this instance, when the Congress cuts spending, the President threatens to veto and the government shuts down. When that happens, the Democrat machine kicks in and MSM reports it's the Republicans fault.

However if you look at the deficit chart, the deficit went on a decline after the Republicans gained leadership in Congress. Without DumBama, we may have had a balanced budget if Republicans had control of the Senate as well.

Well make up your mind. Either the economy is vastly improved during the Obama presidency, or it has not. You can't have it both ways.

We were discussing the deficit and not the economy. As far as the economy goes, it is better, but you can't pin that on Obama just because he happened to be there. The economy will always bounce back like it always does. If you want to credit somebody for the improvement, you have to show what they did exactly that created a better economy. Given the fact DumBama is the most anti-business President in our lifetime, you can't give him any credit at all.

So the deficit is in great shape. What are you whining about? Point out where you think Obama caused a bad economy, caused the big increase in the debt, or prevented the improvement in the deficit. You and the entire AltRight keep claiming Obama hurt us financially. Show me where and how.

For one was his tax increases. He increased taxes on our job creators and the wealthy. Two of course was Commie Care. Because there was so much air in the bill, job creators didn't know what was going to happen next. This person will be in charge of deciding this--that person will be in charge of deciding that, nobody knew what to think. Then there was the 50 employee limit. If you had under 50 employees, you were not subject to provide them healthcare. So businesses on that brink made sure to keep their staff under 50 even if it meant hiring foreigners (that don't count as employees), hiring part-time, and investments in automation which is the biggest threat to jobs in our country. There was absolutely no reason to encourage it.

Even today health insurance is costing an arm and a leg partly due to Commie Care. So employers that were not subject to providing healthcare insurance because they have smaller companies now find themselves in a very precarious position if they are currently giving their employees that benefit. In Arizona, the rates for next year will increase 110%.

Obama closed down the Gulf, he closed down cigarette shops across the country and put heavy restrictions on the Indians who made their living selling tobacco products. He closed down electric companies and forced the remaining open ones to invest millions of dollars in clean technology. He closed down auto dealerships when he first got in and threatened to close down Gibson Guitar which is one of the top guitar manufacturers in the country. He closed down coal mines. He placed a tax on medical devices which caused some to leave the country.

Then he decided to get into the banking industry. He made new restrictions on credit card and debit card companies costing them a fortune. He had the government takeover school loans which is a disaster now.

I could go on and on, but the point is he is the most anti-business President we've ever had. His actions did more to slow the economy than help it. And to be honest, we would still be in trouble today if not for our lower energy costs. Thanks to fracking (which Democrats are against) we now have an abundance of fuel and that puts a lot of money in the pockets of Americans between their gasoline, natural gas, and propane bills.

 

[BULLDOG]

You said congress controls the money, so how did Obama run the debt up? Does he control the money, or congress?

Much of his spending was done in his first couple of years when he had the power. Yes, the Congress does control the spending, but in this instance, when the Congress cuts spending, the President threatens to veto and the government shuts down. When that happens, the Democrat machine kicks in and MSM reports it's the Republicans fault.

However if you look at the deficit chart, the deficit went on a decline after the Republicans gained leadership in Congress. Without DumBama, we may have had a balanced budget if Republicans had control of the Senate as well.

Well make up your mind. Either the economy is vastly improved during the Obama presidency, or it has not. You can't have it both ways.

We were discussing the deficit and not the economy. As far as the economy goes, it is better, but you can't pin that on Obama just because he happened to be there. The economy will always bounce back like it always does. If you want to credit somebody for the improvement, you have to show what they did exactly that created a better economy. Given the fact DumBama is the most anti-business President in our lifetime, you can't give him any credit at all.

So the deficit is in great shape. What are you whining about? Point out where you think Obama caused a bad economy, caused the big increase in the debt, or prevented the improvement in the deficit. You and the entire AltRight keep claiming Obama hurt us financially. Show me where and how.

For one was his tax increases. He increased taxes on our job creators and the wealthy. Two of course was Commie Care. Because there was so much air in the bill, job creators didn't know what was going to happen next. This person will be in charge of deciding this--that person will be in charge of deciding that, nobody knew what to think. Then there was the 50 employee limit. If you had under 50 employees, you were not subject to provide them healthcare. So businesses on that brink made sure to keep their staff under 50 even if it meant hiring foreigners (that don't count as employees), hiring part-time, and investments in automation which is the biggest threat to jobs in our country. There was absolutely no reason to encourage it.

Even today health insurance is costing an arm and a leg partly due to Commie Care. So employers that were not subject to providing healthcare insurance because they have smaller companies now find themselves in a very precarious position if they are currently giving their employees that benefit. In Arizona, the rates for next year will increase 110%.

Obama closed down the Gulf, he closed down cigarette shops across the country and put heavy restrictions on the Indians who made their living selling tobacco products. He closed down electric companies and forced the remaining open ones to invest millions of dollars in clean technology. He closed down auto dealerships when he first got in and threatened to close down Gibson Guitar which is one of the top guitar manufacturers in the country. He closed down coal mines. He placed a tax on medical devices which caused some to leave the country.

Then he decided to get into the banking industry. He made new restrictions on credit card and debit card companies costing them a fortune. He had the government takeover school loans which is a disaster now.

I could go on and on, but the point is he is the most anti-business President we've ever had. His actions did more to slow the economy than help it. And to be honest, we would still be in trouble today if not for our lower energy costs. Thanks to fracking (which Democrats are against) we now have an abundance of fuel and that puts a lot of money in the pockets of Americans between their gasoline, natural gas, and propane bills.

Try to stick to the subject. Shutting down the Gulf for the cleanup wasn't a tax, and Gibson Guitar being caught illegally importing banned material wasn't a tax either. Student loans actually saved us money and wasn't a tax .Credit card regulation protects the consumer, and is not a tax either. I guess the ACA can be considered a tax, but it has slowed the increase in premiums quite a lot.
Figures from the CBO and the Tax Policy Center show that average tax rates have risen under Obama, but part of the reason is that Obama also allowed some special tax cuts enacted during the recession to expire. If you go back to CBO figures before the recession and compare them with figures after it ended, the average household tax rate was about the same in 2006 as it was in 2013.
Now, Try again, and this time show how taxes are higher now than when he came into office.

 

[Papageorgio]

When did you decide you were against selling access. The Clinton's were masters and the left loved it so much it followed Clinton into her campaign. Look who Obama rewarded after his elections. Solyndra is a prime example. Why is this now bad?

Still can't let that old Solyndra whining point go, even after it has been shown to be bullshit so many times. Yes, Solyndra went broke, just as a large percentage of new businesses do, but the program that supplied their money absorbed the loss, and went on to make 5 to 6 BILLION in profit for the tax payers. That's a pretty good deal, and it makes your worn out whining point silly.

the program that supplied their money absorbed the loss, and went on to make 5 to 6 BILLION in profit for the tax payers

Link?

Solyndra Program Vilified by Republicans Turns a Profit

Based over. 20-25 years on expected profit, not realized profit. So it has yet to happen.

Much of it has, and the majority is in utility companies who are quite safe.

And we lost how many billions investing in the auto industry.

I'm glad you are care free with government accountability, that should serve you well into the future.