"Green" Firm Uses Tax Money To Buy Solar Panels From Itself

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, your tax dollars at work. You have funded the sale of solar panels from First Solar, a solar panel manufacturer, to St. Clair Solar, a solar farm, and, coincidentally, a wholly-owned subsidiary of First Solar.

Yep, those green energy initiatives are really paying off.

http://campaign2012.washingtonexamin...ers-pay/434251

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, your tax dollars at work. You have funded the sale of solar panels from First Solar, a solar panel manufacturer, to St. Clair Solar, a solar farm, and, coincidentally, a wholly-owned subsidiary of First Solar.

Yep, those green energy initiatives are really paying off.

http://campaign2012.washingtonexamin...ers-pay/434251

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Yeah they are. No defaults in this outrage (your personal).

You don't know much about business do you? Or about how many subsidies buy from parent corporations either.

Just one more story you show the side you want to and ignore the other.

How about another side to the story?

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/1...t-divides.html

Did you mean "subsidiaries"? Please use the right words when criticize me, I grow tired of having to correct you before I respond. And yes, I know quite well how the accounting works for parent-subsidiary companies. They take the money from one pocket and put it into another. This is ridiculous, and your cite did not address the issue I raised. But you will go to any length to defend your precious Obama, even the to the point of giving a loan to a company to buy from itself. Sad, Munchie, sad.

It's like banging the wife's sister-keeping it in the family.

Did you mean "subsidiaries"? Please use the right words when criticize me, I grow tired of having to correct you before I respond. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

CreepyOldLoser, use good english when criticizing those who criticize u. LOL!
sad, CreepyOldLoser, sad.

CreepyOldLoser, use good english when criticizing those who criticize u. LOL!
sad, CreepyOldLoser, sad. Originally Posted by Af-Freakin

English is a proper noun. It's supposed to be capitalized. Do you know what a proper noun is?

It's pretty funny to see you criticize someone for not using good "english" and in the process showing that you haven't got a clue about proper language usage.

I'm not sure you're going to be able to continue posting on this board without making a fool of yourself. You're obviously in over your head; and the water isn't even very deep.

I have one word for things like this:

Haliburton.

Same shit, different day, different venue.

Halliburton is corrupt, only in a different way. BTW, you are aware that President Obama has continued the Bush tradition of giving Halliburton no compete contracts, I'm sure.

Halliburton is corrupt, only in a different way. BTW, you are aware that President Obama has continued the Bush tradition of giving Halliburton no compete contracts, I'm sure. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

they have few competitors, they have a long history of contracting with the military back to vietnam and before. LBJ was tied into them from way back in the brown and root days. roosevelt used them in the 30's.

they likely have no u.s. competitor on the scale required and few in the world. you just dont hear anything by the msm now because its obama

when theres no one else to turn to, you turn to the who you have to


the blather about them, just like guantanamo, and military tribunals and a lot of other things, was partisan poliitics, which ended when obama was elected....

Did you mean "subsidiaries"? Please use the right words when criticize me, I grow tired of having to correct you before I respond. And yes, I know quite well how the accounting works for parent-subsidiary companies. They take the money from one pocket and put it into another. This is ridiculous, and your cite I clearly said it was another side of the issue. It was not intended to address your issue, it was an example of of the issue I raised which included both dems and repubs. did not address the issue I raised. But you will go to any length to defend your precious Obama, even the to the point of giving a loan to a company to buy from itself.You go to any lengths to attack Obama while even using common practices of both business and politicians.
What I defend is my precious country from the free-range chick littles. Using this bank, name some defaults. It should be easy. Compare that number to the normal system.
In other words, get off your fucking ass and follow through on something. And do it right for a change. Even you have to be tired of hiding behind the "misunderstood" or "misinterprated" excuse for you errors. Sad, Munchie, sad. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Once again you used the wrong word to illustrate your "point".

sub·sid·i·ar·y

   /səbˈsɪdiˌɛri/ Show Spelled [suhb-sid-ee-er-ee] Show IPA adjective, noun, plural -ar·ies.
adjective 1. serving to assist or supplement; auxiliary; supplementary.

These speak of no government intervention which you clearly alluded to.
While you clearly meant
sub·si·dy

 .
1.
a direct pecuniary aid furnished by a government to a private industrial undertaking, a charity organization, or the like.
2.
a sum paid, often in accordance with a treaty, by one government to another to secure some service in return.
3.
a grant or contribution of money.

Once again it's just a quest for the truth which in this case has merely pointed out your ignorance..........again.

This is a common practice which is generally repaid generating some operating capital for the bank.

My suggestion to you is read fewer bullshit stories, try to understand why they say (you can get one of your kids or grandkids; whoever it was you're not leaving a future for, to explain it to you)
Cankerous old guy

Once again you used the wrong word to illustrate your "point".

sub·sid·i·ar·y

   /səbˈsɪdiˌɛri/ Show Spelled [suhb-sid-ee-er-ee] Show IPA adjective, noun, plural -ar·ies.
adjective 1. serving to assist or supplement; auxiliary; supplementary.

These speak of no government intervention which you clearly alluded to.
While you clearly meant
sub·si·dy

 .
1.
a direct pecuniary aid furnished by a government to a private industrial undertaking, a charity organization, or the like.
2.
a sum paid, often in accordance with a treaty, by one government to another to secure some service in return.
3.
a grant or contribution of money.

Once again it's just a quest for the truth which in this case has merely pointed out your ignorance..........again.

This is a common practice which is generally repaid generating some operating capital for the bank.

My suggestion to you is read fewer bullshit stories, try to understand why they say (you can get one of your kids or grandkids; whoever it was you're not leaving a future for, to explain it to you)
Cankerous old guy Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

read the posts..got to laugh because its so blatant and i have to go with the old guy. the thing about this place that can make someone give up on it is the synaptic gaps get so huge

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, your tax dollars at work. You have funded the sale of solar panels from First Solar, a solar panel manufacturer, to St. Clair Solar, a solar farm, and, coincidentally, a wholly-owned subsidiary of First Solar.

Yep, those green energy initiatives are really paying off.

http://campaign2012.washingtonexamin...ers-pay/434251

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

lol

how miniscule compared to our tax $ funding oil exec's retirement packages

Munch, if the word you meant to say was "subsidies" your post makes even less sense. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, thinking you were just ignorant. Now it is apparent that you are, indeed, stupid.

The fact remains that the company got government subsidies so it's subsidiary could buy solar panels from it's parent. They bought them from themselves. There is no way around that. Sorry, dude.

Munch, if the word you meant to say was "subsidies" your post makes even less sense. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, thinking you were just ignorant. Now it is apparent that you are, indeed, stupid.

The fact remains that the company got government subsidies so it's subsidiary could buy solar panels from it's parent. They bought them from themselves. There is no way around that. Sorry, dude.

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

sorry back dude, you act like this is a brand new invention. Spin, dodge, deflect all you want, subsidised, subsidiary growth, has been around longer than you have.

So it's ok with you if a company takes money from the government to buy products from itself. Ok, at least we're clear on that.