Solyndra vs. Konarka

[dreadfulpenny00.livejournal.com]

Mediaite posted an article yesterday titled Romney's Solyndra? State-Funded Massachusets Solar Company Goes Bankrupt in which comparisons are made between a solar company in Lowell, Massachusetts called Konarka and Solyndra, a California-based solar company in California. Both received government funding to keep their operations going and both are connected with the main two current Presidential candidates. However, there are some major differences between the two.

Solyndra
- Founded in 2005 in Fremont, California
- Received $527 million from the federal government under Obama's leadership in 2009/2010.
- Filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, laying off 1100 employees, and shutting down all operations and manufacturing, while providing no severance or paid vacation time it owed to its employees.

Konarka
- Founded in 2001 in Lowell, Massachusettes
- Received only $20 million in federal funding, and that was capital from research grants, including from the Pentagon.
- Received $170 million from private equity firms.
- Under Romney's leadership as Governor of Massachusetts, Konarka received $1.5 million in subsidies in 2003.
- On June 2, 2012, Konarka Technologies filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy and laid off all its 85 workers, immediately ceasing operations. However, they're paying out over $715,000 in severance to their employees. [See article from The Boston Herald]

There's a world of difference between a Governor investing in a corporation within his own state to ensure job creation and the President of the United States floating a company a half-million dollar loan to fulfill a lofty campaign promise. There's also a big difference in a company that goes bankrupt eight years after getting $1.5 million in state government funding and a company that goes bankrupt one year after getting $527 million in federal government funding. I just hope the American voting public is smart enough to notice the difference but if the 2008 election is any indication, they're not.

X-posted from dreadfulpenny00 and to conservatalk

Note to mods: Any way we can get hashtags for "business" and "mitt romney"? Thanks!

Comments

[muses-circle.livejournal.com]

There's a world of difference between a Governor investing in a corporation within his own state to ensure job creation and the President of the United States floating a company a half-million dollar loan to fulfill a lofty campaign promise.

Exactly. States can do whatever the hell they want in terms of subsidies, enacting legislation at the state level, etc. to name a few. That's why the Romneycare argument doesn't work with "Why We Shouldn't Vote for Romney". (For the record, I don't support or even like Romney...but there's a difference between what states can do and what the federal government can do.)

Solyndra was Obama's little pet toy; you'd have thought more people would've been outraged when it went bankrupt amid the half-billion dollar bailout they received. Then again I'm not: why would the media do anything that went against Obama?