Taxpayers To Recover $0 On Solyndra

Tyler Durden's picture

It will come as no surprise to some but the bankruptcy court hearing for Solyndra just threw up all over any hopes that our taxpayer-funded loans to this solar sinkhole will be recovered:


So it looks like a $0 recovery for us - US Government: Picking Losers One Sector At A Time.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
hedgeless_horseman's picture



The larceny will not be debated, questioned, nor televised.

idea_hamster's picture


And here we see the difference between opulent private equity and average private citizen:

When government is standing behind PE, it's the govt getting f'k'd, but when government is standing behind you and me....

Dr. Richard Head's picture

Could I get a loan from Uncle Sam and not repay it?

redpill's picture

They could have flown, they just didn't flap their arms hard enough.

HobbyFarmer's picture

" US Government: Picking Losers One Sector At A Time"

US Citizens: Picking Losers One President At A Time.

Gert_B_Frobe's picture

NO! You'll wallow in your mediocre, low-pay part-time employ and like it!!!

CPL's picture

What's the total loss on that?

2011:  $535 million federal loan in 2009 and collapsed on Wednesday

2012:  spent it on a bender...and now holding less than company assets with channel partners begging them to take back their shit.



They are going to be short on cash once someone sharpens a pencil...all that inventory floating around out there. 


So the silver lining is solar crap is going to be dirt cheap, but with no offered support.  If it gets it under 1 buck a watt...hmmmm, would be time to go buying in bulk.  Doubt there will be an opportunity again to purchase a lifetimes supply of solar cells again.

fnord88's picture

China seems to be playing this game very smart. Sell high tech products at a loss to bankrupt US companies with valuable patents, then buy them for cents on the dollar. Solar and battery tech will replace coal and oil at some stage, but by then china will own it all.

LMAOLORI's picture




Actually YOU are standing behind the government it is YOU in the U.S. Government so it is YOU getting screwed both by Cronies like Solyndra and by the politicians for their friends.

DoChenRollingBearing's picture

@ h_h

+ 1

VERY LITTLE about the Solyndra / alternative energy debacles last night.  Very little about Benghazi either.  NOTHING about the "Fiscal Cliff".  The MSM is bought off, that is clear.  Did Candi do it for the money, or because of her ideology?

inevitablecollapse's picture

i heard it was for a bag of cheetos and a mountain dew

surf0766's picture

Is there any doubt cnn.nbc, etc are done as news networks.

bobnoxy's picture

In a world where Fox News tops the ratings, the rest are safe. Literally anyone can do the news, and say vitually anything, regardless of merit, or the lack of it. It's not news any more. It's information-entertainment, just like wrestling is sports-entertainment.

You want real news? You must be a foreigner.

NotApplicable's picture

You got something against infotainment?

Bread and circuses, bitchez!

LMAOLORI's picture



That evil Fox lol they are all State Controlled Propaganda now including Fox some of them even have their stories vetted by the Slime House before they are published.

Donations by Media Companies Tilt Heavily to Obama


All the major media companies, driven largely by their Hollywood film and television businesses, have made larger contributions to President Obama than to his rival, former Gov. Mitt Romney, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonprofit, nonpartisan Washington-based research group that publishes the Open Secrets Web site.

The center’s numbers represent donations by a company’s PAC and any employees who listed that company as their employer.

Even companies whose news outlets are often perceived as having a conservative bias have given significantly more money to Mr. Obama. Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation, for example, has contributed $58,825 to Mr. Obama’s campaign, compared with $2,750 to Mr. Romney. The conglomerate, which owns Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Post and the 20th Century Fox studios, gave roughly the same amount to Mr. Romney’s Republican primary competitors Rick Perry and Ron Paul as it did to Mr. Romney.

US journalists trade independence for access [White House censors officials' quotes]


DoChenRollingBearing's picture


Would that have been a LARGE bag of Cheetos and a non-Bloomberg approved 32 oz Mountain Dew?

inevitablecollapse's picture

you're damn right - this obesity problem is not going to solve itself!

Harbanger's picture

Bengazhi was talked about. CNN’s Candy, misled 60 million viewing Americans in the debate when she “surprisingly” lied along with Obama. When Romney made the point that Obama took many days before he finally started calling the attacks on our Benghazi embassy an “act of terror“. Candy jumped in insisting Obama DID call the attack an act of terror. Then Muchell started clapping breaking the debate rules, (it’s on video) to further confuse the issue. For weeks the Pres was lying and saying it was all “spontaneous” and because of a “video“. No it wasn‘t, it was Al Qaeda and he knew it. It was pre-planned and coordinated for the 9/11 anniversary. Guess what folks, Al Qaeda is alive and well and the WH is covering for them.

dbTX's picture

Neither, she wanted to flaunt her beauty

Ruffcut's picture

Whata biog pile of bullshit. The oil cartel does not want solar.

IT ain't that sophisticated. 

I wanted a unit for if anything, my hot water heated. NOthing was ever release to the public creating industries, supply demand and the normal shit that built this country.  

Oh, but the military kicks the shit of anyone on the planet and the gov can't do a little solar gig. Pitiful clusterfuck.

neidermeyer's picture

There is video of "workers" destroying the remaining unshipped components (about $8M worth) after the insolvent announcement smashing them into several rolloff construction dumpsters, they were German sourced and the supplier was unpaid, they found out via Youtube ,, the parts should have been made available/returned to them ,, the completed product in inventory was sold off at VERY CHEAP prices and resold to installers nationwide.. you could buy it from middlemen on eBay for about 25% of original sticker... Somebody made $$$$$ ....  

foofoojin's picture

you can't make that claim with out  a source.


here you go.


althouy a few pallets survived the ordeal it looks like.

now here the real question. where they added to the list of assets ?

 althou i am i alittle confused how the total assets is less then 75. but the building sold for more then 90 million?


nmewn's picture

Could someone please get these fuckers away from the public Treasury?

Thank you.

hedgeless_horseman's picture



The only way to not pay the inflation tax is to not use the currency.

crusty curmudgeon's picture

Provide more than $500 million to your buddies through a worthless company.  That's the Chicago way.

Rat Patrol's picture

Dems rape everything.


The taxpayers just need to put some ice on that.

LMAOLORI's picture



The Government Will Never End the Fed but the Fed is Destined to Die Anyway

Sixdeuce062's picture

Obama: candi no candi wait stop him dont let him say it okay that enough everyone gets a drone atttack

firstdivision's picture

How much did we lose on GM again?

MacGruber's picture

Totally. And how come no sarcastic quips for the oil industry that pockets BILLIONS of dollars in subsidies as profit every year? That money isn't even for something new, it's just a transfer payment to reward the rich oil barrons that get wealthy off of public lands to begin with. I guess it's only in fashion to pick apart goverment decisions if it's a new industry that's in competition with the status quo, and if the president is a supposed bleeding heart liberal (even though he's proven through his actions to be a staunch neocon).

hedgeless_horseman's picture



Basic economics, we the consumers are the one's being subsidized, not the producers.


Similiar to farm subsidies...


Most farm subsidies are actually just transfer payments of money taken via taxes from the wealthy minority to pay a portion of the cost of food for the many food consumers that do not pay taxes; nearly 50% of the US, if I remember correctly.

Price paid to farmer = government subsidy + artificially low "market price"

The whole "paying farmers not to produce" is just a distraction, and represents very little of the actual payments.

This inflation effect would be additive to dollar depreciation, should tax revenue not be available to subsidize the price of food.


Price paid to farmer = government subsidy + artificially low "market price"

The farmers have no choice, because they do not set the price. Care to know who does?


You understand how school lunch programs work, right? The schools are not being subsidized, the poor students are. It is the same with farm subsidies.


"Paying producers not to produce" is a fallacy perpetuated by the nomenclature. The payments should be called eater subsidies, rather than farm subsidies. Look at the numbers behind the headlines.




NotApplicable's picture

These ideas would only be valid in a truly free market (and I agree fully with the logic presented within that context).

As for the farm subsidies, most programs I know of are labeled "crop insurance" and cover farmer's losses due to that mean ole Mother Nature screwing up the season, and thus have no effect on the supply/demand curve, and thus the resultant price.

As for "paying not to grow" as a myth? Well, maybe where you live. Around here they call it "conservation." Fields are left fallow in exchange for fedgov cash. You'll know when you've found a subsidized tract when you see it on fire due to a "mandated burn" (shows up in the 911 log like that as well, since they're supposed to alert the FD first).

You can't even cut hay on it! (I learned that this year when they lifted that restriction due to our severe drought)

Then there's the dairy (gubmint cheese) subsidy, where fedgov SETS THE FLOOR on prices by buying up all product that would otherwise fall in price (like Benron and Timmah's game). Do higher consumer prices equal a subsidy? Nope. ALL of that purchased product goes into underground storage in Kansas City.

Like I said, your points are valid, but not in a mercantilist economy. Otherwise they'd never bothered to game it like they have.

Oh, and I didn't junk you, btw.

Dr. Acula's picture

>we the consumers are the one's being subsidized, not the producers

So you're saying a subsidy given to the producers is not a subsidy given to the producers?

>[farmers] do not set the price

They don't set the price on the food they sell?

>The whole "paying farmers not to produce" is just a distraction... "Paying producers not to produce" is a fallacy

So which is it? A distraction or a fallacy?

Your post makes no sense.

insanelysane's picture

So when the Dems had complete control of the gov in 2009 and 2010 they didn't end those why???  Wake the fuck up you moron.  The money is sent from the gov to the companies and then back to the campaigns for both parties.

Rat Patrol's picture


Much like speed is life for fighter pilots, cheap energy is life for economies. What kind of moron would demonize oil companies?


Enjoy your solar, wind and ethanol...and your nation's poverty.

DCFusor's picture

I am enjoying my solar (made in America panels) and electric car, yeah, that made in America one.

And, the result is I have a lot more of my income being discretionary, so I can spend it in the economy here.

Exactly how is that worse than buying a foreign car - burning foriegn oil, burning coal for my power, and thereby sending all my dough overseas to people who want us dead, rat patrol?  I think you might have a cognitive problem here.

Rat Patrol's picture

Your $80k car subsidized down to $40K? You are a parasite on the tax payers.


Coal is local, moron. Fracking is good. Death to Saudi.


It is nice you have now have "extra" cash courtesy of the middle class. Souless bastard.

Plus battery base anything is harmful to the environment, you Gaia hating fool. Why do you hate Gaia?


ShrNfr's picture

Oddly, the tree huggers never talk about the topic crap that you generate when you mine rare earth elements or produce solar panels. I have nothing against solar except that I need a big muthafucker battery bank to keep the lights on at night. 100 KWH of batteries is one load and a half of lead. The six volt cells for 1/2 of the bank (two done in parrallel) weigh in at over 300# each. The bank is a total of over 2 tons of lead. Stupidity comes easy for folks who are not engineers. Stupidity comes easier for people who think AGW is real. Sorry, but I got my PhD from the place at the corner of Mass Ave. and Memorial Drive in Cambridge. I know better. It is the boneheads like Jeremy Grantham that are mbas who fall for that shit.

NotApplicable's picture

I've had a Honda Civic Hybrid for ten years now, and let me tell you, nothing is more satisfying than when a clueless do-gooder gets all excited about how I'm saving the Earth.

My reply? "It's so nice to see an evironmentalist who understands how important it is to support the mining industry! I mean, you do realize there's over a hundred pounds of batteries in the trunk, right?"

Then I let them in on a secret. I bought the car because it was obvious to me that the economy was being sacrificed by the criminals they (those evil-do(good)er voters) insist upon empowering over us all.

HangSorosHigh's picture

Just wait until electric cars actually become cheap and useful - the treehuggers will immediately discover how bad the battery manufacturing process is.


And guess what'll happen once solar panels become useful? They'll suddenly discover the same thing.


Wind turbines will always be useless though, so one can expect that treehuggers will always like them.

Offthebeach's picture

Coal and oil are more organic then organic farming.
Solar panel manufacturing ( none of which use solar panels to make panels. 2nd law of Thermodynamic's anyone? Suppose not.)

Natural carbon all the way baby.

ShrNfr's picture

Odd, XOM paid more in taxes to the US government than they earned from their US operations. If you consider that a subsidy, I suggest you do a self colonoscopy with your cranium. It does not seem to be worth anything else.

bobnoxy's picture

Er...huh? Are you dumb enough to believe anyone would pay more in taxes than they earn here? And no, it's not due to what they make overseas being a factor. What they earn overseas stays there until the Republicans pass another ''Jobs Creation Act of 2004''.

Let me look that up. Oh, this looks good.

''In the first months of this year, Exxon (XOM, Fortune 500) says it paid $3.1 billion in taxes in the United States -- more than even the $2.6 billion in profit it made selling oil and gas.

''To get to that number, the company includes the federal and state gasoline taxes that the company collects from drivers and passes on to government coffers. It also includes payroll taxes the company pays on behalf of its employees.''

Solid repeating of that lie. Let me guess. You're an oil company lobbyist?

So, I paid at the tax the pump, and Exxon takes credit for paying it themselves? I don't know what's more amazing. That they would even attempt to peddle that, or that anyone would believe it. And there you are!

Try this on instead;

''Here's another: Between 2008 and 2010, a dozen major US corporations—including General Electric, ExxonMobil, and Verizon—paid a negative tax rate, despite collectively recording $171 billion in pretax US profits, according to an analysis by Citizens for Tax Justice. Taken together, these companies' tax burden was -$2.5 billion, and ten of the companies recorded at least one no-tax year between 2008 and 2010.''

ShrNfr's picture

Bozo, you forgot the royalty payments that they pay when they drill. Duh. And no butthole, I am not a lobbyist for anything. "Citizens For Tax Justice" yeah right. You just impeached your slimy ass right there. Mother Jones? You gotta be cuking kidding me.

bobnoxy's picture

Shooting the messenger? I guess it's all you have left. What if those sources actually referenced facts? No time to check?

Paid more in taxes than they made?

On the surface, you should have known something was wrong with that. Unless you had reason to give them the benefit of the doubt amid an argument that was obviously preposterous.

LMAOLORI's picture




I think people should provide proof so

When It Comes To Paying Taxes, Big Oil Takes The Biggest Hit


ExxonMobil in 2011 made $27.3 billion in cash payments for income taxes. Chevron paid $17 billion and ConocoPhillips $10.6 billion. And not only were these the highest amounts in absolute terms, when compared with the rest of the 25 most profitable U.S. companies (see our slideshow for the full rundown of who paid what), the trio also had the highest effective tax rates. Exxon’s tax rate was 42.9%, Chevron’s was 48.3% and Conoco’s was 41.5%. That’s even higher than the 35% U.S. federal statutory rate, which is already the highest tax rate among developed nations.

(The lowest taxpayers among the most profitable companies? Automakers Ford and GM, despite $20 billion and $9 billion in net income, respectively, paid a scant $270 million and $570 million in taxes — simply because they have billions in previous-year losses to balance against recent profits.)

‘Taxation Hero’: ExxonMobil has paid more than $1 trillion in taxes since 1999, which is 3x its profits over that period

Winston Churchill's picture

Lets get this straight.

Oil companies do not get subsidies.

They do get accellerated capital expenditure allowances to offset against corp. tax.

The nature of the business requires it,just as a horsefarm gets break the other way.

They are getting to keep a little more of THEIR profit.

We are not yet Marxist( in spite of Obummer) sp their profits are theirs.