Paul Ryan: against DOE loans to green car companies today...but not 4 years ago...

[Ryan]

First Paul Ryan calls the stimulus outrageous and unneeded - but 4 years ago letters from his office show he still asked for money from it anyway. Then Paul Ryan rails against Obama Care....only for documents to again surface where he requested Obama Care bucks for his district.

Now today - it surfaces that Paul Ryan urged the DOE to hand out money liberally to green car companies. That's right - instead of loaning companies money on an incremental basis based on their progress...he just wanted to hand these companies giant lumps sums......

This is starting to be a disturbing trend with Paul Ryan - I can see why Mitt picked him as a running mate: they have the same flip-flopping core value.


How Paul Ryan feels about giving these loans out today:

I would just say, if you take a look at the president’s policies, he calls them investments. It’s borrowing money and spending money through Washington, picking winners and losers...

http://grist.org/news/paul-ryan-pushed-for-greener-cars-until-he-didnt/


Yet---4 years ago he was an advocate for these "investments"....

The department’s Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing loan program doesn’t make lump-sum payments, instead doling out the money incrementally to ensure that recipients meet financial and performance milestones along the way. Energy Department officials have stressed in recent months that the tactic is a key part of their due diligence process, aimed at monitoring loan recipients’ financial stability.

But Ryan called for a different strategy in an October 2008 letter to then-Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman outlining a series of steps the department should take as it finalized the ATVM loan program. The letter, obtained by POLITICO, calls for “disbursement flexibility” aimed at “ensuring access to the approved lump-sum versus incremental access.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81013.html

 

[her209]

 

[EagleKeeper]

You do realize that the Dems have been shouting that the stimuls package did not work because it wsa to small.
Dribble things out and/or put handicapping on some ideas by those that do not understand what is going on will help failure.

People were willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt once the stimulus was going to happen.

4 years later they see the flaws in what happened.

Dems love 20/20 hindsight - claim that it is a learning experience so as to not make the same mistake again.
Why can not any politician learn for mistakes that were made.

 

[DominionSeraph]

People were willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt once the stimulus was going to happen.

4 years later they see the flaws in what happened.

Dems love 20/20 hindsight

Yes, our Democratic 20/20 hindsight is nice. For example, it allows us to see that Bush was President in October of 2008.

Wish you Republicans would get glasses for yours...

 

[EagleKeeper]

Yes, our Democratic 20/20 hindsight is nice. For example, it allows us to see that Bush was President in October of 2008.

Wish you Republicans would get glasses for yours...

It also allows the Dems to say that even thought they supported Iraq and Afghanistan; that they were misunderstood and meant to deny funds for such operations

As more information becomes available; one can see the success and failures; one can also analyze why such happened and try to avoid such next time.

 

[a777pilot]

What's a "green" car?

Seriously, what really is a green car? An all electric car that uses more carbon based fuels to be powered than a gas operated car? Really, what is a green car?

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I'm not a Ryan fan but trying something then finding it failed doesn't mean you need to keep supporting it. Its ok to make different decisions at different times

 

[cybrsage]

I'm not a Ryan fan but trying something then finding it failed doesn't mean you need to keep supporting it.

It means just that if you are a dem.

 

[DominionSeraph]

I'm not a Ryan fan but trying something then finding it failed doesn't mean you need to keep supporting it. Its ok to make different decisions at different times

That ain't what we have here. He's claiming he disagrees with it in principle. He's trying to apply conservatard memes so he can preach to the choir, when four years ago it was a completely different story of "me me me."

 

[Ryan]

I'm not a Ryan fan but trying something then finding it failed doesn't mean you need to keep supporting it. Its ok to make different decisions at different times

But you see - that's not really the crux of the issue. Paul Ryan supported giving these companies lump sum payments. The DOE only made the funds available in incremental amounts, based on specific manufacturing targets that had to be met.

If the companies started failing to deliver the goods, which is the case with Fisker, the government would stop giving them the loan guarantees - this is a safeguard to prevent the misuse of taxpayer money.

Ryan would have done away with this incremental approach - if he had his way 4 years ago, the taxpayers would be out even more money with Fisker.

The overall point - Ryan gives alot of lip service to teaparty ideals, but when we look at his actual actions...they don't line up with anything he speaks about. The campaign platform he runs on is a complete farce, and Republicans and conservatives keep drinking the kool-aid.......

 

[PokerGuy]

Hahaha, Ryan pushing the levels of stupidity ever higher, setting new standards. No, not the Ryan running for veep, the one posting here

 

[DrPizza]

First Paul Ryan calls the stimulus outrageous and unneeded - but 4 years ago letters from his office show he still asked for money from it anyway. Then Paul Ryan rails against Obama Care....only for documents to again surface where he requested Obama Care bucks for his district.

Arguments like this are stupid. Saying "I think it's a bad idea for the government to hand out $50 bazillion dollars" or voting against it is a hell of a lot different from requesting a piece of that after it passed anyways.

So, if 50 bazillion dollars is being handed out all over the country (which he voted against), should he say, "nope, don't give us any of that, we're sticking by our principles" - denying his own constituents the benefits of those dollars that were approved by others?

This is NOT flip flopping, and claiming that it is is very disingenuous.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

The Tea Party can't stand up to its own ideals. They are so incredibly impractical they have no choice but to betray their own "message".

See the "We want to gut Government spending but don't get rid of Social Security" memo.

 

[Ryan]

Arguments like this are stupid. Saying "I think it's a bad idea for the government to hand out $50 bazillion dollars" or voting against it is a hell of a lot different from requesting a piece of that after it passed anyways.

So, if 50 bazillion dollars is being handed out all over the country (which he voted against), should he say, "nope, don't give us any of that, we're sticking by our principles" - denying his own constituents the benefits of those dollars that were approved by others?

This is NOT flip flopping, and claiming that it is is very disingenuous.

I'm sorry, but I don't see it that way. It seems a little hypocritical for Ryan to talk so badly about spending by this and past administrations, while at the same time actively participating and contributing to the ideals he says he against.

If someone robs a bank, and then proceeds to give all the money away to random strangers - if they come to you with the dough, do you feel obligated to accept the money regardless of how it was obtained? I mean, hey, it's free money...right? Ryan would be taking the free money, then looking at everyone else who took the cash also and telling them it was wrong to take it.