Yeah it is completely different but not because of what Carney says. In fact I’m not sure if I’ve ever heard a more BS answer from Carney.
The question is simple. How is Obama taking a risk on Solyndra (an excuse he used after it went bankrupt) different from Romney at Bain taking a risk on a steel company:
Let me remind you of what Obama said:
“We knew from the start that the loan guarantee program was going to entail some risk by definition,” Obama said, adding that the “overall portfolio has been successful.”
So wait. Obama can load Solyndra up with debt ($535 million taxpayer money) and then after it goes belly up claim that risk is just part of the process? And that excuses it? What about the people laid off?
And then Carney defends it by saying that risk is only a small part of the decision making process Obama uses when pouring taxpayer money into a company?
Oh, that makes me feel MUCH better about watching $535 million of taxpayer money circle the toilet drain.
These guys are trying to defend the indefensible. Bain invested their OWN money into a company they were unable to save for several reasons, one of which was the unions. Obama ‘invested’ OUR money into a company with a failed model to begin with, which makes it MUCH MUCH WORSE!
But Bain is bad, Obama good.
I’m telling you, November better get here soon or my heads going to explode.