kcar wrote:
For others. The rest is the usual "Do as I say, not as I do". Like O'Really going on about family values. Marks eat it up.

 black321 wrote: 


With HUD's help, even though Hannity is against government handouts. Even though Hannity makes around $36 million/year from his TV and radio shows, so it's not like he needs HUD insurance. 

Shame Hannity couldn't mention this when he had HUD Secretary Ben Carson on one of his shows. Then again, Hannity seems very keen on keeping his real estate investments a big secret—hence the massive use of shell corporations. 

 Steely_D wrote: 
I'm eagerly awaiting the unhinged tweetstorm about the witch hunt Jackson was subjected to by the evil Democrats and fake news media.

 Red_Dragon wrote: 
“It’s totally his decision, but he’ll be making a decision,” said Trump. He said he stood behind Jackson though he acknowledged he had an “experience problem.”

The President of the United States, who has never held public office, said this.

 Red_Dragon wrote: 
Maybe a private health insurance honcho is in order...

Oh, crap. They asked questions. Those meanies! Unfair!

 steeler wrote: 

 Red_Dragon wrote: 
I believe the terminology used has been "draining" The Swamp.  No one ever said anything about  refilling or repopulating it!

Pruitt is a sterling example of Donnie Johnnie expanding The Swamp™.

 kcar wrote: 
Seems like a smart investment?

Gallon of gas in OKC today: $2.37.  Thanks Donnie!

 kcar wrote: 
Mini-Trump.

Sean Hannity, secret real estate magnate—thanks to helping himself to HUD loan insurance. 

  Michael Cohen case shines light on Sean Hannity's property empire

The records link Hannity to a group of shell companies that spent at least $90m on more than 870 homes in seven states over the past decade. The properties range from luxurious mansions to rentals for low-income families. Hannity is the hidden owner behind some of the shell companies and his attorney did not dispute that he owns all of them.

Dozens of the properties were bought at a discount in 2013, after banks foreclosed on their previous owners for defaulting on mortgages. Before and after then, Hannity sharply criticised Barack Obama for the US foreclosure rate. In January 2016, Hannity said there were “millions more Americans suffering under this president” partly because of foreclosures.
...

Hannity, 56, also amassed part of his property collection with support from the US Department for Housing and Urban Development (Hud), a fact he did not disclose when praising Ben Carson, the Hud secretary, on his television show last year.
...

The real estate holdings linked to Hannity are spread across more than 20 shell companies formed in Georgia. Each of the companies uses a variant of the same name, which combines the initials of Hannity’s children. Public records show the companies have bought up dozens of properties in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, New York, North Carolina, Texas and Vermont.

Among the most valuable are two large apartment complexes in Georgia that Hannity bought in 2014 for $22.7m. The developments are in the cities of Perry and Brunswick, which have higher poverty rates and lower median incomes than the US averages. One- and two-bedroom units in Hannity‍‍‍’s apartment complexes are available to rent for $735 to $1,065 per month, according to brochures.

The Georgia purchases were funded with mortgages for $17.9m that Hannity obtained with help from Hud, which insured the loans under a program created as part of the National Housing Act. The loans, first guaranteed under the Obama administration, were recently increased by $5m with renewed support from Carson’s department.
...

The Georgia mortgages supported by Hud were guaranteed as part of a program aimed at protecting investors such as Hannity who buy rental apartment buildings. The government promises to cover losses if borrowers default on their mortgages. Borrowers pay an insurance premium to Hud in return. Bigger loan guarantees are available if the building houses low-income families.

Paperwork relating to the agreements with Hud, which was filed to county authorities, named Hannity as the principal of the shell companies used to buy the apartment complexes and to borrow the funds. Hannity personally signed several of the documents. A Hud source said Hannity was identified in non-public filings as the 100% owner of the apartment complexes.

Church of The Donald
Never mind Fox. Trump’s most reliable media mouthpiece is now Christian TV.

 islander wrote: 
Yeah, it would make equal sense to put a tariff on imported oil. Of course that would never fly. 

I knew a guy who worked for a company developing Sterling engine technology for electricity generation/cooling. No rare earths or exotic manufacturing process required. Their solar system used a parabolic mirror concentrator to drive a linear electric generator. So one moving part. The bearings holding that part looked like a 45 rpm record spindle insert so they only flexed in that direction and pulled the piston part back at the end of a drive cycle. They were done in by the drop in photo-voltaic price, at least in part. One cool feature of their last design was that they could park the panel at night, pointing down at a natural gas flame and keep generating electricity with pretty high efficiency. The remains of the company was bought out so maybe something will come of it. 

 VV wrote: 


No biggie, it is just the deep state has always been an issue with me and it has absolutely nothing to do with Trump other than him co-opting an actual problem for his own benefit which he is so adept in doing.

 haresfur wrote: 

Ah, yes. And no.  If they are pre-installed in Taiwan (where a lot of nice boats are built) they don't get individually tariffed. We are working to spec one pre-built boat with this kind of configuration.  The problem here is that even Victron, one of the major system producers, has reduced their offerings because the overall market is smaller. They currently are not importing to Taiwan or the US.  Others are still, so there are options, but with less competition the price and variety are both going the wrong direction. 

Protectionism can be handled in a number of different ways.  Tariffs suppress a market. Subsidies for consumption support a market. Support for production supports the market. We are subsidising and supporting the oil and coal industries. Why are we just using tariffs for solar?

In 2016, the US was 4th in installed PV capacity, but second in added capacity (growth). That's the last year official figures are available. But I think you'll see our added capacity position drop in the next go around. And that is what the fossil fuel industry paid for.

 sirdroseph wrote: 

Thanks, I stand corrected. I guess I should have prefaced it with "I personally don't recall" the idea of a "deep state" being raised before Trump but it obviously has.  

 islander wrote: 
I guess what I'm trying to ask is whether someone importing, say, a honkin' big boat with solar panels has to pay the tariff on the panels. If the panel is part of another system being imported, what happens? It seems to me, from what I've read about steel is that the tariff hurts US manufacturing because they have to pay it while foreign systems do not. I suppose an off-shore manufacturer might take a hit on what they export to the US but still have an advantage on anything they sell outside the US compared to the US companies. I'm not sure how it works.

There might be an argument for protectionism when the US was lending money to solar companies but they were still put out of business by imports. Not saying it would be "right" but it might have helped protect Obama's investment.

 haresfur wrote: 
Yeah, we're just a design / build shop. The parts we make are pretty boutique. Stuff like panels is out of our league. The real problem is that it just killed the market. There is hundreds of millions of dollars that just aren't being spent.   We are a Victron dealer, and they won't even discuss letting me sell their panels domestically. I could probably sell them even with the tariff - our customers care more about the solution than the cost. But the parent company says it's just not worth it to bring them in. I've even looked at bringiing them in myself and paying the tariff directly, but the variety of stuff in the market has shrink. A lot of the in between sizes have just gone away.  Even the domestic producers are scaling back. 

My industry is peanuts though. This is really impacting grid tied solar and supplemental solutions. The real winners are the big grid producers and by extension the fossil fuel industry.