Road Trip

The boys got together for some male bonding, sans the mistresses, at Monticello yesterday, and it didn’t take long for his highness to throw his weight around;

See, the funny thing is that many think this was a gaffe, a small one and not newsworthy, but there was no confusion, in his mind he can do whatever he wants. It is good to be the king, except when you are not and everyone is laughing at you for pretending to be one.

Why is it that I got the impression that this was the first time Obama has visited Monticello? Given Jefferson’s staunch anti imperialistic approach to governance and his hatred for monarchies, you think Obama was expecting to get hit by lighting once he set foot on the premises?

And I sure hope those poor French reporters brought some food with them, we all know how cheap Obama is wrt feeding his guests.

Comments are closed.

  1. Seattle Outcast

    He certainly acts as if this is exactly what he believes at all times.

    Ranging from his “phone and pen” to circumvent all other branches of government to using drone strikes to kill US citizens without a trial to using the IRS to harass political opponents, when HASN’T he done whatever he pleases?

    Thumb up 3

  2. CM

    Stossel:

    In the U.S., labor unions were big supporters of President Barack Obama, and — presto — unions got 451 waivers from Obamacare.

    Media Matters response:

    But even a cursory look at the documents released by HHS tells a different story. The waivers, which temporarily excuse a health care plan from following regulations that remove annual limits on benefits, were issued to about 1,200 plans as of January 6, 2012. Those are broken down into self-insured employers, which are largely private businesses, multi-employer plans and non-Taft Hartley Union plans, both of which are offered by labor unions, and a few others. The update by HHS shows that of the 1,200 plans currently approved for waivers, more than 60 percent (772) are self-insured employers, while 451 went to labor unions. The number of employees granted waivers does favor labor unions, but only because those plans simply cover far more people than any specific private business plan that has sought a waiver. It’s not that labor unions are favored, simply that plans representing more insured individuals have applied.

    Where the allegations of “sweetheart deals” and “crony capitalism” really fall apart, however, is in the list of denied applications. While Varney claims that “mostly private enterprise companies” were denied applications, the list of denials shows that only 20 of the 96 ultimately denied plans represented private business; the majority of rejected plans were actually from labor unions. In fact, of the 1,019,810 enrollees in plans that were denied and were not subsequently approved, fewer than 11,000 were enrolled in self-insured employer plans.

    http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/01/09/right-wing-medias-newest-waiver-attack-falls-fl/185954

    Are they wrong?

    Thumb up 0

  3. CM

    Even the crusade to save the earth is captured by the “special” people. Subsidies for “green energy” were supposed to go to the best ideas. Yet somehow your money went to companies like Solyndra, whose biggest shareholder just happened to be an Obama backer who bundled money for the president.

    Solyndra applied under the DOE loan progam, and were successful in obtaining it. Many many many others did too, and many were successful. The loans didn’t just get awarded based on who had “the best ideas”. They were determined based on risk, which took into account a whole lot of factors. The whole point was to leverage private investment (each dollar appropriated for the program apparently leveraged up to thirteen dollars in private sector investment).

    An outside “forensic accountant and bankruptcy expert” determined that the company failed:

    …due to rapid unanticipated changes in market conditions: chiefly the plummeting price of solar panels due to massively ramped up competition from China, combined with dramatically curtailed demand, triggered by the impact of the global financial crisis on Europe.

    http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2012/03/27/solyndra/?iid=EL

    There is no evidence that the Solyndra loan was approved because George Kaiser’s family foundation was the largest backer, despite the accusation by Stossel. The second largest was a fund controlled by the Walton family — of Wal-Mart (WMT, Fortune 500) fame. Walton family members are noted Republican donors. When Obama become President Solyndra was already identified as one of the first projects likely to get through the process (because they were already a fair way through it).

    Overall there were far fewer failures than was predicted/assumed.

    Lawmakers set aside $10 billion to cover any losses from $26 billion in loans. Solyndra could potentially cost the government $529 million. And Beacon, a power storage company that also went bankrupt, cost the government $12 million. So even if Solyndra ends up costing the full $529 million, there’s still nearly $9.5 billion available should other loans go belly up.
    Two other DOE-funded companies have also had trouble — Ener1 and Fisker — but they received grants and are not in the loan program.

    http://money.cnn.com/2012/06/06/technology/solyndra/

    And it seems the govt won’t lose the entire $529 million:

    Solyndra received a $536 million U.S. Energy Department loan guarantee before going bankrupt. Under the Solyndra restructuring plan, the government is projected to recoup 19 percent on $142.8 million of the loan and nothing on the remaining $385 million.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-17/solyndra-lenders-ahead-of-government-won-t-recover-fully.html

    …expected losses on funding to VPG, Solyndra and others “only represent about 2 percent of our overall loan program portfolio of approximately $34 billion, and less than 10 percent of the loan loss reserve Congress set aside for the program.”

    Stossel’s claim bears no relationship to reality.

    Thumb up 0

  4. CM

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0

  5. Xetrov

    Yeah, he’s “blatantly lazy and partisan”, and you posted a media matters link to…what? Prove both sides are partisan? Funny stuff CM.

    Thumb up 6

  6. Xetrov

    There is no evidence that the Solyndra loan was approved because George Kaiser’s family foundation was the largest backer, despite the accusation by Stossel.

    Yes, and Noah Bryson Mamet, Obama’s pick for Ambassador to Argentina who has never set foot in that country was not picked because he was a fundraising bundler for Obama’s re-election campaign. There is no proof here, nothing to see here, move on.

    Thumb up 4

  7. CM

    Yes.

    http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303309504579182061106839366

    I can’t open that, I’m not well enough connected. Can you copy and paste it here please? (I promise I won’t complain about any number of things that others complain about).

    Besides, Media Matters is hardly an impartial source when talking about Obamacare, so their reasoning regarding why Unions did or did not receive waivers means nothing to me, and their numbers are suspect. http://www.wnd.com/2013/11/media-matters-funded-obamacare-deceit/

    Which is exactly why I specifically questioned it and added no opinion or editorial-type comments of my own.
    But I like how you’ve countered with World News Daily, the exact equivalent! Touché!
    Can you explain how the numbers are suspect (again, to spell this out, I’m not claiming their numbers are right, I’m asking how/why they are wrong)? The reference I see in the WND piece to the numbers is:

    However, that talking point may surprise critics of what has been described as waivers of some provisions of the health-care law for a number of businesses and unions.

    The Department of Health and Human Services allowed lower annual caps on the total amount of medical bills some firms and unions pay for each subscriber. Reportedly the temporary waivers were offered to 722 businesses, 417 groups of small employers bound by collective bargaining agreements and 34 unions.

    How are the MM numbers “suspect”?
    Also, either “the majority of rejected plans were actually from labor unions” or they weren’t. If they were, that’s surely a factor to consider when making such bold accusations?

    Which seem to be the same numbers in the Media Matters piece (although Media Matters just add the 417 to the 34 and call those ‘labor unions’).

    Yeah, he’s “blatantly lazy and partisan”, and you posted a media matters link to…what? Prove both sides are partisan? Funny stuff CM.

    Not even remotely. It’s the first thing I found which suggested that there’s more to it than what Stossel is claiming. If Media Matters are wrong, then they are wrong. I’m not coming in here claiming that they’ve “brilliantly explained” something, or anything similar.
    But yes, he’s clearly lazy and partisan. It’s surely much better to be partisan AND get your examples right rather than relying on in-house accepted ‘truths’?

    Yes, and Noah Bryson Mamet, Obama’s pick for Ambassador to Argentina who has never set foot in that country was not picked because he was a fundraising bundler for Obama’s re-election campaign. There is no proof here, nothing to see here, move on.

    ‘Moving on’ is exactly the opposite of what I’m doing, by pointing out that the Solyndra loan arrangement was a long way down the path already under Bush (can we say presumably because of the Walton family, or do accusations work differently in that direction?). The right should ‘move on’ from Solyndra though, as it doesn’t really work out very well when the context is applied. Not surprisingly nobody steps back from their historical accusations though, such is the world we live in.
    This response about Mamet seem to suggest that you think I’m providing some blanket defence of Obama, which is another example of binary.
    I haven’t looked into the Mamet appointment. But from I can see now it seems that Obama is doing what all other Presidents have done, and exactly what he said he wouldn’t do.
    Is it an example of “special deals for cronies”? Perhaps, although presumably the likely candidates for that specific position are only ever going to come from a very small pool. So although it’s probably an example, it’s probably not a brilliant one. It’s certainly an excellent example of Obama going back on his vow to curb the practice of using diplomatic posts as political gifts though.
    Anyway I hear that Shirley Temple was no longer available.

    Thumb up 0

  8. CM

    What about all the new businesses that would have gotten investment money but didn’t have Gore on their boards? What new ideas might have thrived if old industries weren’t coddled?

    True. How much further would we be along the sustainable energy path if non-renewables hadn’t received hundreds of billions and billions each year (and increasing subsidies for decades)? I’m sure Stossel didn’t mean that though (it would actually be consistent with his argument, but completely at odds with his narrative).

    Fossil fuel subsidies in 2011: $500 billion
    Renewable energy subsidies in 2011: $88 billion

    http://www.odi.org.uk/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/8669.pdf
    http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/media/weowebsite/2012/WEO2012_Renewables.pdf

    I’d like to see an argument which demonstrates how they didn’t have a significantly greater effect that any modern day considerably-smaller subsidies for renewable energy.

    Thumb up 0

  9. Xetrov

    I can’t open that, I’m not well enough connected.

    Google it – https://www.google.com/search?q=obamacare's+union+favor&oq=obamacare's+union+favor&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i61j0l3.2849j0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 then hit the link and it opens.

    Which is exactly why I specifically questioned it and added no opinion or editorial-type comments of my own.

    Of course not, because then you might actually have to defend one of the billions of articles you link to. Which is a long time favorite tactic of yours, and one of the big reasons I don’t like discussing things with you. “I was just posting the article as a point of interest, I didn’t claim it was right, or anything.” You’ve done that on every topic from Obamacare to Bushitler. Which as far as I’m concerned ends this discussion if you are not willing to admit to a position and defend it.

    Thumb up 2

  10. CM

    Thanks. Weird, I tried a few things to get into it yesterday but none of them seemed to work (I only got the first paragraph and then it faded to nothing). But the first link at your link works.

    Oh puleeeeease, finding something which contradicted what your guy said and asking if that was incorrect is completely reasonable. Media Matters might have been trying to pull a fast one – and someone (maybe even you) might have been able to reply immediately and point it out. What I said allows for Media Matters to be incorrect. How on earth is that unreasonable? Why on earth would I “admit” to a “position” on that? That doesn’t even make sense to me.
    His point on that is either misleading or it isn’t. If you think the numbers are wrong and his point is correct then what are the correct numbers?
    I didn’t claim to be posting the article as a point on interest at all, it contained something (with supporting numbers) that seemed to directly refute one his big examples (which is a claim I have also heard before).
    But fine, don’t it discuss it any further. But please don’t try blaming me when I’ve done nothing unreasonable.

    Thumb up 0

  11. balthazar

    Fossil fuel subsidies in 2011: $500 billion
    Renewable energy subsidies in 2011: $88 billion

    Jesus fucking christ you retarded fuck. Ive gone over this with you 50 fucking times. Yes the dollar figure is more, but per Kw/h the subsidies tell a much different story. Its been posted many times before you ignorant fuck look it up.

    Basically the subsidies per kwh for the “non” renewable is literally CENTS compared to the TENS OF DOLLARS per kwh of the so called “renewable.

    You really are one of the dumbest fucks on the planet.

    Yes im attacking him, the stupid fuck has been told this at LEAST 5 times before with articles and STRAIGHT NUMBER REPORTS to back it up. Yet he still spews this useless garbage everywhere.

    Please CM GDIAF.

    Thumb up 2

  12. CM

    So what? Are you arguing that decades of non-renewable subsidies have made no difference in terms of the ability of new energy technologies to be developed? Because that is the issue being discussed – “What new ideas might have thrived if old industries weren’t coddled?”
    If subsides = “coddling” then non-renewables have been “coddled” for decades.

    Thumb up 0

  13. balthazar

    No, why would they. The “new” energy tech has no business model that works. It should be purely research atm, not this moronic shit that they are doing now.

    The subsidies for the forms of energy that actually work are strategic in value, you keep the costs down for a few reasons, the main one of which is that you garentee that you keep the infrastructure in place by making it less costly for the energy companies to do business in country. A lesser one is that you can nudge the industries to actually do research on better tech. Less overhead means more money to make more money.

    Thumb up 3

  14. CM

    Not all subsidies are created equal, but quite simply the government shouldn’t be subsidizing free enterprise at all.

    Right, and the argument is that everything should be able to stand (and rise/fall) on it’s own. My point is that non-renewables have been subsidised for decades (look at what has been required for a nuclear power station to get off the ground), and although we can’t say for sure whether non-renewable energy research would have progressed faster if non-renewables had been left to stand or fall on their own, I would think it would be difficult to argue that it would have made no difference. Stossel’s own argument is that new ideas can thrive if old industries aren’t coddled – which suggests it WOULD have progressed faster. Unless you disagree that decades of subsidies has been “coddling” at all.

    As it is the cost of producing reneweable energy has been plummeting (which is the whole point of subsidising a new technology – to get that price-drop to happen much quicker than it would have otherwise).

    I’ve said before that in principle I’m against subsidies (because it distorts the market and can reward inefficiencies). However there are some exceptions that I would make – and reneweable energy is one of them.

    Or, you know, Solyndra and Gore.

    Thumb up 0

  15. balthazar

    I’ve said before that in principle I’m against subsidies (because it distorts the market and can reward inefficiencies). However there are some exceptions that I would make – and reneweable energy is one of them.

    Yep, your useless and clueless.

    Hate to break it to you, the “plummeting” cost of producing the supposed renewable energy is remarkably in line with the INCREASES in subsidies. Until solar gets to 40+% efficient it wont even be close to viable. Wind is viable on a small individual sale, but by and large the large wind farms are shit.

    Thumb up 0

  16. CM

    Hate to break it to you, the “plummeting” cost of producing the supposed renewable energy is remarkably in line with the INCREASES in subsidies.

    I’d be interested in seeing some evidence to support that claim.
    This suggests something quite different…..

    The recently released Levelized Cost of Energy Analysis 7.0 from the financial advisor and asset management firm Lazard Freres & Co., shows that the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) for wind and solar installations across the US has fallen by over 50% in the past four years.

    This has led them to estimate that utility scale solar PV is a competitive source of peak energy compared to fossil fuels for most parts of the world, before subsidies are even taken into account. In fact Lazard believes that many forms of renewable energy generation are already cost-competitive with fossil fuel generation at an unsubsidised LCOE level.

    They calculated that solar PV and wind energy produced electricity at a cost of $68-$104 per MWh, similar to baseload power from coal, at $65-$145 per MWh; nuclear, at $86-$122 per MWh; and integrated gasification combined cycle, at $95-$154 per MWh. When including the federal tax subsidies offered in the US the LCOE for wind falls to $23-$85 per MWh, and thin-film utility scale solar PV comes in at just $51-$78 per MWh.

    Lazard predicts that as energy storage technologies improve, and become more commonplace, the LCOE of renewable energy sources will fall even further. And whilst utility-scale solar PV installations have one of the lowest LCOE figures, rooftop solar PV panels remain one of the most expensive energy sources in comparison.

    Lazard has also suggested that the future of renewable energy sources likely lies in the role of distributed small-scale generation, as the expensive capital investment needed to construct large fossil fuel plants leads to far higher LCOE values, whereas renewable energy can be installed on a much smaller scale, nearer to their market, and avoiding the huge energy carrying infrastructure.

    http://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Cost-of-Renewable-Energy-has-Fallen-50-Since-2008.html

    Thumb up 0

  17. CM

    Yep, your useless and clueless.

    Thanks, that always gives a good laugh.
    It’s “you’re”. And as you ALWAYS do it, you can’t put it down to a ‘typo’.

    Thumb up 0