Ron Desantis (The Desantis Doctrine)

[MDlaxfan76]

this is "our" politicians (of either party) have done for the past 20 years.

For good or ill.....The Dems passed Obamacare. A bill i don't like, but it gave a lot of poor Americans access to healthcare, which I do like.

And for good, without question, the Dems passed the Infrastructure Bill.

What's the last big bill the Republicans passed that actually helped the working class?

I don't know enough about what Obamacare actually did accomplish - and I say that knowing that the GOP did everything they could to make sure it didn't help anyone so that the Dems couldn't take credit....

I am sitting in a seminar on the Infrastructure Relief Act as I type this. One thing I will tell you for certain - if you can't afford $1,000/hour lawyers, you are going to have a hard time getting any of that money. -- Want to place any bets on the types of businesses and what status of people will end up slurping up that $10 billion?

Given the scale of the objectives, most will be very large projects, with very large contractors managing the projects. Smaller guys will need to work through the big players, mostly.

But dough primarily flows to or through cities and states, based on proposed projects, who then hire the big contractors.

That sound right based on seminar?

Doesn't mean there won't be flow through, especially given the 'made in America' requirements.

Are there small business requirement percentages?
Usually there's some of that as well in government contracting, as well diversity requirements.

[Farfromgeneva]

this is "our" politicians (of either party) have done for the past 20 years.

For good or ill.....The Dems passed Obamacare. A bill i don't like, but it gave a lot of poor Americans access to healthcare, which I do like.

And for good, without question, the Dems passed the Infrastructure Bill.

What's the last big bill the Republicans passed that actually helped the working class?

I don't know enough about what Obamacare actually did accomplish - and I say that knowing that the GOP did everything they could to make sure it didn't help anyone so that the Dems couldn't take credit....

I am sitting in a seminar on the Infrastructure Relief Act as I type this. One thing I will tell you for certain - if you can't afford $1,000/hour lawyers, you are going to have a hard time getting any of that money. -- Want to place any bets on the types of businesses and what status of people will end up slurping up that $10 billion?

https://www.cartoonstock.com/directory/ ... eeking.asp

[MDlaxfan76]

Re "Obamacare": https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2022/04/ ... e-act.html

We're also seeing much more emphasis, though still far from enough, on preventive healthcare.

We're still a mess, but definitely a lot more people covered.

[HooDat]

But dough primarily flows to or through cities and states, based on proposed projects, who then hire the big contractors.

What I am getting so far is that it is a competition being judged by the DOE who makes recommendations to the IRS for allocating the tax credits.

[a fan]

I am sitting in a seminar on the Infrastructure Relief Act as I type this. One thing I will tell you for certain - if you can't afford $1,000/hour lawyers, you are going to have a hard time getting any of that money. -- Want to place any bets on the types of businesses and what status of people will end up slurping up that $10 billion?

Same as it ever was. So long as we get roads, bridges, dams, etc., I'm ok with that. I get that Biden, Pelosi's, and McConnell's besties will get rich on the thing.

Any details you can share would be welcome!

[HooDat]

I am sitting in a seminar on the Infrastructure Relief Act as I type this. One thing I will tell you for certain - if you can't afford $1,000/hour lawyers, you are going to have a hard time getting any of that money. -- Want to place any bets on the types of businesses and what status of people will end up slurping up that $10 billion?

Same as it ever was. So long as we get roads, bridges, dams, etc., I'm ok with that. I get that Biden, Pelosi's, and McConnell's besties will get rich on the thing.

Any details you can share would be welcome!

It is focused on projects/investments that reduce green house gas emissions. It is surprisingly broadly written (I am so used to these things being so specific as to be a hand out to a very, very specific business) but you have to have some connection back to reducing carbon or other GHG's.

And it is first come first serve until the money is gone.

Bottom line - it is a handout to the folks who were already building carbon reducing projects. No bridges or dams. No education. No health care. Lots of companies getting 30% of their investment back from Uncle Sam on day one for pumping CO2 into the ground or shifting from nat gas to electricity. Maybe we will get some grid investment. If you aren't ready to go and to be fully operational within 2 years, you are out.

Because of the timing - this is not incentivizing any NEW investment decisions, it is rewarding past ones - because you are not going to get any of the money unless you were already well on your way to doing "it" (whatever it is) before this came along.

At least that is my take.

[a fan]

Bottom line - it is a handout to the folks who were already building carbon reducing projects. No bridges or dams.

The entire Bill? Or just the section that applied to you? You sure? There was a Photo Op with Biden and McConnell in front of a KY bridge that was getting some love.


https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden- ... 023-01-04/

[MDlaxfan76]

I am sitting in a seminar on the Infrastructure Relief Act as I type this. One thing I will tell you for certain - if you can't afford $1,000/hour lawyers, you are going to have a hard time getting any of that money. -- Want to place any bets on the types of businesses and what status of people will end up slurping up that $10 billion?

Same as it ever was. So long as we get roads, bridges, dams, etc., I'm ok with that. I get that Biden, Pelosi's, and McConnell's besties will get rich on the thing.

Any details you can share would be welcome!

It is focused on projects/investments that reduce green house gas emissions. It is surprisingly broadly written (I am so used to these things being so specific as to be a hand out to a very, very specific business) but you have to have some connection back to reducing carbon or other GHG's.

And it is first come first serve until the money is gone.

Bottom line - it is a handout to the folks who were already building carbon reducing projects. No bridges or dams. No education. No health care. Lots of companies getting 30% of their investment back from Uncle Sam on day one for pumping CO2 into the ground or shifting from nat gas to electricity. Maybe we will get some grid investment. If you aren't ready to go and to be fully operational within 2 years, you are out.

Because of the timing - this is not incentivizing any NEW investment decisions, it is rewarding past ones - because you are not going to get any of the money unless you were already well on your way to doing "it" (whatever it is) before this came along.

At least that is my take.

To clarify, this is different from the $1.2 Trillion bill, including $550 Billion totally new funding?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrastru ... d_Jobs_Act

Is this a separate $10 Billion bill? or part of the overall new $550 Billion?

[Farfromgeneva]

I am sitting in a seminar on the Infrastructure Relief Act as I type this. One thing I will tell you for certain - if you can't afford $1,000/hour lawyers, you are going to have a hard time getting any of that money. -- Want to place any bets on the types of businesses and what status of people will end up slurping up that $10 billion?

Same as it ever was. So long as we get roads, bridges, dams, etc., I'm ok with that. I get that Biden, Pelosi's, and McConnell's besties will get rich on the thing.

Any details you can share would be welcome!

It is focused on projects/investments that reduce green house gas emissions. It is surprisingly broadly written (I am so used to these things being so specific as to be a hand out to a very, very specific business) but you have to have some connection back to reducing carbon or other GHG's.

And it is first come first serve until the money is gone.

Bottom line - it is a handout to the folks who were already building carbon reducing projects. No bridges or dams. No education. No health care. Lots of companies getting 30% of their investment back from Uncle Sam on day one for pumping CO2 into the ground or shifting from nat gas to electricity. Maybe we will get some grid investment. If you aren't ready to go and to be fully operational within 2 years, you are out.

Because of the timing - this is not incentivizing any NEW investment decisions, it is rewarding past ones - because you are not going to get any of the money unless you were already well on your way to doing "it" (whatever it is) before this came along.

At least that is my take.

https://www.hannonarmstrong.com/

[HooDat]

Bottom line - it is a handout to the folks who were already building carbon reducing projects. No bridges or dams.

The entire Bill? Or just the section that applied to you? You sure? There was a Photo Op with Biden and McConnell in front of a KY bridge that was getting some love.


https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden- ... 023-01-04/

The part that applied.

[HooDat]

I am sitting in a seminar on the Infrastructure Relief Act as I type this. One thing I will tell you for certain - if you can't afford $1,000/hour lawyers, you are going to have a hard time getting any of that money. -- Want to place any bets on the types of businesses and what status of people will end up slurping up that $10 billion?

Same as it ever was. So long as we get roads, bridges, dams, etc., I'm ok with that. I get that Biden, Pelosi's, and McConnell's besties will get rich on the thing.

Any details you can share would be welcome!

It is focused on projects/investments that reduce green house gas emissions. It is surprisingly broadly written (I am so used to these things being so specific as to be a hand out to a very, very specific business) but you have to have some connection back to reducing carbon or other GHG's.

And it is first come first serve until the money is gone.

Bottom line - it is a handout to the folks who were already building carbon reducing projects. No bridges or dams. No education. No health care. Lots of companies getting 30% of their investment back from Uncle Sam on day one for pumping CO2 into the ground or shifting from nat gas to electricity. Maybe we will get some grid investment. If you aren't ready to go and to be fully operational within 2 years, you are out.

Because of the timing - this is not incentivizing any NEW investment decisions, it is rewarding past ones - because you are not going to get any of the money unless you were already well on your way to doing "it" (whatever it is) before this came along.

At least that is my take.

https://www.hannonarmstrong.com/

everybody and their brother is an Energy Transition / Zero-Carbon / ESG fund. You can't spit on an NYC sidewalk without hitting one of them....

[a fan]

Bottom line - it is a handout to the folks who were already building carbon reducing projects. No bridges or dams.

The entire Bill? Or just the section that applied to you? You sure? There was a Photo Op with Biden and McConnell in front of a KY bridge that was getting some love.


https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden- ... 023-01-04/

The part that applied.

Ah, got it. Thanks.

[Farfromgeneva]

I am sitting in a seminar on the Infrastructure Relief Act as I type this. One thing I will tell you for certain - if you can't afford $1,000/hour lawyers, you are going to have a hard time getting any of that money. -- Want to place any bets on the types of businesses and what status of people will end up slurping up that $10 billion?

Same as it ever was. So long as we get roads, bridges, dams, etc., I'm ok with that. I get that Biden, Pelosi's, and McConnell's besties will get rich on the thing.

Any details you can share would be welcome!

It is focused on projects/investments that reduce green house gas emissions. It is surprisingly broadly written (I am so used to these things being so specific as to be a hand out to a very, very specific business) but you have to have some connection back to reducing carbon or other GHG's.

And it is first come first serve until the money is gone.

Bottom line - it is a handout to the folks who were already building carbon reducing projects. No bridges or dams. No education. No health care. Lots of companies getting 30% of their investment back from Uncle Sam on day one for pumping CO2 into the ground or shifting from nat gas to electricity. Maybe we will get some grid investment. If you aren't ready to go and to be fully operational within 2 years, you are out.

Because of the timing - this is not incentivizing any NEW investment decisions, it is rewarding past ones - because you are not going to get any of the money unless you were already well on your way to doing "it" (whatever it is) before this came along.

At least that is my take.

https://www.hannonarmstrong.com/

everybody and their brother is an Energy Transition / Zero-Carbon / ESG fund. You can't spit on an NYC sidewalk without hitting one of them....

Yes though some is superficial some is a little more real. If it’s just ESG is superficial, a vehicle to generate higher AUM fees as they get squeezed by efficiencies in traditional equity and debt investment vehicles.

Energy transition is much more real when focused.

And NYC has a law coming in next year that will force a lot of capex on all the older buildings. That’s going to force billions just in that city to be spent.

I was just talking to a guy who’s involved with a subsidiary of theirs (Hannon) last week and they have some interesting tombstones around true industrial project finance which is different than shoehorning standard expenditures into a subsidized or govt gtd box.

If you are a banker in Houston I’m thinking about how much I’d want to bet that you touch energy, specifically O&G, so you would have my cynicism combined with your client base on the line no doubt as well.

[HooDat]

Plenty of cynicism that is for sure, but the energy transition will most likely fund my retirement - so I would be for it even if I didn't think it was the right thing to do.

[jhu72]

Report that DeSantis is in fact going ahead with Disney punishment. Somehow I suspect the consequence is not what is being shared with the public. Disney would not take it laying down.

[Farfromgeneva]

Plenty of cynicism that is for sure, but the energy transition will most likely fund my retirement - so I would be for it even if I didn't think it was the right thing to do.

I’d rather lean into something than play the IBGYBG game.

Well I just spent time in Oakland with the CPACE sponsor I’ve referenced I think around beee at his home and he’s a tremendous guy so if they can be useful please allow me to direct you to CleanFund. If this is too much of a solicitiaon admin can delete it or tell me to, but I’m not formally engaged or paid as of now just increasingly like the guy running it who’s both successful and passionate about this stuff which is a good combo usually so I’m spending my time on it a lot more than I should.

[Farfromgeneva]

Report that DeSantis is in fact going ahead with Disney punishment. Somehow I suspect the consequence is not what is being shared with the public. Disney would not take it laying down.

This quote is great! Like he stole it from every Christian/Catholic POS priest and pastor ever word for word regarding gays, pregnant single mothers and anyone else they want to control!

At a signing ceremony held at a fire station on the Disney property, DeSantis said of the company, “When you lose your way, you got to have people who are going to tell you the truth.”

[NattyBohChamps04]

Disney and Florida make close to the same amount in revenue each year. Will be an interesting fight. Disney is in it for the long haul, and has shareholders to answer to. DeSantis, not so much...

[Farfromgeneva]

Disney and Florida make close to the same amount in revenue each year. Will be an interesting fight. Disney is in it for the long haul, and has shareholders to answer to. DeSantis, not so much...

DeSantis has shareholders as well…Ken Griffin and folks like that. Just privately held

[Farfromgeneva]

Get a cocktail and a comfortable seat for this

Scoop: Trump's 5-part plan to attack DeSantis

Former President Trump is convinced his attacks on Ron DeSantis are chipping away at the Florida governor's support and confidence, sources and friends familiar with Trump's thinking say.

So Trump is planning to amp up the attacks and name-calling in the coming weeks.
Why it matters: Trump believes DeSantis is the only candidate who could last with him in a long, bitter campaign for the 2024 GOP nomination.

Trump hopes to scare DeSantis out of running, or at least damage him if he follows through on signs he will enter the race, top sources tell us.
Between the lines: Trump plans to target "Ron DeSanctimonious," as he delights in branding the governor, in five areas. They are:

DeSantis' past support for changes to Social Security and Medicare, including votes as a U.S. congressman to raise the eligibility age for Medicare.
Disloyalty to Trump after he helped DeSantis get elected governor in 2018. Trump also plans to pound DeSantis on likability.
Trump wants to cast DeSantis as a lackey of former House Speaker Paul Ryan. On Trump's social-media site, Truth Social, he attacked Ryan this week as a loser who "couldn't get elected dogcatcher," and said he should resign or be fired as a Fox Corp. board member.
DeSantis' response to COVID is a top Trump target, even though the governor is known for resisting mask mandates. Trump plans to attack DeSantis' caution in the earliest days of the pandemic — and try to fight the issue to a draw. A March 2020 headline in the Tampa Bay Times said: "DeSantis orders major shutdown of beaches, businesses in Broward, Palm Beach." (DeSantis pushes back on this.)
DeSantis took heat for muddled comments, in a Fox News interview last week, about whether to maintain financial and military support for Ukraine. Trump plans to portray DeSantis as wishy-washy on the war, while he toes the MAGA line of cutting aid.
What they're saying: "There’s a pre-Trump Ron and there’s a post-Trump Ron," a Trump confidant said of DeSantis. "He used to be a Reagan Republican. That’s where he comes from. He's now awkwardly trying to square his views up with the populist nationalist feeling of that party."

A DeSantis spokesman had no comment on Trump's criticisms.
DeSantis told Fox News' Jesse Watters this week that he sees Trump attacks as "background noise": "He used to say how great of a governor I was. And then I win a big victory and all of a sudden, you know, he had different opinions. And so you could take that for what it's worth."
By the numbers: Several polls show Trump gaining momentum in the past month.

A Yahoo News/YouGov poll has Trump opening up an 8-point lead (47%-39%), after DeSantis led the former president by 4 in early February.
What we're watching: Team DeSantis believes it's smart to not respond directly to Trump's attacks. But waiting to respond could be risky — and undermine DeSantis' efforts to cast himself as a tough, principled alternative to the former president.