Why Delaware Liberal is #1 and #2 and #3 and without a peer

Filed in National by on February 18, 2009

Because, you see we have a team of top notch ball busters that crack and slam down on the stupidity that often rains in over hear from FSP.  Especially from the top talking point thrower, their reader and chief Burris.

X-stryker put up this post yesterday GOP Stimulus Myths Exposed So, if you didn’t get a chance to read an ass handing smack down on Dave by X-stryker, please do so here:

Here was Dave nonsensical BS:

10 FSP // Feb 17, 2009 at 6:47 pm

I’ll give Zandi one thing — he’s a hell of a lot better source than Media Matters.

The CBO was asked to estimate the cost of the bill if the 20 most prominent provisions were extended permanently. That’s where the 3 trillion came from.

ACORN has subsidiaries and partners (i.e. noprofits with shared administrators and office space) who will get that money. Count on it.

The field mouse thing was stupid, but its habitat will receive money.

The cost per job? I’d love to see the cost per “permanent” job, taking out all the temporary construction and IT positions. I’ll bet it’s more than 220K per.

Also, no one seems to want to take into account the huge administrative expense burden this bill will put on employers.

Hope it works, because y’all have really screwed the pooch if it doesn’t.

Also, Zandi’s analysis seems to say that giving money to poor people is better for the economy than giving money to middle-class people. Any idea why?

And here was the rebuttal. I’ll admit, it takes a lot of writing to refute this bullshit, but X handles it well.
smackity, smackity in the moring. I love it.

14 xstryker // Feb 17, 2009 at 7:26 pm

Dave, you’re stupid and you didn’t read the links. All the points I cover below are in the articles I linked to, you talking-point spewing idiot.

The CBO was asked to estimate the cost of the bill if the 20 most prominent provisions were extended permanently. That’s where the 3 trillion came from.

And the bill doesn’t extend those provisions, so the talking point is bullshit.

ACORN has subsidiaries and partners (i.e. noprofits with shared administrators and office space) who will get that money. Count on it.

So? What the fuck does that have to do with ACORN? Bullshit talking point. And besides which, ACORN was completely absolved of any wrongdoing whatsoever, so who gives a fuck?

The field mouse thing was stupid, but its habitat will receive money.

It’s habitat (ie coastal wetlands) could undergo protection and cleanup measures if the Army Corps of Engineers chooses to do so. It’s a shovel ready project that cleans up industrial salt ponds, moves levees, and helps protect important economic staples like the steelhead trout and salmon. But not one cent is directly allocated to such. If you don’t want wetlands reclamations jobs to be created, take it up with the Army, because the bill leaves it up to them.

The cost per job? I’d love to see the cost per “permanent” job, taking out all the temporary construction and IT positions. I’ll bet it’s more than 220K per.

If you take out all the temporary jobs, you also cut out all the money spent creating them, so the cost for the permanent jobs should be about the same. Also, since when do Republicans want the government to create more permanent jobs? I thought you guys would be happy such jobs would revert to the private sector when they are no longer needed.

Also, Zandi’s analysis seems to say that giving money to poor people is better for the economy than giving money to middle-class people. Any idea why?

That’s an easy one. Poor people can’t afford to save money. Every dollar you give them is going to go right back into the economy. By extension, giving money to the middle class is better for the economy than giving money to rich people or corporations. When you’re in a recession/depression, spending is good for the economy and saving is bad for the economy. Unfortunately, no one remembers to encourage savings when the economy is booming (helps fight inflation). Keep in mind that the best path in a recession is to give to both the poor and the middle class – never rely on only one tool in your financial toolkit.

If you are still with me, there was this little hidden gem:

FSP // Feb 17, 2009 at 7:52 pm

“ACORN is just the latest proxy for black and brown people getting money that should rightly be going to bank executives, I think.”

This is why I don’t come here. Bye.

Nice try Dave, you don’t come here b/c you get pwned time and again. From the party of the “The Magic Negro” I can’t see for the life of me why Dave thinks its such a far fetched reach…but then again, looking at his content, I actually do I guess.

About the Author ()

hiding in the open

Comments (39)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. jason330 says:

    I didn’t follow that thread very closely, but reading the exchange here I get the impression that Dave is buck naked, but in his mind clothed with wonderful garments made out of GOP talking points. And so he preens and struts bidding people behold his wondrous vestments.

    If he allowed reality to intrude for even one second he would realize his nakedness and that would be that. He’d just be a blur of fleshy pink embarrassment bolting for the exit.

  2. Unstable Isotope says:

    That smackdown was indeed righteous and the post was very good as well. I tend to ignore people like Burris and Protack because they come armed with talking points and not arguments and it seems like a waste of time and effort to summarize what can be read at the links (or can be discovered using some critical thinking skills). However, when someone does it, it can be beautiful indeed. The great think about X’s post and his Burris smackdown was that we all learned something more. Great job XStryker!

  3. FSP says:

    Maybe if enough people call it a smackdown, it will actually be one! That’s the way it works here, right?

    The problem over here is I have to clear away so much talking point crap before I can even address the root issue. And then, before I’m done, eight more people throw on more talking point crap, so I have to get rid of that, too.

    Point by point:

    CBO — If you don’t think most of those provisions will be extended, then you haven’t studied the history of the federal government.

    ACORN — He didn’t address my claim. In fact, he said “So?” which means he agrees with my assertion.

    The field mouse — I said it was a stupid argument, but if you think that its habitat won’t receive the money, you’re nuts. Every shovel-ready project will get funds.

    Cost per job — His $70,000 claim rests on the assumption two economists of how fast and how high the economy will climb to bring in revenues to offset the spending. The original claim of $200K+ rests on the principle of simple division. Neither are correct.

    And discussing temporary vs. permanent jobs is legitimate, because we just added about 10% to the federal debt, and we should have something to show for it at the end.

    The question about the poor v. the middle class was actually a real question about the assumptions. Middle class workers can’t save money in this economy either.

  4. Dorian Gray says:

    Did he really make that racist comment about ACORN?

  5. Unstable Isotope says:

    Maybe people call it a smackdown because it was one.

  6. FSP says:

    “Maybe people call it a smackdown because it was one.”

    If you are a subscriber to Democratic talking points and “debunking” of carefully selected arguments by using the opinions of one economist, then I can see where you might think so.

    Still doesn’t make it so.

  7. FSP says:

    And, I’ll note, I have a comment there and a comment here that have not been addressed.

    I know now why y’all miss me so much around here. I really do clean the place up a bit.

    Bye for now…

  8. xstryker says:

    Time to lay it down ONE MORE TIME!

    CBO — If you don’t think most of those provisions will be extended, then you haven’t studied the history of the federal government.

    Translation: The real cost of the bill is anything Burris says it is. The cost will be FOUR HUNDRED QUADRILLION, because the provisions will be extended for eight centuries! Burris has studied history! Making up arbitrary numbers is fun!

    ACORN — He didn’t address my claim. In fact, he said “So?” which means he agrees with my assertion.

    OK. Name which partner or subsidiary will get money, and I’ll debunk you then. Be specific, douchebag. All you’ve got is vague innuendo. How the fuck am I supposed to debunk an accusation you didn’t even make? It’s completely irrelevent, of course, because ALL THE GRANTS ARE AT THE DISCRETION OF STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT, so if you don’t like who they give it to, take it up with them, dumbass. NOT. ONE. CENT. IS. ALLOCATED. TO. ACORN. OR. ANY. SUBISIDIARY. OR. ANY. OTHER. NONPROFIT. AGENCY. And once again, every single lawsuit against ACORN was laughed out of court. When you have zero evidence, you can allege anything! Dave Burris fucks goats. Count on it, because I said so. I have as much evidence about Burris prediliction for goats as Burris has that ACORN will get money, or that ACORN would use the money for political purposes.

    The field mouse — I said it was a stupid argument, but if you think that its habitat won’t receive the money, you’re nuts. Every shovel-ready project will get funds.

    And? Did you argue that the money shouldn’t be spent on wetlands preservation? Did you take the time to figure out which of the five wetlands projects includes the habitat of the salt marsh mouse, and how much money could theoretically be allocated to it if the Army Corps of Engineers agree with the conservation agency’s estimate? Did you argue that national parks and reservations jobs aren’t as good as other jobs? You don’t have an argument against the bill, here, Dave. This is like saying the money will go to criminals, because ex-felons sometimes get jobs in construction. Oh, and millions will go to bears, because bears live in Montana and the Montana state government will get money!

    Cost per job — His $70,000 claim rests on the assumption two economists of how fast and how high the economy will climb to bring in revenues to offset the spending. The original claim of $200K+ rests on the principle of simple division. Neither are correct.

    But clearly mine is less misleading. Otherwise you would state, “200K+, minus the tax revenue created, which at a 25% average tax rate, would mean a cost per job of 150K+, which also includes the price materials for the bridges, roads, etc etc.”

    And discussing temporary vs. permanent jobs is legitimate, because we just added about 10% to the federal debt, and we should have something to show for it at the end.

    This is the best argument I have ever heard against tax cuts. Also, at the end of it, you’ll have bridges, roads, mass transit, alternative energy, reduced poverty, expanded health care, improved education, a booming GDP, etc. None of which anyone got from the Bush tax cuts.

    The question about the poor v. the middle class was actually a real question about the assumptions. Middle class workers can’t save money in this economy either.

    They get tax cuts and new jobs too. The bill helps the poor as well as the middle class. Also, which middle class workers are you talking about? My salary hasn’t changed, nor has my ability to save money. Unemployed middle class workers are no longer middle class until they find a job again. The same goes for the underemployed. Struggling small business owners have provisions aimed at them, too. Middle class workers, by definition, are more able to save than poor workers.

    Dave, you’ve moved from making arguments against the bill to just saying random things. Is this fun for you?

  9. xstryker says:

    Dave, I don’t work at your schedule. If you can’t wait long enough for me to get to all your bullshit, too bad.

  10. anon says:

    I think Dave would rather you just call him names instead of using facts against him.

  11. jason330 says:

    X,

    How dare you not marvel at Dave’s wonderous golden flowing robes.

    This was the best smack down EVAH!

    This is the best argument I have ever heard against tax cuts. Also, at the end of it, you’ll have bridges, roads, mass transit, alternative energy, reduced poverty, expanded health care, improved education, a booming GDP, etc. None of which anyone got from the Bush tax cuts.

    I picture Dave with cartoon birds flying around his head.

  12. h. says:

    Why so angry? I thought the bill passed?

  13. cassandra m says:

    Every shovel-ready project will get funds.

    No they won’t.

    There are way more shovel-ready projects on the data calls that were submitted than there is money to fund them. The agencies where I saw the data calls being responded to knew for certain that they would never get as much money as their shovel-ready list indicated.

  14. FSP says:

    “Translation: The real cost of the bill is anything Burris says it is.”

    No, see, that’s the kind of bullshit I’m talking about. That’s not an argument. You’re distracting from the issue, and the issue is that YOU KNOW that a lot of this will be extended. Most of these provisions are as temporary as the AMT and the Gross Receipts Tax.

    “Name which partner or subsidiary will get money, and I’ll debunk you then.”

    How can I name something that hasn’t happened yet? My opinion is that they will get money. Yours is that they won’t. Time will tell.

    “Did you argue that the money shouldn’t be spent on wetlands preservation?”

    No. I said it was a stupid argument. But you said it wasn’t happening, which is not true.

    “But clearly mine is less misleading.”

    But misleading nonetheless.

    “Also, at the end of it, you’ll have bridges, roads, mass transit, alternative energy, reduced poverty, expanded health care, improved education, a booming GDP, etc.”

    Actually, we’ll probably just have some bridges and roads. The last is strongly argued by many economists. And I would strongly argue that education, health care or poverty will be improved by this bill.

    “They get tax cuts and new jobs too. The bill helps the poor as well as the middle class. Also, which middle class workers are you talking about? My salary hasn’t changed, nor has my ability to save money.”

    My point exactly. Which is why a payroll tax cut would have been the best move here.

    “Struggling small business owners have provisions aimed at them, too.”

    Not nearly enough.

    “Dave, you’ve moved from making arguments against the bill to just saying random things.”

    Please tell me you’re kidding.

  15. Von Cracker says:

    what a liar you are, burrass.

    no boogeymen = no burrass.

  16. FSP says:

    “what a liar you are, burrass.”

    That’s a real strong argument there, genius.

  17. FSP says:

    “Did he really make that racist comment about ACORN?”

    No, remember, it wasn’t ME that was being called a racist. It was people LIKE me.

  18. Von Cracker says:

    It’s not an argument there, tool; it’s an observation.

    Not my problem you can’t tell the difference.

  19. FSP says:

    And it’s not my problem that you don’t have the brainpower to argue it, champ.

  20. xstryker says:

    As I posted in the other thread:

    I’m at work, and I have officially run out of time to dedicate to this until tonight, schedule permitting. Dave keeps shifting the goalposts and giving me new BS to debunk, and it’s a lot easier for him to make up shit than for me to carefully research and blow up his lies and distortions.

    Signing off for now,
    X

  21. FSP says:

    X — When you return, let’s agree to at least keep it to one thread. Your pick.

  22. Von Cracker says:

    Asked and answered a long time ago…chimp.

  23. Von Cracker says:

    Answer me this, old man:

    What is ACORN?

    What is its mission?

    Is ACORN allowed by law to dispose of any collected registration forms, regardless of validity, before handing them over to the proper authorities?

  24. anon says:

    I have officially run out of time to dedicate to this until tonight/i>

    Debunking Dave is a martyr’s task.

  25. RSmitty says:

    Yo! Dave is NOT a racist nor has he ever been. To throw that shit around in a libelous manner to suit your argument or your deconstruction of your “opponent” simply to give you a higher position does far more to ridicule people who truly suffer from racism than it does to gain in this argument.

    From someone who actually gives a genuine concern about racism, keep that disingenuous crap off of here. It’s stupid and real crappy way to try to one-up in this argument.

  26. Von Cracker says:

    Well, that comment DV pasted certainly sounds like some ethnic resentment…either that or a very poor attempt at snark.

  27. Unstable Isotope says:

    How does a payroll tax cut help people who don’t have job? That’s why the bill was aimed at both helping people who are working and those who are unemployed. I’m certainly not relying on one economist’s opinion, but I am listening to ones who were right, like Krugman, Roubini and Stiglitz.

  28. RSmitty says:

    Damn…I tried to edit my comment, but it wouldn’t let me. Here is what I tried to add to my comment:

    EDIT add-on: ARRGGHH!! I hate it when I mis-read what’s been commented. OK, no one called HIM a racist, but the comments. Whatever. My opinion still stands, though. Unless it truly is racist, throwing that claim out there in an attempt to muzzle an argument is a heap of shit.

  29. liberalgeek says:

    I guess the question, Smitty, is that if Dave used the same argument that racists use (in this case “ACORN is EVIIILLLL”) does that make him a racist? Clearly the answer is no.

    However, if someone says that the argument is a racist argument, does that make Dave a racist? Still no. That’s what has been said.

    I think the problem is that when the word racist is in a comment, it automatically changes the dynamic of the thread.

  30. cassandra m says:

    X — When you return, let’s agree to at least keep it to one thread. Your pick.

    This is a very good idea. As is NOT following Dave down the ACORN rabbit hole until he can back up his claim from the other thread:

    ACORN has subsidiaries and partners (i.e. noprofits with shared administrators and office space) who will get that money. Count on it.

    ACORN’s voter registration activities have absolutely nothing to do with whether they are getting neighborhood stabilization money. None. So we will not be indulging Dave in his diversionary tactic here — especially since he is remarkably invested in that diversion to avoid backing up his claim previously.

  31. John Feroce says:

    “Well, that comment DV pasted certainly sounds like some ethnic resentment…either that or a very poor attempt at snark.”

    VC – can you specify the comment?

  32. FSP says:

    “ACORN’s voter registration activities have absolutely nothing to do with whether they are getting neighborhood stabilization money.”

    Where did I claim that they did?

  33. FSP says:

    I also never said ACORN is evil. What I believe is that an organization that a nonprofit that receives tax money to help the poor shouldn’t also take money from Democratic candidates to help them win eletions. And notice, once again, that I am NOT talking about registering voters.

  34. Reis says:

    I disagree with the premise that DL is #1, #2, and #3. Always been pretty sure that DP is Number Two.

  35. Von Cracker says:

    Up in the original post, JF….

    After searching the comment it looks like Cass was just being snarky.

    Again, Burrass is taking the effect and making it the cause, as it pertains to his claim that ACORN is biased against the GOP.

  36. cassandra m says:

    Reis is going to Totally Dominate the competition for Comment of the Year in 10 months.

  37. John Feroce says:

    “After searching the comment it looks like Cass was just being snarky.”

    That’s what I thought VC, because I saw where the thread turned and I didn’t understand why.

  38. Von Cracker says:

    DV’s not the best at copyright! heh..