Home > conservative > Paul Ryan + Clint Eastwood = Melting Liberals

Paul Ryan + Clint Eastwood = Melting Liberals

It’s been a period of inactivity here at Why Not Nashville?  I’m busy watching the RNC, getting ready for watching football (yes, that does take preparation), and doing some other very important things that you will get to hear about in the near future.  Despite my failure to write you love letters for some time, don’t think I have forgotten about you, my loyal readers.

Much has taken place since last we spoke.  For one, Paul Ryan, who this blog often discusses with reverence, has been tapped as The Mitt’s VP pick.  I was, not unexpectedly, elated.  Two nights ago, Mr. Ryan gave his VP acceptance speech at the RNC.  Despite “not watching,” or “not caring,” or “actually taking a shower,” the libs are all up in arms about certain claims made about The One.  The talking points have obviously gone out about Lyin’ Ryan and his, well, “lies.”  Let’s look at those lies, shall we?

1.  Ryan accuses Barry of closing down GM plant.

During his speech, Ryan recalled one of Barry’s moving 2008 speeches.  During his monologue, then-candidate Barry, stood in front of a GM plant in Janesville, WI and said the government would keep the plant around for 100 years.  As you likely guessed, it shut its doors about four months into the Obama presidency.  The knee jerkers on the left then proceeded to claim that the plant had been closed in December 2008, during the Bush presidency, and therefore, Ryan LIED.  You’ll note one thing about these claims: they’re all entirely unsupported.  Is it a lie?  Well, let’s ask the local news:

So, yeah, it’s true.  Next.

2.  Taxpayers didn’t get anything from the stimulus

Ryan didn’t say we didn’t get anything out of the stimulus.  He said we got debt.  Which is something.  It’s something that sucks.  Of course, the left claims this is a lie because, according to the CBO, 3.3 million jobs were created.  What Ryan said isn’t so much a lie as an opinion.  If we created 10 temporary jobs, but spent $25 million of taxpayer money to do it, is that a success?  I guess it depends on what side of the aisle you’re on.  Being that I’m on the right side, I don’t see how spending almost $800 billion to get 3.3 million temporary jobs is worth it.  If I accept the CBO’s numbers as a fact, which I don’t since I don’t know what constitutes a “job created,” we still spent a ridiculous amount of money per job.  And was it all worth it?  Not even economists can agree:

Economists are less unified, however, on the question of whether the short-term benefits of the stimulus were worth the long-term cost. In the same February survey, only 46 percent of economic experts agreed that ‘the benefits of the stimulus will end up exceeding its costs” — including “the economic costs of raising taxes to pay for the spending.’

I guess we should ask Barry if it was a success.  Let’s remember, it was The One who sold us on the stimulus, claiming unemployment would not rise past 8% if enacted.  That estimate was a bit off.  Bottom line: whether the stimulus was worth it is in the eye of the beholder, but Ryan’s statement is certainly not a lie.

3.   Obamacare puts the Feds in charge of healthcare

Again, it depends on how you want to view Obamacare.  It is a single-payer, socialist system?  No.  Not yet anyway.  Let’s not forget when Barney Frank said it was the first step towards single-payer.  In any event, what is Obamacare?  It’s a system that forces private insurance companies to take on all comers, regardless of the fact that they might have scurvy, while not charging them for the limes in their Corona.  In fact, the insurance companies can’t even raise rates without the federal govt. okaying it, regardless of whether there’s a lime shortage due to global climate change/warming/cooling.  And the plan provides govt. subsidies for, well, almost everyone.  While the feds may not be in charge of healthcare yet, Obamacare has certainly given them a substantial seat at the table.

4.  Ryan blames Obama for the credit downgrade

The lefties claim it wasn’t Barry, but instead, was the dirty House Republicans playing chicken with the fiscal cliff, or because of chickens coming home to roost, or something about Chik-Fil-A.  Well, what Standard and Poors actually said was:

The downgrade reflects our opinion that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration recently agreed to falls short of what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government’s medium-term debt dynamics.

*  *  *

Since then, we have changed our view of the difficulties in bridging the gulf between the political parties over fiscal policy, which makes us pessimistic about the capacity of Congress and the Administration to be able to leverage their agreement this week into a broader fiscal consolidation plan that stabilizes the government’s debt dynamics any time soon.

In other words, America has a giant debt problem and the morons in charge of our govt. don’t care and won’t do anything about it.  And if we all remember, it wasn’t the Republicans who were saying no to spending cuts (at least not this time).  So, not a lie.

5.  Ryan hints that Obama’s a Socialist

What the hell does that mean?  Did he wink or something when talking about how much Barry loves suitcases of unmarked bills?  In any event, it sounds like he was just saying what we’re already thinking.  In any event, not a lie; it’s an opinion.  Just kidding.  It’s a fact.

I thought the left’s response to Ryan’s speech awesome, by the way.  It shows they’re scared.  In fact, they’re so terrified that people are going to like Paul Ryan that they have to invent lies that are easily debunked by the Google.

And then there’s Clint Eastwood.  The libs are furious.  I’m not sure why.  For a guy everyone says was embarrassing, they’re sure spending a lot of time criticizing him.  What’s so objectionable about a bumbling actor saying, hey, the guy in the White House is kinda’ stinkin’ up the joint, so why don’t we hire the guy with the sterling business record?  Sounds pretty reasonable.

So what have we learned?  When you mix Paul Ryan and Clint Eastwood, you get this:

melting liberals

 

Advertisements
  1. Mary
    August 31, 2012 at 8:40 PM

    Agree with everything except the notion that Clint Eastwood is a bumbling actor. At 82, perhaps his delivery wasn’t as sharp as before, but his zingers were absolutely on point and lethal. That the empty chair schtick annoyed the thin-skinned One, made it all the better. Best idea I heard today? Romney should make sure there is an empty chair at all his appearances. The media will go nuts and eventually have to ask about it. Thank you Clint!

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: