Posts Tagged ‘paul ryan’

After Listening to Biden at the Debate, I’m Glad I Invested in that Bomb Shelter

October 12, 2012 3 comments

Nope, I haven’t written in a while.  Things have been busy and such.  Regardless, I’m sure we’ve all been paying attention.  People are starting to realize that Barry doesn’t really care about them because he’s been sitting on his Great New Economic Plan for four years.  Plus, people are starting to realize that Mittens isn’t a jerk.  As such, the good guys are actually, slightly, in the lead.  Last night was the Vice Presidential Debate.  The left is excited because Joe “I’m from Scranton, which is totally blue collar, so I’m totally blue collar; did I mention I’m from Scranton” Biden was “passionate.”  Everyone else thought he was a belligerent tool who drank a little too much Jameson’s Irish Whiskey before the debate.

Nope, it’s true.

Paul Ryan was, well, Paul Ryan.  A polite, handsome, slightly underwhelming guy, who didn’t hurt us.

and he was thirsty

While I am now scarred with the picture of Joe Biden’s teeth having been burned into my head, I am even more terrified of the Obama Administration’s foreign policy.  Here’s what I took from last night: we’re absolutely, positively leaving Afghanistan on a specific date in 2014.  And dammit, everybody better know it (including all of you terrorists hanging out in a cave).  Why 2014?  Because that’s the arbitrary date we chose.  Of course, according to Biden, the job is done in Afghanistan.  We’ve already been successful in meeting all of our goals.  O.k.  Then why not pull the troops out tomorrow?  Or 2013?  Because that isn’t our arbitrary date!  So, if we’ve been so successful, why are we there?  Apparently to train the Afghan military…so they can shoot our troops in the back.  Why are we decreasing the number of Americans fighting in Eastern Afghanistan, as Ryan argued?  So we can have more incompetent Afghan troops accompany the fewer American troops into battle…while shooting them in the back.  In other words, the Obama Administration has absolutely no plan for Afghanistan that his based on anything other than its arbitrary 2014 date.  I put more thought into what I’m going to wear to go running (Just kidding.  I don’t exercise).

And why not go into Syria, like we did Libya?  Joe said something about geography.  Of course, the real answer is we were talked into helping out with Libya by Western Europe, because Western Europe gets a lot of oil from Libya.  We don’t get any.  Hence, there’s no strategic reason why we would have done anything in Libya.  We arguably have a strategic reason to get involved in Syria though, since it’s a hot-bed for terrorism, and has a crazy leader with lots of chemical weapons.  Oh, and they’re shooting at our NATO ally Turkey.  So, again, the Administration is seemingly throwing darts at a map when it comes to what conflicts we should get involved in.

And then there’s Iran.  We heard a lot about sanctions during the debate last night.  We heard a lot about how tough the sanctions were and that they’re the toughest sanctions in the history of the world, and so forth.  That’s great Joe.  We’ve leveled tough sanctions against Iran.  They’re “isolated,” whatever that means.  Of course, despite the super-serious sanctions, Iran is still enriching uranium, at an increasingly quick pace.  And this shouldn’t be a surprise.  Sanctions only impact the population.  The crazy dudes running the country are still dining on whatever it is they eat, and dreaming about virgins in their silk sheets.  It’s the people who we’re starving out with sanctions.  Don’t believe me?  Look at North Korea.  We’ve been sanctioning them since what seems like the beginning of time.   And during that time, they’ve continued their nuclear bomb project and their crazy dictator has continued to live in luxury (by North Korean standards), while the people starve to death.  What’s my point?  Sanctions don’t work against dictators who don’t give a crap about their people.  In fact, sanctions make it easier to maintain power.  Tim the Spoiled Lettuce Salesman is less inclined to come up with revolutionary plans when he’s worried about what his kids are going to eat for dinner.

O.k.  So we’ve established that sanctions don’t work.  So what’s Joe’s response to the fact that Iran continues to enrich uranium despite the sanctions?  Don’t worry.  Iran still doesn’t have a missile to put the bomb on.  Well that’s reassuring.  So our policy is to wait until Iran gets a missile, and then do something?  Isn’t it a little late at that point?

You see, this is the worldview of the naive.  And libs have always been dangerously naive when it comes to the world.  The Administration’s Middle East policy has been a disaster, and it isn’t debateable.  And it’s a disaster due to a combination of the aforementioned naivety, and incompetence.  Our Embassy in Libya was denied extra security multiple times before it was attacked, and despite the State Dept. confirming that fact, Biden proceeded to tell a completely different story on national television last night.  There is dark cloud forming on the horizon, that is made of a new alliance between Russia, China, Iran, and Syria, and it’s being completely ignored by Barry.

Simply put, the world remains a dangerous place, and the Administration is acting like we’re all just having a disagreement over what flavor Tootsie Pop is the best.  Honestly, hearing Biden last night made me feel a lot like this:


Scared.  It made me feel scared.


Paul Ryan + Clint Eastwood = Melting Liberals

August 31, 2012 1 comment

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


I’ve decided. Newt sucks. Vote for Mittens.

January 19, 2012 1 comment

Don't you see I'm smarter than you?

Is it just me, or has this whole “Republican Primary” thing somehow turned into the opening act for America’s version of the Night of the Long Knives?  Personally, I blame Newt and his anger at anyone who doesn’t find him to be the smartest guy in the room.  Now, don’t get me wrong; he might be the smartest guy in the room.  But he’s certainly not a guy I’d trust with my collection of 1984 World Series champion Detroit Tigers baseball cards.  Plus, people who act like they’re the smartest ones in the room usually aren’t.  Ask my wife.

It seems like everyone has gone crazy; with the exception of Mittens…who doesn’t have enough personality to go crazy.  Seriously, why is everyone who claims to be a “conservative,” but didn’t have the balls, or ability, to run a successful campaign, hating on Mitt (I’m looking at you Palin and Perry)?  And more importantly, why are they throwing their support to Gingrich? Santorum I could understand.  But Gingrich?

Newt fails every “conservative” test you throw at him.  Hell, he fails most “decent person” tests.  While I admittedly don’t spend too much time on the personal lives of my candidates, character does matter (at least a little).  And Newt has none.  In fact, he owes me for character I let him borrow last week.  He’s cheated on two wives, while asking the second to marry him while he was still married to the first.  And if you believe the second wife, Newt only divorced her after she refused to be part of an open marriage with his current wife.  Classy.

In addition to being a gigolo without the hourly rate, Newt’s also a liar.  The attack he made on Romney for the whole Bain Capital thing contained more inaccuracies than one of my algebra tests in high school.  For crying out loud, some of the “victims of Romney” in the video have admitted they weren’t even talking about Romney or Bain.

And of course, the whole Bain Capital thing transitions nicely right into my primary complaints against his candidacy: he’s an enemy of the right.  First, he attacked Paul Ryan’s budget.  That’s right.  Newt attacked the only guy who actually put pen to paper and stuck his neck out in an effort to reform Medicare and Social Security.  Next, he attacks Romney/Bain for investing in failing businesses, saving them, and then having the nerve to make a profit. In other words, he attacked capitalism.

And then there are his positions on illegal immigration (let ’em stay) and man-made global warming (it sure is hot in here).   Finally, he got booted from being Speaker of the House by his own party, for being an unethical jerk.  Oh, and most important of all: he’d get killed in a national election.

Those that support Newt argue that he’s full of good ideas.  So was Darth Vader.  In other words, let’s ignore the obnoxious kid in the class who is always telling the teacher he’s wrong, and vote for Mittens.

Paul Ryan actually has a plan to save Medicare. And he explains it on the interwebs with colorful graphs.

May 25, 2011 Leave a comment

Everybody seems to realize that Medicare is driving our economy into the ground long-term.  Few seem to have the guts to tackle it though.  Paul Ryan has taken up the mantle of being the only adult in the room, and has actually provided a detailed plan that works. Except he’s losing the messaging battle.  The Dems have convinced America that Ryan’s plan amounts to throwing granny off of a cliff.  It doesn’t though…in fact, it doesn’t affect Medicare benefits to anyone 55 or over at all.

The problem with Ryan’s plan: it involves too many numbers.  As such, Americans are falling asleep, only to be awakened to the sound of lefties yelling about grand-dad being left to die alone in the dark somewhere…while surrounded by lots of laughing-and evil-oil executives.  Fortunately, Ryan has realized the nature of Americans, and created a video with handy graphics.  I’ve embedded it below.  After you’ve watched it, and reviewed your copious notes, you can educate your parents and grandparents.

Categories: economics, health Tags: ,

Social Security. Why?

January 27, 2011 1 comment

I'll be dead before people realize this was a bad idea.

I’ve always wondered what the American people were thinking in 1935, when they allowed FDR and Congress to pass the Social Security Act.  Well, strike that, they probably weren’t thinking about it at all because of the Great Depression and trying to eat and stuff (example of never letting a good crisis go to waste? hmmm…).  Seriously, is there anything more un-American than the federal government passing a law that forces you to pay a certain amount in taxes so that the government can hold the money until you retire?  And the rationale behind it all is that you’re too stupid to save for retirement yourself?  We’re not talking about the “common good” here.  We’re talking about a government-mandated “stupid tax,” and we’ve allowed it to not only exist, but expand ever since.  I find it shocking. 

Well, thanks to the inevitabilities of our duly-elected representatives raiding any pot of money in existence, maybe Social Security will be going away for good.  I previously posted about the President’s Debt Commission this past summer.  I’m not going to link it because, well, I’m too lazy to look for it.  But the gist of their findings were we’ll never get out of debt until we do something about the three biggest black holes of tax revenue: Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.  This finding elicited much wailing and gnashing of teeth from the left, because they luv their entitlement programs.  The most contentious issue was Social Security though.  Why?  Because, as libs like to say, SS doesn’t have any impact on our budget.  It’s funded entirely by the FICA tax, and it shouldn’t be receiving any money from other tax revenue.  Thus, it shouldn’t contribute to the deficit.  Well, they’re right in that it shouldn’t use other federal tax revenue…just like my son shouldn’t place himself within biting distance of his two year old sister over and over again.  The point is: they do.  And with respect to SS, there’s no more blood coming from that stone.

New congressional projections show Social Security running deficits every year until its trust funds are eventually drained in about 2037.

This year alone, Social Security is projected to collect $45 billion less in payroll taxes than it pays out in retirement, disability and survivor benefits, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday. That figure swells to $130 billion when a new one-year cut in payroll taxes is included, though Congress has promised to repay any lost revenue from the tax cut. 

Oh no!  The oldies are going to starve!  Just kidding.  The deficit will be made up with money from the general budget.  The problem, though, is that we can’t afford to pay for it out of the general budget.  So, we’ll borrow it from the Chinese.  Problem?  Not for me.  I enjoy kung pao chicken, so I welcome our new overlords. 

Is all lost then?  Probably.  But my hero, Rep. Paul Ryan, has a plan.  He would like people to have the option of opting out of SS, and invest the money themselves.  Sounds good to me.  I’m more comfortable using my money to “make it rain” in a crack house than letting the government “lock it away” for the future. 

Will Rep. Ryan’s plan ever be codified into law?  Probably not.  Why?  Because all politicians love slush funds.  But remember, it’s projected to run out completely in 2037, so those of you that are my age…I would recommend starting to save for retirement. 

Paul Ryan is Why I’m a Republican, and Why You Should Be Too.

August 10, 2010 4 comments

I’ve been hearing a lot of self-described conservatives say things like “I’m not a Republican…don’t put a label on me…I think for myself” lately.  My response to those statements falls somewhere between “congratulations…here’s your medal for being an individual…now it’s nap time” and “you’re right, they’re not perfect,” depending on how well I know the person who’s saying it.  Look, people can identify themselves however they want in life, but when it comes time to vote in November, there are only two choices: the party of Paul Ryan or the party of Paul Krugman; and there’s a HUGE difference between the two.

Mr. Ryan hails from Wisconsin, is a member of the House of Representatives, and is a Republican.  And contrary to  the mindless rhetoric from the Democrats, he has a plan.  More specifically, he has a plan to get us out of debt and improve the economy.  And he does it by lowering taxes.  His “Roadmap,” as he call it, has been met with great disdain from the left because of its radical ideas; namely, cutting government spending.  Now, I understand that nowadays, actually cutting back on federal spending is the equivalent of riding a unicorn with the president, but there was once a day when the federal government didn’t employ the entire state of California.  The Roadmap cuts spending, decreases taxes for both individuals and businesses (which will create jobs), and simplifies the tax code to some extent.  Is Mr. Ryan your typical modern-day Republican?  Maybe not.  But you will never find a Paul Ryan in the Democrat party.

Paul Krugman.  I’ve written about him before.  While he identifies himself as an economist, he’s actually just a liberal shill in a tweed sport coat.  He believes spending cuts are stupid, or evil, or something.  He believes, like all liberals, that “tax cuts must be paid for.”  Of course, such a position constitutes lunacy when one considers the fact that those “tax cuts” are not expenditures, but simply less theft.  Like many liberals, Krugman believes increased government spending will create jobs by “stimulating” the economy.  Of course, he never identifies how much spending is necessary, since it’s never actually worked.  His convenient answer to continued failure is “we should have spent more.”

In response Krugman’s recent rambling and nonsensical criticism to his “Roadmap,” Ryan stated,

‘At the core of this is a big ideological fight between those who believe in the Founding principles and the sense of limited government—the American idea—and those who believe in the progressivist welfare state.’

‘The Roadmap is designed to maintain a limited government in the 21st century, and it is the antithesis of the progressivist vision which [Krugman] subscribes to. That’s fine. I understand it violates his vision for a progressivist society.’

In these statements, Ryan has admirably described the foundational difference between conservatives and liberals.  Liberals seek control by way of taxation, government spending, and entitlements.  Conservatives believe in self-reliance, small government, and opportunity.

The point of all of this is that it matters what Ryan believes vs. what Krugman believes.  It matters because, regardless of your feelings on “Republicans” vs. “Democrats,” the simple fact remains: Ryan, and those like him, will never be Democrats, and Krugman and his followers will never be Republicans.  For those that want a better shot at more opportunity, fewer taxes, sustained job growth, and smaller government, then vote Republican in November.  The only alternative is a vote for liberals like Krugman.

%d bloggers like this: