This weekend marked the 100th Anniversary of the sinking of the Titanic, perhaps mankind's clearest object lesson that neither empty "expertise" nor self-satisfied hubris can prevent disaster.
But sadly, Captain Barack Obama is now ordering America's ship of state to move at "full speed ahead" towards an iceberg he not only knows is there...but he's actually doing everything in his power to make the iceberg bigger.
That iceberg is, of course, the National Debt...and according to ship's navigator Timothy Geithner, the president's plan is to ram it all full speed just 15 years from now and allow the wrecked U.S. economy to disappear as quickly, completely, and cruelly as the Titanic slipped beneath the icy waves...without even the comfort of an orchestra playing "Nearer My God to Thee" in case any Muslims, liberals, or ACLU lawyers might be offended.
But if Geithner is saying that life as we know it will end in 15 years, why aren't people in a state of panic and angrily demanding action?
In part it's because the End of America seems unthinkable, and therefore can't really be possible (let alone imminent). Right? Wrong. Wishful thinking isn't going to keep us afloat. But just as importantly, people are failing to realize the gravity of the situation because the captain of our ship is lying his butt off about both the looming disaster and his efforts to avoid it.
How else to categorize Barack Obama's continued speechifying about the preposterous "Buffett Rule" which will have as little effect on the debt crisis as the Titanic's buffet tables had on keeping the great ship from sinking?
The Skipper-in-Chief is currently saying that the "Buffett Rule," which imposes significantly higher taxes on millionaires, "will help us close the deficit." Which sounds good until you crunch the numbers and find out that it will take 514 years of these increased taxes just to pay off Obama's deficit from 2011. Which means that the deficit from 2012, Obama's (hopefully) final year in office, wouldn't be paid until after the year 3000.
Except, of course, by then our nation will have been gone for 975 years... unknown to anyone except some future James Cameron-type who is willing to dive deeper into red ink than anyone has dared to do previously.
Except for Barack Obama.
To see this image in breathtaking 3D just take off your rose-colored glasses.
-
40 comments:
Where should we put the deck chairs, Captain O?
Thank God we have the choice of Mitt Romney who will manage our decline so much better. We are well and truly screwed. Better load more ammo (was that 7.0 grains of Unique or 7.2?...Should check the guide).
No matter how you slice it, the high flying spending WILL come to a stop. I think, personally, that it is still possible to bring it to a (marginally) controlled crash, possibly not killing too many people in the process. If nothing is done, however, and "we" fly it straight into the ground, all best are off. get in good w/ some Amish farmers NOW - they may not notice so much when the grid goes down...
Excellent characterization of the issues, Stilt. Well done. Let's all Hope that the (R) candidate develops a spine for a Change. His recent attack on Øbama regarding gun control (Øbama's coming for your guns next click here for Google results showing headlines), though still kinda squishy in the body of what he will do differently, is a heartening shot across the socialists' bow. And a bit surprising, too. Hopefully, Romney will keep it up, making this the Ultimate Battle between the real issues at hand: not Romney vs. Øbama, but the USA the framers intended vs socialism and abject servitude.
I, for one, have no desire to be a butler or valet for some Chinese guy once our nation finds bottom...
@BS Footprint- Obama doesn't even bother himself with the deck chairs; instead he has a "Seat Rearrangement Czar."
@Angry Hoosier Dad- If you follow the link closest to Geithner's name, you'll see a Youtube video of Paul Ryan vs Tim Geithner. In it, Ryan illustrates a budget (his, that is) which could help avert disaster... and which Mitt Romney has now endorsed.
@Pete(Detroit)- You're quite right: the insane spending will end, and soon. And all of our individual savings and responsibility won't keep us from being sucked under as the behemoth heads to the bottom.
Which is why one of the few uber-millionaires that I know personally has relocated to a rural area and funded a central farmer's market co-op... specifically planning for the day after America's Last Day.
@Emmentaler- Hey, butler or valet will be the good jobs. Most of us will be planting rice, spreading "night soil" on the crops, or peeling cats in the kitchen.
On the plus side, America's obesity epidemic will no longer be a problem.
Stilt - nor the "Welfare Epidemic," nor concerns about federally funding abortions (the Chinese will want as many >koff< "servants" as possible...)
People too old to work in the fields? Well, there's always SoyLentCorp...
obama will get a lot of mileage out of his 'Buffet rule' propaganda, because it resonates so strongly with the uninformed. Who could be against making the rich pay their fair share?
The republicans are just making things worse by responding to an emotional issue with facts and logic. A large portion of the electorate doesn't have the time, inclination, and/or ability to understand the issues and outcomes.
I realize that statement makes me sound like an elitist snob. But take a look at the depressing results of recent national civics examinations. Even the NY Times calls it a crisis.
@Stan da Man- I worry about taking a job at Soylent Corp...at the end of the work day, nobody comes out of the factory.
@CenTexTim- "Mileage" is all Obama will get out of the Buffett Rule, but sadly that's all he wants. More class warfare rhetoric to power up his hate-driven reelection machine.
And unfortunately (and as your link documents) the American public has never been more broadly stupid than it is today. Obama can say whatever he wants to, the media will dutifully and enthusiastically parrot it, and the bobblehead Americans will nod in agreement.
@Stilton: Just followed the link. What a freaking weasel. It all comes down to the last line "We're not becoming before you to say we have a definitive solution to our long-term problem. What we do know is that we don't like yours." That's because they are so much smarter than al lothers - especially timmy "TuboTax Fail" geithner. I personally think that geithner just "doesn't know" and is being played by Øbama, but that's just me - his shifty eyes and pointless hand gesturing make him look less than prepared to speak on his subject - much like those who defended Øbamacare before the SC...
Hey! Be fair! Soylent Corp. is one of the SAFEST places to work - they have NEVER reported any industrial accidents. Their complicated cubicle structure must be responsible for all those missing persons reports. I'm sure that all those missing folks will eventually turn up. In a grocery store near you...
:o)
@Emmentaler- Geithner is the very definition of "weasel." He talks VERY quickly and never pauses (hoping not to leave room for any questions to be asked). And his whole defense of a budget which leads to America's quick demise seems to be "yes, but not today." He's a buck-passing, ferret faced fraud.
And just like jack he is too stupid to climb up on that raft and save his own ass.
@Hello Birdy- He still thinks that when the time comes, he can walk on the water.
I'm reminded of that elf who 'wanted to be a dentist' - I have a bad feeling that far too many folks see capitalism as an abomimnal snow monster... and perhaps believe that Bumbles will bounce and become kinder and gentler when retarded little Timmy finishes pulling his teeth.
As to Romney, I like how Glenn Beck endorses him: at least he's not a Comny. And now we have definitive proof that the man is human as well:
http://www.offthegridnews.com/2012/04/16/romney-gets-x-ray-to-prove-hes-not-a-robot/
Today's comic is difficult to laugh at, but it certainly makes a point. Remember how Obama overworked the "Republicans drove the car into the ditch" schtick? Maybe this Titanic analogy needs to "grow legs" and go for a long walk around the Internet. Instead of Republicans driving the car into the ditch (and Obama has proven unable to pull it out of the ditch) we have a much bigger problem - the ship of state is heading for disaster.
I am sick of the conservative "purists" who diss the possibility of Romney being an effective President because he isn't a "true conservative". Who do you think will pay more than passing attention to conservative values during the next Presidential term? Obama or Romney? Who will be motivated to care about how conservatives will vote in 2016? Obama or Romney? Who will do the most(and maybe permanent)damage to conservative values? Obama or Romney?
I don't know if anyone else has noticed (anyone over 50 years of age, at least), but lately we are being suckered into all this "cultural/social" stuff that scared the crap out of moderates in the 1980's - abortion, women's rights, race relations, gay marriage, etc. - and made those moderates fearful of the "right wing".
In those days, trying to get conservatives to focus less on the "values" & put more effort into getting Republicans in office was met with "you don't polish the brass on a sinking ship". So, in some ways, conservatives gave up a long time ago on preventing the ship from sinking.
Sorry to sound so harsh, but like I said above, this comic didn't put me in a laughing mood.
@Mike Porter- Continuing with your metaphor, capitalism does have teeth and people can get bitten. Which is why risk is only undertaken for reward. If Geithner/Obama take the reward out of the equation, then risks won't be taken and innovation will all but disappear.
@alan markus- Today's cartoon wasn't really intended to put people into a laughing mood (except for that strained, pained laugh that squeaks out as we face the news each day). I didn't want to just do some cute little metaphorical tapdance likening the Obama Whitehouse and the Titanic - I'm desperately shouting that the two really are analogous and that living in a state of denial is no longer a sane option.
Regarding the rekindling of the "culture wars," I've definitely seen it - and it's all preposterous. I'm on some Democrat fundraising lists, and regularly get mailers in which they claim that Republicans want to "roll back decades of women's rights" and other such horsehockey.
But there's a dirty little truth that those of us who are over 50 know: the social programs and "freedoms" of the 60's - however well-intended - actually created many of the worst problems facing the country today. So maybe it really is time to revisit some of those issues.
But first, the country needs to be saved from fiscal disaster. That has to be our only priority.
It's all a battle for the "moron middle"; people who actually believe what candidates say versus what they actually do. The problem isn't Obama. The problem is that we have enough ignoramuses out there who will buy his shtick. It doesn't matter that the "Buffett Rule" will actually reduce net tax receipts and kill jobs. There are too many people who will never get it, or just don't care.
@John the Econ- I'm afraid you're right; in this election the moderates will have less impact than the morons.
I am thinking...to get an idea of just how 'life' in Amerika could be...just think back to the good ol days when the USSR was still around, and the state owned everything, there were no groceries or anything else to be had, and personal freedom was a distant dream.
ABO is where we gotta start! Pray that Romney grows a BIG pair, and stupid people will be too busy watching reality shows on tv and won't bother voting.
@Allan Markus:
I am sick of the conservative "purists" who diss the possibility of Romney being an effective President because he isn't a "true conservative".
I'm not a conservative, much less a conservative purist. First things first: Before he can prove himself as chief executive, Romney has to get elected.
Can Romney differentiate himself enough to inspire average people to turn out on election day and vote for him? Is middle-of-the-road what it takes to win this election? Or will it take someone who can paint a brighter picture than Obama? Describe a clear and inspiring choice between our present course ("Full speed ahead!" "Ignore that iceberg!") and what it will take to avert disaster?
Romney may be a fine executive, but fine executives aren't always known for their brilliant motivational qualities.
I hope I'm wrong, and that Romney won't fail to motivate the voters.
@alan markus:
Sorry, I meant alan, not allan. Typos...
@pryorguy- To help stupid people cast their appropriate vote, we need to spread the following message: To cope with the expected mass turnout of voters in this election, Republicans will vote all day Tuesday and Democrats will vote all day Wednesday (and be sure to tell your friends!)
@BS Footprint- We're all rolling those same hopeful dice. But at the very least (and it's more than nothing) I think we can count on Romney being better than Obama. Granted, that's the very definition of damning with faint praise...but he might even be a lot better than Obama.
As to whether he can motivate the voters, we'll find out soon.
Great idea, Stilt...I'm on it!
@Stilton:
But there's a dirty little truth that those of us who are over 50 know: the social programs and "freedoms" of the 60's - however well-intended - actually created many of the worst problems facing the country today. So maybe it really is time to revisit some of those issues.
I remember as a young man way back when; conservative pundits predicted that the social programs of the '60s and '70s would result in most if not all of the outcomes we're living with today. And that's one of the reasons I find the 'liberal' agenda so destructive -- anyone with a shred of rationality can foresee the damages these things will cause...
For example: how is this relevant in any way?
The fact that the Romney's have had, are having, and will have this kind of inane bullpuckey tossed at them throughout the campain, while The Anointed 0ne skates on his distant and recent past... well, let's just say that this does not bode well.
Stilton:
I consider myself one of those who need to be motivated to vote for Romney (I'm well motivated against Duh Won already). Thus far, my considerable posterior is comfortable on the couch, thank you. I don't want to watch my country go down in icy waters at any speed, but does the size of the iceberg matter if the result is the same? You cannot convince me that Romney will do more than manage our decline. Only he can do that and he's doing a pretty sh*tty job of it so far. No matter what he says, words are still cheap it's still hot air until someone believes him.
I want to believe, but I've been burned before and I'm fresh out of hope.
The following is a public service announcement not endorsed by any candidate or political party.
@AHD: So what, then? You're not going to vote for anyone? Or are you planning to toss your vote into the incinerator of some "great white hope" third party or write-in campaign, such as suggested by Rev. Klingenschmitt? History teaches us that either of these courses is just as good as casting your vote for Øbama.
Again, folks, if the decline can be slowed, there is future hope that the decline can be reversed via the ballot box. If it is accelerated, well, that hope transfers from the peaceful political system to the success of some future "freedom fighters".
The choice we're faced with is very much like having marginal brakes and coming around a blind curve at 70 MPH to find a wall-to-wall jam on the freeway. You're going to have an accident no matter what you choose. Whether it is you or your car which is totaled as a result depends on whether you step on those faulty brakes or the accelerator - or continue on at 70MPH. The latter two are highly likely to take away any chance of your doing anything more with the future - and likely that of those you hit, too - whether or not they made the appropriate choice, your choice takes them with you. Brilliant.
Please use your intelligence and choose wisely.
I now return you to your regularly scheduled Hope and Change...
@ Emmentaler:
I may vote for Bill the Cat. I haven't said who yet so your snarky assumption is ill-timed. I'd appreciate it if the so-called Republican threw me a bone and not assume that I owe him my vote or snidely refer to conservatives as "true believers". But thank you for reminding me that, in a universe of crappy choices, your choice is the only intelligent one. Can I count on your guidance in future elections? I've only been voting for every Republican since Nixon, so God knows I need it.
Emmentaler - Nice analogy - "I'm voting for Romney by default - default there ain't anyone better running."
Never forget, it was all those Florida Dems that voted for everyone BUT AlGore that gave us Bush2...
@BS Footprint- The damage from Liberal programs was predictable (and predicted!) but ignored. And I'm one of the guilty parties; I was a vacuous youth and didn't understand that "doing good" can, over time, have very bad unintended consequences. That's an insight that comes with experience - but (per the Cat Stevens song "Father and Son") youth rarely listens to their more experienced and battleworn elders.
Per your other point, isn't it amazing that the media is more interested in the Romney's dog than they were in Barack Obama's radical associates? But then, a recent article in the Wall Street Journal discussed Bob Woodward's "near aneurysm" upon finding out that students in an advanced journalism class at an elite university had to write an essay on how they would break the Watergate story if it happened today: every one of them gave a variation on Googling "$500,000 Slush Fund" to get the dirt on Nixon... after which they'd release scathing Tweets to drive him from office. Actually talking to anyone or developing information instead of looking it up online didn't even dawn on them.
@Angry Hoosier Dad- It's not my goal to talk you in to voting for Romney (or enthusing about him in any way), but it's my hope that I can convince all fencesitters to vote against Obama in November. Believe me, I hear and am sympathetic to your opinion on this because my opinion is quite similar. And I wish we had a bigger, bolder, more conservative candidate to get behind. But Mitt might surprise us... and Obama surely wouldn't. I don't think I can handle another 4 years of Barry.
@Emmentaler- I agree with everything you say, but will gently point out that your post is...how best to put this?...just a tad on the confrontational side. And it's easy for all of us to go there, because this is a passionate group discussing a passionate subject...and every vote is going to count. Which is why I feel so strongly that votes for "Anyone But Obama" need to be encouraged.
@Angry Hoosier Dad- Ouch! It's bare knuckle time at HnC! Allow me to pay for a round of drinks to restore a sense of camaraderie here at the "We Can't Stand Obama" table.
But seriously, I'm disappointed the nomination process didn't provide a better candidate too, and I have no love or loyalties to the Republican Party (which is only incrementally less guilty than the Dems for getting us into this huge mess).
Which is why I know I'm going to vote against Obama... but I'm still hoping that, somehow, Romney will give me additional incentive to go to the polls.
@Pete(Detroit)- And the infamous Florida "Butterfly Ballot" which confused all of the people who were hired to vote Democrat then punched the wrong hole.
@AHD: Sorry - wasn't intended to be an ad hominem. More of a soapbox speech that was triggered by the perception of someone not voting for Øbama, but not for anyone with a chance of putting him out of office either - my apologies that it seemed otherwise. Didn't mean for it to be about or "at" you.
As you can tell, I'm a bit passionate regarding a few things. History and statistics are a pair of those things.
Frankly, I am eternally dismayed with the (R) offerings, and that folks use Republican and Conservative interchangeably. And again, Romney is not my candidate - I am not campaigning for Romney; I'm campaigning against Øbama. And I firmly believe that a tossed vote - either not cast, or cast in frustration for some "non-establishment" conservative candidate is equivalent to a vote for Øbama.
Again - You're one of the people here whom I have a LOT of respect for, and enjoy conversing with. I did not intend to set you aflame.
Peace.
Hahah! Oh, this is rich! Just saw this on Human Events: Romney gets endorsed by Axelrod! I guess he is still living in 2008. These people are all Biden's family. Not one can keep from screwing up in front of a microphone! (Keep it up, team Øbama!)
Axelrod said: “The choice in this election is between an economy that produces a growing middle class and that gives people a chance to get ahead and their kids a chance to get ahead and an economy that continues down the road we’re on.” Isn't Øbama responsible for the "...economy that continues down the road we’re on?"
Oh, this is great :o) http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=50857
Stilt - Only time I've ever heard of 'Chad' beign both "hanging" AND "pregnant"...
I am shocked... SHOCKED I tell you!! Just heard on the radio that the number of people without health insurance in NC is way up. How can this be!? And this on top of our above national average unemployment rate.... This just can't be possible; we voted for Obama and this is the thanks we get?! But,,, I think we should vote for him again; he obviously just made a little miscalculation. I'm sure he'll get it straight in the next four years. Sure as hell beats that squish Romney!
Did I hear Axelrod right? Did he actually say this...
“The choice in this election is between an economy that produces a growing middle class and that gives people a chance to get ahead, and their kids a chance to get ahead, and an economy that continues down the road we’re on.”
WTF?!
There was not a “better” candidate in the race that could win in the general. With the exception of Herman Cain none of the other candidates would have had a prayer (even Newt) against Obama. (Although, I have to admit I would have loved to have seen Newt cleaning Obama’s clock in a debate) Mitt is our best chance at winning the White House in Nov. And, yes, all of the other races are important. Especially the Senate.
Now, I have my eye on the Wis re-call of Gov Walker. He has done a great job so far. If the big union $$ and big liberal icons sway enough voters, he’ll be out of there. It would be such a shame for Wis & blow to the rest of the states that are trying to get their fiscal houses in order.
@Snark Bait- Wasn't Axelrod's statement a jaw-dropper?! He's basically saying that the Bamster hasn't done anything good for the economy in 3 years, and the path he's set us on isn't going anywhere. And he's right!
@Pete(Detroit)- They explained all of this in Health class, but you might have been absent that day.
@Colby- What, people are losing health insurance just because hiring is in the toilet, and employers have been given new incentives under Obamacare to drop healthcare coverage for employees? Man, I never saw that coming!
@pryorguy- You heard right. Obama actually wants to run against the incumbent instead of admitting he is the incumbent.
@SC- That's an interesting and useful perspective. I wish there was a clear national hunger and passion for the sort of raw meat conservative that everyone here would like to see...but could that person have won in the general election? I don't know.
And the recall of Governor Walker is, as you say, a very big deal. He's already done good things for his state... but he'll have to survive the recall if he's going to inspire courage elsewhere.
Regarding holding one's nose and voting for the less-than-ideal candidate, does it not occur to you that we arrived at this moment in history by doing just that?
Lather, rinse, repeat.
(Yup. I know I'm not offering any useful alternatives. Maybe there really aren't any.)
@BS Footprint- I agree; no matter which party has gotten into office the overall trend has been remarkably consistent: bigger government, more spending, more borrowing, less accountability. I genuinely hope that the Tea Party mindset is the start of something new and different. But I don't know if enough others will accept these harsh realities (and the need to actually act on them). As you say, none of our alternatives may look particularly good.
@Stilton:
I have an old (I mean really old, Reagan-era) fortune cookie tacked to my corkboard:
"Discontent is the first step in the progress of a man or a nation"
Discontent? We've got that in spades.
Now what's the next step? :-/
Post a Comment