http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/67847_445360718846902_1000714371_n.jpg
It’s just a picture of a head with the caption:
Reached my credit limit? No problem.
You just let me determine my own credit limit and then I’ll demand more money from my boss.
If he refused I’ll throw him in jail!!
I’m at a loss to explain this analogy. Plus why is he demanding more money from his boss if he can determine his own credit limit?
Congressional spending maybe? (I dunno, I don’t politick enough to keep up with this week’s outrage.)
Determine my own credit limit=Congress setting the debt ceiling
Demand more money from my boss=increasing taxes (boss is the voters)
If he refuses, I’ll throw him in jail=prosecuting tax evaders.
Doesn’t make any sense, but that’s what it means.
I think this analysis is correct. Note also it’s being signed in the corner with a quill pen like the Founding Fathers would have used, and the color theme is the same as the Don’t Tread on Me flag. Could be meaningless coincidence…
The old line art of a guy on the phone really bring it all home, though.
It kinda looks like a Monopoly card, except instead of being drawn from Community Chest, it comes from the deck called Rugged Libertarian Individual Chest.
You have to build that chest out of wood you have hewn using nothing but your bare hands and your bootstraps.
I am sure you are aware that credit and money are two different things, why the confusion?
The OP is making a valid point. Borrowing money and raising taxes are not the same thing, although some conservatives try to connect them together as if they were.
To put it in terms of the linked sign, if somebody could really demand more money from their boss, they’d have no need to raise their credit limit. If you can get all the money you wanted, why would you need credit?
In real world politics, raising taxes (“demanding more money”) would actually help lower the debt not raise it as the sign implies.
Clearly the image is advocating that we let the government default on all its debts, destroy its credit rating, and let the bank (China?) seize all its assets.
The sign does not imply raising taxes would not lower the debt.
Borrowing money means that the money needs to be payed back. To do this would require cuts in spending, raised taxes, inflation, or increased growth. Since increased growth is not controlled by the government and not predictable then borrowing money either means cutting spending, inflation, or raising taxes.
It’s worth noting that every two years, the “boss” has a chance to fire you.
For some reason, 90+% of the time, you keep getting rehired, though.
I know that. But I’m not the one who lumped them together in a single sentence: “You just let me determine my own credit limit and then I’ll demand more money from my boss.”
It means it was written by a moron who thinks they are clever.
One point it is missing is that the Head is using the money to buy stuff for his Boss.
When I read it, I assumed the credit limit referred to the debt limit for the United States; the raising the limit referred to the Obama proposal for the President to raise the debt limit without Congress having to act first; and the throwing in jail thing relates to the UN black helicopters that are hiding in national parks and are going to force socialized health care on us unless we have lots of guns.
Actually, the whole throw in jail thing makes no sense to me. But I don’t think the cartoon is actually about taxes.
The implications seem clear. The same authority that sets the credit limit (national debt) also can demand the necessary income (taxes) to service that debt.
“You didn’t build that!”
<d & r> 
It’s a devastating piece of political satire from someone who is comparing the debt ceiling to a person’s credit card limit because he or she doesn’t understand anything about the debt ceiling.
I balance my checkbook so howcumzit the government can’t just balance the budget?!
Actually, the most hamfisted treatment of the debt ceiling I’ve seen thus far was on The Newsroom, which is really little more than Aaron Sorkin’s soapbox to bash teabaggers, not that they’re undeserving. There’s a scene the night of the 2010 midterm election that has the financial reporter asking a Tea Party congressman-elect about the debt ceiling vote “in a few months”, and the pol is utterly clueless about its meaning or implications. Hey, that’s great… but who was thinking about the debt ceiling in November of 2010? Sorkin’s letting hindsight masquerade as wisdom.
