A Few Thoughts On The Opening Salvo Of The Debt Limit Debate

President Obama has come out and said he won't negotiate with the crazed fundamentalists who threaten to destroy life as we know it by holding the debt ceiling hostage while they make insane demands to cut government spending down to levels not seen since Ramses II was forcing the Israelites to drag huge blocks of stone around in the desert*. Simply put, his position is that since the spending is already cast in stone, so to speak, raising the debt ceiling so the government can borrow to pay for it is mandatory. One requires the other.

Speaker Boehner or Ramses II, I'm not sure which. I'll have to consult with Mut.

I have a few semi-random thoughts on the whole thing that, as I'm a blogger, I feel you simply must know in order to have a proper understanding of the whole thing. Here they are, in no particular order.

• Since both borrowing and spending are required for the cycle to complete itself, why does one take precedence over the other?
• It's only the House that's fussing over the debt ceiling. They've only got 1/3 responsibility for the spending. They had to compromise on the spending bills. Why doesn't he have to compromise on the debt limit?
• There's no budget even though it's required by law. The only group to have done it's duty and passed a budget are the crazed fundamentalists. Say what you will about their crazy craziness, at least they've done that. Do they get debate points for that?
• The President is required by law to submit a budget to Congress by the first Monday in February, but his people have already said that's not going to happen. I guess some laws are better than others.
• Since it's our debt and not his, is the President really on our side? There's one group of people who are trying to slow down the growth of how much I owe and another side who wants it unlimited. Why am I rooting for the side that wants to stick me with an unlimited bill?

* - I know these aren't his exact words. I'm paraphrasing here. Work with me.