I was listening to an economist on the radio a couple weeks ago, forgot his name, but the telling point was that all this debate about the "debt ceiling" is just a distraction (how strange of politicians to use that technique, eh?). There is no ceiling. It's a made up concept, dating to 1917 and WWI. Oh, Congress can say there is, but ultimately there's nothing stopping the country from borrowing more money as long as there's someone willing to buy the bonds. The steadily increasing amount of debt we're taking on is more of a concern than any perceived ceiling.

And the amount of debt is a smaller issue than the stale economy. This guy's view is that our focus should be on stimulating economic activity first, and deal with the debt via a vibrant economy. We've been in a position to do that before, and could do it again. Unfortunately Congress tends to use vibrant economic activity as a stimulus to over-spend instead of debt reduction, or in the Bushco instance, decrease taxes and borrow and spend like the proverbial drunken sailor. The ability of the nation to pay off debt is evident, it's the willingness to do so that is absent.

Another interesting point of the economist is that Moody's and other ratings are irrelevant. They've all been wrong as many times as they are right and should not be a reason for choosing a specific action.

Ron Paul is barely an alternative for me. The abortion issue is a deal breaker in his and every candidate's case. The human condition, culturally and genetically, totally ingrains the concept of sex for sport among men. Anything to the contrary is simply religious or philosophical dogma and therefore irrelevant to the discussion. Consequently turning the tables on women and saying that by choosing to have sex, they've already choosen to become pregnant or take the chance of becoming pregnant is absurd at best and idiotic by any other measure.

The gay rights issue is a close second. I estimate a politician's intelligence and integrity by the distance he or she is willing to put between government and homosexuality. It's none of the gov'ts.' business, so the more the gov't. interference, the less I would support that candidate. Why can't the assholes just keep it simple and stay the fvck out of other people's lives?

Anyway, Ron Paul, dedicated as he is, is just making a mountain out of a mole hill. Better he should focus his skills on how our minimally taxed corporations and super-rich, who only create jobs in third world nations instead of in the U.S., are going to get this country out of the recession via the spending cuts he supports. He oughta' tell us what that looks like, and especially why it would work.

Sg