Here's a bit of his post (the nut graf):

Whether in economic policy, national security, civil liberties, or the permanent consortium of corporate power that runs Washington, Obama, above all else, is content to be (one could even say eager to be) guardian of the status quo. And the forces of the status quo want tax cuts for the rich, serious cuts in government spending that don't benefit them (social programs and progressive regulatory schemes), and entitlement "reform" -- so that's what Obama will do. He won't advocate, and will actually oppose, steps as extreme as the ones Paul Ryan is proposing: that's how he will retain his "centrist" political identity and keep the fear levels high among his voting base. He'll pay lip service to some Democratic economic dogma and defend some financially inconsequential culture war positions: that's how he will signal to the base that he's still on their side. But the direction will be the same as the GOP desires and, most importantly, how the most powerful economic factions demand: not because he can't figure out how to change that dynamic, but because that's what benefits him and thus what he wants

Woulda been nice if the founders set a credit limit in the constitution along with a no default rule...but I guess the founders could have never have imagined us being this irresponsible...or a federal government so large, for that matter.  The situation is gonna come to a head eventually...unless its all monopoloy money fantasy on spreadsheets, in which case who cares...borrow till the cows come home.

However that has long since changed as the budget process is now heavily controlled by legislation. Consequently the debt limit serves no practical purpose today and is just a relic. Never mind the fact that the US has a fiat currency so that a debt ceiling has absolutely no meaning anyway.

However no party would dare propose scrapping it entirely as that would be 'fiscally irresponsible'. And they obviously find it useful as a bargaining chip.

Up until World War I, the U.S. government needed approval from Congress every time it wanted to borrow money from the public. Congress would determine the number of securities that could be issued, their maturity date and the interest they would pay.

With the Second Liberty Bond Act of 1917, however, the U.S. Treasury was given a debt limit, or a ceiling of how much it could borrow from the public without seeking Congress' consent. The Treasury was also given the discretion to decide maturity dates, interest rate levels and the type of instruments that would be offered. The total amount of money that can be borrowed by the government without further authorization by Congress is known as the total public debt subject to limit. Any amount above this level has to receive additional approval from the legislative branch.

Investopedia.

Not raising the debt ceiling would mean, according to the Center for American Progress:

"The budgetary consequences of this conservative pledge would be catastrophic and far-reaching, forcing the immediate cessation of more than 40 percent of all federal government activities (excluding only interest payments on the national debt), including Social Security, military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, homeland security, Medicare, and unemployment insurance," the Center for American Progress warned in October 2010.

"This would not only threaten the safety and economic security of all Americans, but also have dire impacts for the economy and job growth," it continued. "In short, the economic consequences of such a large and precipitous drop in spending would be crushing, and almost certainly result in a severe drop in economic growth and employment at a time when we can least afford it."