There is a public (as in it's done in public, not the public is doing it) outcry if the so-called "ratings agencies" hint that they are considering "downgrading" their opinion of the USA's ability to meet its liabilities.

But the reality is that the USA is, yet again, facing exactly that shocking reality.

On paper, and in political-speak, it's because the USA has a maximum borrowing limit and that is set in accordance with constitutional requirements, not as to amount but as to its principles.

But that is a nice fiction to sell to voters. What is actually happening is that the government is running out of money and that it needs to borrow ever more not only to pay its existing bills but also to pay the interest on the last round of borrowing, and the one before that, and the one before that, and so on.

Despite increasing tax rates and increasingly aggressive tax collection, the US government has been on a spending spree for far too long. The primary difference between Republican and Democrat is what they spend the money on. The former (as they see it) on wealth creation - more wealth equals more taxes even if tax rates are reduced and the latter on redistribution of wealth.

Obama has abolished the working class: he speaks only of "middle class Americans" - they were blue collar workers before he flattered them into thinking they were something different.

But there is another thing: for more quarters than not in recent years, the USA's manufacturing figures have failed to show any or any significant growth. In fact, overall, it has fallen.

There has been a constant barrage of attempts to get shoppers into shops (Black Friday - retailers expect to sell so much that their accounts are changed from red to black) or online (Cyber Monday follows Black Friday and undermines it by promising online discounts against prices that already often rival the discounts in shops), Christmas and "Mega Monday" - Boxing Day (which many shops themselves undermined by launching Christmas sales in mid December).

And some retailers have seen things pick up: it's not too hard when the baseline is so low.

But Sears, one of the USA's largest retailers, says that the non-stop promotions of the past six weeks have not turned into enough profit for it to continue tossing money down an ever-growing hole.

The big shock (for non-US readers) is that Sears not only has its own brand (that has steadfastly maintained its position is a mid-range chain) but that it owns the mighty blue-collar (and increasingly white collar) cheap-chain K-Mart.

K-Mart is renowned for being the bottom of the heap when it comes to shopping although the group has developed some lines that have attracted genuinely middle-class shoppers, raising its acceptability amongst people that would not previously have been seen carrying a K-Mart bag.

The problem for Sears Group is that its year-on-year sales have fallen every year since 2005. It's having to borrow money to stay afloat.

Just like the US Government. But unlike the US Government, Sears is closing some of its operations.

Instead of taking an axe to expensive and pointless government spending and looking for ways to increase income, Obama is, like successive presidents before him, asking Congress to increase his credit limit.

The US Government's problem is that it can't increase income unless it increases taxes. Unlike, say, Singapore where a significant slice of life for the average citizen includes buying goods or services from companies which the government directly or indirectly holds a a stake (and therefore earns profits), the USA has to tax.

There are other ways: our colleagues at The Anti Money Laundering Network (ultimate owner of ChiefOfficers.Net) say that there is a massive pent-up wealth in the hands of families of organised crime bosses - including those who are dead or in jail. But US authorities are reluctant to use the laws at their disposal to collect the many hundreds, if not thousands, of millions of dollars that are on open display.

But even this will not solve the problem.

Over the past two decades, the USA has plundered pension schemes and other state-sponsored savings arrangements. And still there is insufficient money to pay the bills.

Austerity packages and even job creation schemes are not paying off.

The US Government now pays a broadly equivalent amount in interest payments as it pays in social programmes, according to some reports.

And yet it wants to "borrow" more.

When Italy, Spain, France, Ireland and Greece were in a similar position, the USA said that they needed to be taught a lesson. It demanded stringent terms if the IMF were to give support, just as it had when Argentina, Brazil and Russia needed help (for reasons of similar bad economic management) in the past.

The USA relies on a symbiotic relationship with the companies that produce credit ratings. They are beholden to the US government which has demanded, through the Securities and Exchange Commission, that all public companies are rated by one of a small number of highly influential companies (wrongly referred to as "agencies"). But when the credit crisis hit, some members of the government asked a crucial question: how did bundles of assets that were of fundamentally poor quality (and even called "sub-prime" so as to make that clear) get the highest rating? Ben Bernanke, The Chairman of the USA's Federal Reserve bank, said it was not a question that should be directed to him. But as a result, fetters were placed on the freedoms of those agencies. Their response (which they deny was connected to the controls) was to threaten a downgrade of the USA's status.

But those that do not feed at the US Government's table including independent analysts outside the USA, have long been pointing out that the US Government is broke under the usual tests of what is insolvency.

If a consumer borrows against one credit card to meet the minimum payment on another, he is seen as irresponsible.

It's difficult to see any difference.