I think S&P didn't like the amount of its bribe....

Ditto - Big Time

I think most people would prefer that Jeffrrey Immelt and his businesses paid SOMETHING in federal income taxes! But wait, isn't Immelt (and his GE/NBC/MS-NBC) an FOB? (FOB=friend of Barack)

That's what comes from having a dry drunk as President
Bush was for 8 years (DUI KING) & mix it in with the Tea Party/conservative Republicans helping Big Business (General Electric for example) and the richest Americans hardly paying any taxes (GE pays no taxes) and we get a mess because the racists have come out of hiding to bump off the first Black President of the US. Guess what people, why is it Europe's economy is going down & Cheney got rich from the Iraq war. Plus China's laughing at us, as Big Business is moving all their jobs to other countries other than the US. Oops, forgot the unions in our country charge a fortune to put in a light bulb & school teachers in DuPage County, IL make over $110,000 for 9 months of work. Way to go & when they retire at 55 they make just as much on their pensions while working other jobs!! (Most become travel agents so they can save money for trips outside the US)!!!

You forgot to mention that the bottom 50% in US pay no income taxes while the top 5% pay 50% of the income tax in the US!

Cry us a river WW2Vetran. That argument is an old and tired petard. The bottom 50% don't pay "income" taxes because their income is paltry to begin with! But they do pay Social Security taxes, Medicare taxes, sales taxes, etc. So give us a break and give it a rest with that poor little pitiful top 5% rich people drivel! None of us really want to hear it anymore!

WW2Vetran

How nice of you to provide us with your distorted "statistics" which you will be unable to prove since it's a complete lie.

Oh no, those poor millionaires. We can't let them sacrifice while the rest of the nation is.

Toasty, As much as I hate to say this because it disgusts me more than I care to admit...if we make it too uncomfortable for the few millionares than haven't already left our shores, there won't be a lot of equity in the US to get anything done.

That is unless the Fed decides to issue QE "I don't give a crap, let's print some virtual cash!"

WW2: That may have something to do with the fact that the upper 5% own the majority of the wealth. Any man or woman who pays out 30% on $500,000 of income is still making money hand-over-fist compared to those who earn $30,000 or less before taxes are applied.

You forgot to mention that the bottom 50% in US pay no income taxes

Well, YOU forgot to mention that the bottom 50% still pay 15.6% in Social Security and Medicare taxes, while the wealthiest 400 households in America pay less than 0.01%. The 15.6% in federal taxes paid by the poor stacks up pretty well against the 16.1% paid by the ultra-rich. Most middle class folks pay a lot more than either end, though since 15.6% of their pay comes out in FICA taxes (including employer contribution) and they pay anywhere from 10% to 20% on top of that in income tax.

Then there's sales tax (unless you're buying a yacht or private jet made overseas) ...

...if we make it too uncomfortable for the few millionares than haven't already left our shores, there won't be a lot of equity in the US to get anything done

Is that a joke?

We might have to worry about the BUSINESS climate we provide for large corporations and manufacturers, but there is no torrent of rich individuals leaving the US, and why should there be? They barely pay any taxes as it is, would pay much higher taxes nearly anywhere else, and if they really don't LIKE the USA, they might as well leave. Their fortunes were made HERE, and they need to pay TAXES.

Hey, Keith...talk about old and tired petards.

We're talking about income taxes here, buddy. That's what the government is supposed to use to pay for the expenditures of government. Not Social Security. Not Medicare. Not state income or sales taxes. Quit trying to throw red herrings out to confuse the sheep.

Here's the undeniable reality of Federal Income Taxes in the US.

If you have $1000 withheld from your earnings for Federal Income Tax yet receive $1000 or more in a Federal Income Tax refund, you are not a taxpayer.

Why should 47 - 50% of American (IRS statistics from 2009, not mine.) households not have any skin in the game, yet be placated with all the social spending programs funded on the backs of the 50 - 53% who are taxpayers?

How about a consumption tax instead of the "progressive" (confiscatory) tax system we have now? I don't care how much, or how little you make, but everyone has some skin in the game - even if it's just 3% or 5% if you make under a certain income level.

You could even cut a government program - with a consumption tax, you wouldn't need all the jack-boot thugs in the IRS. Just a few bean counters would do.

Combine the new tax code with a balanced budget amendment so the drunken idiots in Congress and the White House (regardless of their jersey) can't spend more than is generated in tax revenues and I think we'd be well on our way to a stable economy.

@wives fan - I think you meant S-out of luck-P is NOT following generally accepted rules for their analysis.

What are you smoking? All of the major credit agencies have have our debt on credit watch for months! Our national debt is now 7 times as large as all of our US paper currency in circulation. How is THIS not a problem? This mess has been not been caused by the Tea Party or even the recent debt deiling debate. This mess is because our elected leaders in both parties have been irresponsible... just as our society has been FOR DECADES.

Rick,

In mid 2000 we had a budget surplus and were paying down the debt. That is a fact! Along come Nov 2000 and the circus has been going on ever since.

Partisan politics are ruining this country, along with their propaganda machines, like Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, etc.

Brought to you by the same paid shills that told you securitized debt backed by CDOs was triple A grade investment material.

Not sure why everyone is having such a hard time figuring this out.

S&P rates toxic bonds AAA

Banks loose tons of money

S&P downgrades rating for US causing interest rate spike

Banks get money back + the bailout they suckered us out of.

It really isn't rocket science folks, but they want Repubs to think Dems did it, and Dems to think Repubs did it and no one actually points the finger where it really belongs. We keep fighting among ourselves, they keep pocking our country. It's a great day to be a banker.

The Clinton BALANCED Budget was from his THEFT of the $2.02+Trillion from the Social Security Trust Fund...

The money SAVED by GUTTING the US Military by 1/3, was SPENT on his give-away Social Engineering...>

AC you been smoking something yourself today???? Please provide proof he STOLE 2 million from SS fund. GUTTED military? Paaleeeeze. We still spent more than any country based on GDP and we were in good shape. Now you will probably blame 9/11 on Clinton and his cuts, but it would have happened regardless.

This mess is because our elected leaders in both parties have been irresponsible...

You can blame the GOP for MOST of the problem. They took a federal surplus in 2000 and turned it into the biggest drunken spending (2001 to 2006) spree in US history, and ended by cratering the US economy. From 2001 to 2006, the GOP more than doubled the national debt from 6 trillion to 13 trillion. The last time the national debt grew that fast was under Reagan, when it tripled from 1 trillion to 3 trillion.

By the time Bill Clinton left office, the nation was on track to completely pay off the national debt by 2012 (thanks in part to Republican politicians, who were fiscal conservatives and worked WITH the President and their Democratic counterparts). But as of 2001, and ever since, there has been NO SUCH THING as a fiscally conservative Republican.

Every American family knows you have to earn money to pay your bills. No sane person believes society can function without government revenue.

Actually they would have preferred the Cut, Tax, and Balance grand bargain.

You know, one that would put us on an actual road to a stable public sector.

Actually, I am VERY sure that ALL of the credit agencies would prefer if there was a plan to reduce government spending and get our national debt below $10,000,000,000,000 again. (Like it was just a few years ago.)

Both sentences in this post are factually incorrect.

S&P specifically said that they would have like to see some additional revenue (i.e. taxes). So, no, the Tea Party plan wouldn't cut the mustard.

Also, just because a handful of democrats vote for something doesn't make it a 'bi-partison' legislation. Bi-partison refers to bills which an almost equal number of people on both sides agree. The Tea Party crap was anything but bi-partison.

Facts are facts.

Obama and Harry Greed need to tell us why the cut in rating? We all know Obama gave away 4 trillion dollars to everyone but those American families that needed it.

datadon, the president doesnt have the power to spend money, congress does.

Really, a bipartisan bill. Only 5 Democrats voted for that stupid idea which was really an end run around trying to gut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Those 5 Democrats were the same democrats with a very small "d" who always seem to side with Republicans on these issues. Bipartisan requires more than 5 members of a caucus to make it so. Wake up!

Baddog that isn't entirely true.

The executive branch has continued to expand its power for the past 240 years to the point that they can circumvent both the congressional and judicial branches to get what they want long before the other two branches can react. When combined with the ultimate cash machine, the federal reserve system, the executive branch can do whatever the hell they want within the monetary system.

We live in a virtual authoritarian monarchy in America with a 4 year cycle, we just don't realize it. Congress doesn't mean anything and the judiciary doesn't mean anything either. The executive branch will circumvent all the rules of our Democratic Republic and jam the system with their minions if anyone questions their authority.

And for the record, it's been that way for a LONG time. It isn't just an Obama or Bush phenomenon.

datadon? Please provide proof the prople who received some stimulus didn't need it? Can you say the money didn't benefit business in the form of continued spending? Construction projects? Airport expansions? Hell to the NO you can't. What a goob. I suppose you fall for the Faux News talking heads that the only people who got it were "dead beat, lazy folks who sit around watching Oprah all day. SHeesh.

rick........blame everybody but OBAMA who gave 4 TRILLION dollars to the people that didn't need it. Is OBAMA going to give billions more to the MUSLIMS THAT DON"T LIVE IN THE US??? You have some foul smelling words

Don't just shrill. Show us your facts datadon. Problem is you don't have any. Obama didn't give away 4 trillion to anyone, and the last "stimulas" was mostly tax cuts across the board for all brackets. Try reading something other than hateful blogs and listening to Fox. Pick up a newspaper or a book.

you can't pay off a massive debt when the people who have the money, i.e. rich and corporations don't pay any taxes. how is this not blatantly apparent?

@datadon, you have no facts, and ridiculous comments. none of which are true. typical tea party/sarah palin supporter. dumb dumb dumb, and what put us in this mess.

There is plenty of blame to go around on both sides of the political isle. The national debt is not a Democratic or Republican problem it's an American problem, and as long as we are content fixing the blame we will never get around to fixing the problem. Getting back to the credit agency discussion, I have more confidence that the US can pay it's bills than I have in Standards $ Poors ability to rate bonds.

To quote Senator John Kerry the "Tea Party Downgrade" was caused by a bunch of idiots who behaved very unStatemen-like. They cared only for the interests of those who paid them in cash and said to heck with the country.

Saldy, no-one knows what was or wasn't in Obama's supposed plan... because he never presented anything in writing, as always. (Chicago politicians KNOW never to put anything in writing.)

$4 trillion over 10 years is far from enough! Our national debt has increased EVERY SINGLE YEAR since 1957. Both political parties have been irresponsible! We all need to throw politics aside, stop the insanity, and get our run-away spending under control first! Entitlements, military spending, foreign aid, Medicare, Social Security, and EVERY line of the budget needs to have about 30% OR MORE cut immediately. ($4 trillion over 10 years is about 1/4 of what needs to be cut!)

Once this is done, I am all for closing loop-holes for the rich, and then raising taxes for EVERYONE (including the working poor) if it is necessary to begin to reduce our national debt. Please see the national debt numbers back to 1943 as published by the US Treasury below and the necessity will be obvious:

Fiscal Year Total US National Debt

(8/2/2011) $ 14,300,000,000,000*

9/30/2010 $ 13,561,623,030,892

9/30/2009 $ 11,909,829,003,512

9/30/2008 $ 10,024,724,896,912

9/30/2007 $ 9,007,653,372,262

9/30/2006 $ 8,506,973,899,215

9/30/2005 $ 7,932,709,661,724

9/30/2004 $ 7,379,052,696,330

9/30/2003 $ 6,783,231,062,744

9/30/2002 $ 6,228,235,965,597

9/30/2001 $ 5,807,463,412,200

9/30/2000 $ 5,674,178,209,887

9/30/1999 $ 5,656,270,901,615

9/30/1998 $ 5,526,193,008,898

9/30/1997 $ 5,413,146,011,397

9/30/1996 $ 5,224,810,939,136

9/29/1995 $ 4,973,982,900,709

9/30/1994 $ 4,692,749,910,013

9/30/1993 $ 4,411,488,883,139

9/30/1992 $ 4,064,620,655,522

9/30/1991 $ 3,665,303,351,697

9/28/1990 $ 3,233,313,451,777

9/29/1989 $ 2,857,430,960,187

9/30/1988 $ 2,602,337,712,041

9/30/1987 $ 2,350,276,890,953

9/30/1986 $ 2,125,302,616,658

9/30/1985 $ 1,823,103,000,000

9/30/1984 $ 1,572,266,000,000

9/30/1983 $ 1,377,210,000,000

9/30/1982 $ 1,142,034,000,000

9/30/1981 $ 997,855,000,000

9/30/1980 $ 907,701,000,000

9/30/1979 $ 826,519,000,000

9/30/1978 $ 771,544,000,000

9/30/1977 $ 698,840,000,000

6/30/1976 $ 620,433,000,000

6/30/1975 $ 533,189,000,000

6/30/1974 $ 475,059,815,732

6/30/1973 $ 458,141,605,312

6/30/1972 $ 427,260,460,941

6/30/1971 $ 398,129,744,456

6/30/1970 $ 370,918,706,950

6/30/1969 $ 353,720,253,841

6/30/1968 $ 347,578,406,426

6/30/1967 $ 326,220,937,795

6/30/1966 $ 319,907,087,795

6/30/1965 $ 317,273,898,984

6/30/1964 $ 311,712,899,257

6/30/1963 $ 305,859,632,996

6/30/1962 $ 298,200,822,721

6/30/1961 $ 288,970,938,610

6/30/1960 $ 286,330,760,848

6/30/1959 $ 284,705,907,078

6/30/1958 $ 276,343,217,746

6/30/1957 $ 270,527,171,896

6/30/1956 $ 272,750,813,649

6/30/1955 $ 274,374,222,803

6/30/1954 $ 271,259,599,108

6/30/1953 $ 266,071,061,639

6/30/1952 $ 259,105,178,785

6/29/1951 $ 255,221,976,815

6/30/1950 $ 257,357,352,351

6/30/1949 $ 252,770,359,860

6/30/1948 $ 252,292,246,513

6/30/1947 $ 258,286,383,109

6/28/1946 $ 269,422,099,173

6/30/1945 $ 258,682,187,410

6/30/1944 $ 201,003,387,221

6/30/1943 $ 136,696,090,330

"Deficts don't matter" -- Dick Cheney

Cheney is a long gone VP who had nothing to do with OBAMA'S 4 TRILLION dollar give away in 30 months

He gave it to you datadon, please send your tax cut from last year back and quit your bellyaching. If you keep it then you are nothing more than a hypocrite when you shrilll this stuff.

Because they are the only game in town. There is no getting around it.

Is this breaking news Willing-Sniper????? Did Moody's and and the other Credit Ratings Agencies go out of business?!?! When did this happen!!!!???

And what the heck is with that name - Willing-Sniper? I think the gov't should be checking you out dude or chick

Actually, Moody's and Fitch (the other 2 of the Big 3 US), also put the USA on credit watch, probably to see how the bi-partisan committee on further spending cuts/revenue increases performs. Do the math and you will see you actually need both to solve a problem of this size or you will fail.

Egan (US), China, and Germany had already downgraded the USA before S&P, so they are not alone.

Mind your [S]HORT & [P]UTs

Provincial/State governments have very limited resources.

Your comparison to the largest (by far) national economy in the world is invalid.

China (you know the largest buyer of the U.S. Debt) just fired a warning shot across the bow. If we don't get our "appetite for debt" under control they won't be buying our treasury securitites. Time to wake up. Houston we have a problem.

Steelerfan-

Correction to your above post:

China is the largest foreign buyer of US debt.

US individuals and entities hold about 80% of total US debt.

China holds 7.5% followed closely by Japan at 6.4%.

This fear mongering going on about China is vastly over-rated. Where else can they safely put the profits from selling us goods and products made by outsourced/relocated American jobs. Nowhere, at least not as safely.

With countries in the Euro zone falling like dominoes, there may actually be increased demand for US T-bills, bonds, & notes despite the S&P downgrade.

So the U.S. treasury market is going to benefit from this downgrade and further downgrades as we continue to spending like drunken sailors? We may be a more attractive credit risk than some of the Euro Zone countries, but if we continue to run big deficits further down grades are coming. Our interest rates will continue to rise with each downgrade until we are coking on our interest payments. We have to get spending under control.

And just controlling spending won't do a bit of good until we can also agree the tax code has to be fairly modified and we need to increase the amount of revenue we take in. Spending can be cut so far before it causes more pain than gain, especially in a down economy. It is also senseless to spend as much as we do on the military. Much of which is hidden in the guise of national security. But since Fox will never tell you this needs to be done, in the mind of the average republican is doesn't.

Return to Glory

Actually as of 8/4/11 total US debt held by the public was $9,894.8 billion per Treasury direct. The remaining $4,670 billion in intergovernmental holdings (i.e funny money) As of May 2011 (the lastet I can find) China held $1,159.8 billion of our debt. So more like 11.7% not 7.5% you are quoting. Let the fear that China stops buying begin.

Steelerfan-

I pulled data a few months earlier than you. Also, SS holdings were included in the total (I basically understand the SS IOU's so I see why you would make an adjustment). I still had China at $1.1T+.

BTW, Sorry if I came across bad towards you on my posts the other day. I usually stay on topic and more respectful and think too many people on blogs type things they would never say to the other person's face. I hope US citizens aren't becoming as polarized as Washington, DC.

As the saying goes: "United we stand, divided we fall", and right now we're all in this mess together.

not congress the senate and obama failed to reduce us debt

In the last 850+days...

Congress has not passed any Budget bills to the POTUS for signature. Except for this one, that has resulted in a Credit down-grade...

The House under Pelosi - refused to submit any budget, even when she had the MAJORITY of the seats...

The Senate under Reid - refused to submit any budget, even when he had a 'Super Majority' and voted 97 to 0 against the Obama budget recommendation...

Obama - threatened to VETO any bill that did not kick the can down the road and raise taxes, until after the 2012 election...

The House under Boehner - has Passed THREE bills in the house and then submitted them to the Senate for reconciliation. Where Reid has refused to even debate TWO of them...

Now tell me WHO are the people not doing their job???

Never underestimate the stupidity of the American voter.

Datadon,

like it or not, once the Tea Party got elected, they took ownership of the debt once they walked away from a 4 trillion dollar deficit reduction deal. They are as much as part of the problem as the Senate and the White House. You can't govern as if you are still on the outside holding protest signs and wearing funny little hats.

Dennis-1989658,

The people ELECTED in 2010 were given a mandate to LOWER spending and reduce the size of government...

If you do not like their methods, elect someone different in 2012...

They are doing what the PEOPLE elected them to do...

BTY -

Asked by CNN’s Ed Henry when it will be that Democrats stop blaming George W. Bush for the crummy economy and start taking credit or blame for it themselves, two and a half years into President Obama’s administration, DNC Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz put her arms around the economy and said “Right now! Mine, all mine.” This was June 15, 2011, 4:23 pm...

see http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2011/06/15/democrats-accidentally-ownership-economy/

What mandate? The events of the last 2 years demonstrate that there is no mandate to do anything. At best the Tea Party represents 20% of the total voter population. That's not even close to a majority.

There isn't even a consensus on how to tackle the long term debt problem. Cut discretionary spending, as long as it doesn't affect my district. Cut entitlements, but keep your hands off my Medicare! And don't touch defense, that would cost too many government jobs in my district. And raise taxes and eliminate deductions but not mine. This was exactly why our credit rating was downgraded.

The Simpson Bowles plan was a good start. It may have even been workable under better political circumstances. But look at what happened to it. It was rejected out of hand by the White House, Senate and the House.

Until every party is willing to concede their sacred cows, any plan is doomed to fail.

Political parties could not control the country if we did this. If you want to really have an effect, then go to your LOCAL party meetings. Go to your state convention. Quit letting the few people who participate in this stuff have complete control over your choices. It will be a hard fight. They have controlled things for years and they will not give it up easily. But just voting or not all you are doing is afirming the choices these people made for you.

What was Americas Debt Rating during the Great Depression, does anyone know?

AAA since 1917.

Thanks Aranhas

It wasn't just the Republicans. Clinton and Bush contributed to this situation, but Obama pushed it over the edge. Do you read these articles, or just the headline? Debt. Spending. Too much debt. Do some research and you will find that there is an unfunded Medicare mandate of over 38 TRILLION DOLLARS over the next couple of decades. 21% increase per year. 38 Trillion Dollars just in Medicare. Do you have any idea what that means? How much that is? We couldn't grow enough cotton and flax (that's what money is printed on) to print that much money. We could tax everyone their entire income and not pay that much money. Spending, spending, spending. That is what is causing all this and that is what every single country is screaming about.

The fact that tax increases alone will not resolve the debt problem is all the more reason why spending cuts and revenue increases are BOTH necessary. I don't understand why everyone keeps saying the only solution is spending cuts and the Dems refuse to cut any spending. Most of the Dems I have heard about support both spending cuts and revenue increases. It is the Teapublicans that refuse to budge on revenue increases. Any attempt to reduce the debt without BOTH spending cuts and revenue increases is doomed to fail.

I've been making this point ever since I switched from Democrat to Repub many years ago. Barbara Streisand did it for me. A wealthy liberal espousing her many liberal positions, but not willing to pay for them herself. Not even willing to contribute a fraction of her wealth. She wanted to make the Pacific Coast a protected area open to everyone, but fought to keep people away from her stretch of beach. Hypocrisy in the Dem party is SOP. Kerry kept his yacht in a different harbor than his hometown to pay less taxes. Rangle cheats the IRS and screams at "tax cheats", and on and on and on. The super-wealthy Dems point their fingers at corporations, and keep highly-paid advisors on staff to protect their own money from taxes. Damon can pay more taxes if he wants. He can live on one million bucks a year and give the rest to "shovel-ready projects", but he won't. None of them will.

Steelersfan, what was our share before George W. Bush got into office? I would be interested to see the comparison...

That's a good question. I don't know the answer. I suspect considerably less than the current $51K per head. You will not find me defending the Bush era spending here. This S&P downgrade is a big deal. If we do not get our fiscal house in order more down grades will follow. China will stop buying our debt. Our gross debt to GDP is current at 98%. We are teetering on the edge of disaster here, while people are screaming this rating was politically motivated. I praise S&P for having the stones to be the first rating agency to act. It will only be downhill from here unless we get spending under control.

You folks made good arguments for nothing. You do not have an inkling of an understanding of economics. Our gross debt to GDP is no where close to 98% and therein lies the problem. You folks vote based on water-cooler facts instead of taking the time to investigate real math and figures for yourselves. The uninformed are a large reason for our problems.

Amused

I believe you are misinformed. Here is an article and there are plenty more:

They will tell you that they will never compromise, but please do not make the mistake of thinking they do it out of parriotism. They do it because Koch and others paid them to do it. They stand for one thing and one thing alone, the greed of the already successfully greedy.

Ummmmmm... you might want to take an economics class or 2. (When a nation or business sells bonds, they can't choose their buyers.)

France gave us some, WW one and two was done with bonds and Vietnam had a 10% surtax.

Most wars have been funded by tax increases. GW Bush thought the war fairy was going to fund these.

Bush lowered taxes after the tech bubble burst at the end of Clinton's term to stimulate the economy. Obama pushed a stimulus package to stimulate the economy after the unsustainable housing bubble burst. Lowering taxes or giving out money are one and the same concept. The Bush tax cuts were greater percentage wise to lower and middle brackets. The war expenses were still there when Obama passed the stimulus. I guess Obama also thought the fairy was going to fund the wars.

LOL, the Tea Party did not cause this mess. Irresponsible spending for DECADES caused this mess!

Our national debt has increased EVERY SINGLE YEAR since 1957. Both political parties have been irresponsible! We all need to throw politics aside, stop the insanity, and get our run-away spending under control first! Entitlements, military spending, foreign aid, Medicare, Social Security, and EVERY line of the budget needs to have about 30% OR MORE cut immediately. ($4 trillion over 10 years is about 1/4 of what needs to be cut!)

Once this is done, I am all for closing loop-holes for the rich, and then raising taxes for EVERYONE (including the working poor) if it is necessary to begin to reduce our national debt. Please see the national debt numbers back to 1943 as published by the US Treasury below and the necessity will be obvious:

Fiscal Year Total US National Debt

(8/2/2011) $ 14,300,000,000,000*

9/30/2010 $ 13,561,623,030,892

9/30/2009 $ 11,909,829,003,512

9/30/2008 $ 10,024,724,896,912

9/30/2007 $ 9,007,653,372,262

9/30/2006 $ 8,506,973,899,215

9/30/2005 $ 7,932,709,661,724

9/30/2004 $ 7,379,052,696,330

9/30/2003 $ 6,783,231,062,744

9/30/2002 $ 6,228,235,965,597

9/30/2001 $ 5,807,463,412,200

9/30/2000 $ 5,674,178,209,887

9/30/1999 $ 5,656,270,901,615

9/30/1998 $ 5,526,193,008,898

9/30/1997 $ 5,413,146,011,397

9/30/1996 $ 5,224,810,939,136

9/29/1995 $ 4,973,982,900,709

9/30/1994 $ 4,692,749,910,013

9/30/1993 $ 4,411,488,883,139

9/30/1992 $ 4,064,620,655,522

9/30/1991 $ 3,665,303,351,697

9/28/1990 $ 3,233,313,451,777

9/29/1989 $ 2,857,430,960,187

9/30/1988 $ 2,602,337,712,041

9/30/1987 $ 2,350,276,890,953

9/30/1986 $ 2,125,302,616,658

9/30/1985 $ 1,823,103,000,000

9/30/1984 $ 1,572,266,000,000

9/30/1983 $ 1,377,210,000,000

9/30/1982 $ 1,142,034,000,000

9/30/1981 $ 997,855,000,000

9/30/1980 $ 907,701,000,000

9/30/1979 $ 826,519,000,000

9/30/1978 $ 771,544,000,000

9/30/1977 $ 698,840,000,000

6/30/1976 $ 620,433,000,000

6/30/1975 $ 533,189,000,000

6/30/1974 $ 475,059,815,732

6/30/1973 $ 458,141,605,312

6/30/1972 $ 427,260,460,941

6/30/1971 $ 398,129,744,456

6/30/1970 $ 370,918,706,950

6/30/1969 $ 353,720,253,841

6/30/1968 $ 347,578,406,426

6/30/1967 $ 326,220,937,795

6/30/1966 $ 319,907,087,795

6/30/1965 $ 317,273,898,984

6/30/1964 $ 311,712,899,257

6/30/1963 $ 305,859,632,996

6/30/1962 $ 298,200,822,721

6/30/1961 $ 288,970,938,610

6/30/1960 $ 286,330,760,848

6/30/1959 $ 284,705,907,078

6/30/1958 $ 276,343,217,746

6/30/1957 $ 270,527,171,896

6/30/1956 $ 272,750,813,649

6/30/1955 $ 274,374,222,803

6/30/1954 $ 271,259,599,108

6/30/1953 $ 266,071,061,639

6/30/1952 $ 259,105,178,785

6/29/1951 $ 255,221,976,815

6/30/1950 $ 257,357,352,351

6/30/1949 $ 252,770,359,860

6/30/1948 $ 252,292,246,513

6/30/1947 $ 258,286,383,109

6/28/1946 $ 269,422,099,173

6/30/1945 $ 258,682,187,410

6/30/1944 $ 201,003,387,221

6/30/1943 $ 136,696,090,330

The Tea Party folks are the messengers with the bad news. They did not cause anything .

I can see the disease of buck passing has been contagious. Sure Obama likes to blame the previous Administration for just about everything.

Tea Party had an opportunity to accept a 4 trillion dollar deal. Only problem is they didn't like the revenue increases which were called for in the Simpson Bowles plan that everyone rejected.

I guess its too easy to not own up to the problem and act as if you are still on the other side of the fence holding signs and wearing silly hats.

S & P said specifically in their report on the downgrade that they based their decision on the fact that our politicians could not agree to BOTH spending cuts and revenue increases. I would think our politicians would be ashamed and embarrassed to have caused this by their dysfunction. Instead they still say the answer is draconian spending cuts only. Selective perception is an amazing phenomenon.

Heartlight3 - If that is true (I didn't see it in this article), then I have to ask why they would care how we achieve fiscal stability, as long as we do it.

I do care how, though, and would personally prefer a combination of spending cuts, and then revenue increases by replacing the income tax with a consumption tax.

But wherever you sit politically, the message is the same: We need to balance the budget, and that was never even considered as an option by any legislation, by any of the players, in all the months of deliberation and conflict.

"The agreement they came to was a 4 trillion debt cut over the next decade"

David - I believe you are wrong about that. "Deficit" is annual, "debt" is cumulative, and the competing "deficit reduction plans" are measured in "ten-year-savings". Is this deliberately designed to confuse? Absolutely! What you are referring to is a projected cumulative ten-year deficit (not debt) reduction. The Obama/Reid plan also continuously increased debt. And would not have avoided a downgrade.

Here are the latest numbers, all transformed to a simple, monthly basis, in round billions of dollars:

Budget, the amount the government now spends:..........317

Revenues, the amount the government now receives:...205

Deficit, the difference between Budget and Revenues:..112

Decrease in Deficit under this new plan: ...........................20

Increase in Debt under this new plan:.................................92

It seems that part of the problem is that all we have are people on the right fighting over who is farthest right. We don't have anyone in Government who is a radical leftist. The only moderate leftist is Bernie Sanders. Because there isn't a radical left in our government there is nothing push compromise to the center, because all one party fears is getting into primarys against Tea Baggers.

Maybe democrats need that fear from the left.

Aaron - I don't remember a single budget proposal from the "radical left" that even pretended to stabilize the debt. Am I wrong?

I find it hilarious that the group wanting to cut spending and balance the budget are the ones the stupid left is trying to blame for the downgrade. It's the freakin debt stupid! Stop the living in denial.

ted..........off the books=not in the budget but in the debt load [not a good thing] Poorly handled by Bush and the democrats and even more so by Obama because he added billions to go to the muslims

That doesn't change the facts: 15 TRILLION in debt, 50% of adult Americans pay no income tax, and givewaways as far as the eye can see of money the US does not have. What part of this problem do you not understand? If the US financial situation were yours, what would your credit rating be and would anyone anywhere loan you money at even 25% interest??? Turn the brain on please and look at the reality.

For a "Vietnam Vet", you certainly don't show any concern about the mess our country is right now, but instead blame a credit agency that has the same outlook on us as Moody's and other agencies.

vet nam vet...........I agree but you need to add the democratic congress of 2007 &2008,Bush, Obama and 2011 Senators!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!