[Bungleau]

I understand that, Timber. That's not my point, though. My point is that sensationalizing the debt by pretending that relatively commonplace events are now something new is a cheap trick that plays on people's lack of understanding.

It's along the lines of the politician crying out against his opponent because "it's a known fact that they practice nepotism at the family business, and his sister is a thespian in wicked New York". Sounds nasty until you translate it into familiar words.

And per capita debt is not a personal obligation, but a simple means of equating something to make it more understandable. Average household debt as of 2004 was approximately $86,000 with mortgage, $14,000 without. I'm an overachiever with my mortgage, an underachiever without it. But nowhere is there a note that indicates I owe an additional $30,000.

That $30,000 comes from "*IF* the debt were divided among all Americans, their share would be...". That big ol' IF in the front indicates that it's a game of data mining. It's just as valid to say that if the debt were divided among the 14,405 school districts in the US, they would each owe $624,783,061 and change for their part of the debt.

I'm not saying that debt is good -- far from it. I'm saying that inciting people about it with half-truths doesn't help. But it sure sells newspapers.