You Want Scary?

[Gary Sisco]

Here's scary:

U.S. NATIONAL DEBT CLOCK
The Outstanding Public Debt as of 01 Nov 2003 at 02:14:15 PM GMT is:

$6,856,029,676,332.57



The estimated population of the United States is 292,408,943
so each citizen's share of this debt is $23,446.70.

The National Debt has continued to increase an average of
$1.58 billion per day since September 30, 2002!

So, we can all (well, most of us) add this to our outstanding debt figure as we set the household budget. Don't forget!

It ain't my party,
But I'll cry if I want to,
Cry if I want to,
You would cry, too, if it's happenin' to you ...


(and it is.)

Alright, so this is something that I have never been able to get anyone to give me a full explanation on. What exactly is the national debt, in other words, where does it come from, who are we in "debt" to, and how does it effect the country/the common man?

Each persons share is $23,446.70? So what does that mean? Should I be awaiting a collections call? Are Rocco and Tony going to show up at my door some time soon?

Should I have a lawyer?

[jesus marion joseph]

Having a lawyer may add dramatically to you debt load.

[Uli]

After adding an accountant, a financial advisor , a tax guy some software programs to track the stuff you may head for a debt consolidation company and some more (bancruptcy) lawyers.

Wow, this IS scary!


But in all seriousness, I do still hope to get my questions from post #2 answered.

[Uli]

Gordon or somebody else can probably anser this better. I just take a guess. A lot of the debt is in forms of bonds. They raise money on the financial markets with the promise to pay it back and paying interest in the meantime. Creditors are all kind of investors from private to institutional, foreign and domestic.

There appears to be also some more creative debt financing like borrowing it from other funds like social security etc.

[tippy]

I think Scott's question is very interesting. How much is our in-hand money really worth anyway? It's worth what we agree it is worth. Like many apartment dwellers, I do my laundry at a laundromat...it's difficult to get the machines to take the new quarters because they don't register as true 25 cent pieces, I would suppose based on weight, and you can put them through again and again and again and they keep slipping through to the return slot. Sometimes the machines will take the new ones but I basically just have to keep feeding an assortment of quarters like a game of Russian roulette.

Originally posted by Scott Dolan
Alright, so this is something that I have never been able to get anyone to give me a full explanation on. What exactly is the national debt, in other words, where does it come from, who are we in "debt" to, and how does it effect the country/the common man?

The national debt is all claims on the US government other than currency. We are in debt mostly to ourselves, although some of it is foreign. It is held largely in the form of Treasury Bills, other bonds, and various trade credits. The government needs to manage the national debt in order to maintain its credibility and the value of the dollar. If the interest liabilities on the national debt grow faster than the economy itself, then it will be impossible to control the debt without painful measures in the future that will reduce investment and consumption for most Americans. Since the "war on terror," that seems to be the direction that we are headed. Of course if the US economy keeps growing at a 7.5 annual rate, we might be OK. But that is not going to happen.

Each persons share is $23,446.70? So what does that mean? Should I be awaiting a collections call? Are Rocco and Tony going to show up at my door some time soon?
Should I have a lawyer?

An investment fund advisor might work out better than a lawyer. As the burden of the national debt increases, interest rates should rise, possibly making the purchase of US bonds a good bet for reducing your family's personal share of the future burden. Of course, the government could eventually resort to printing money and inflating the debt away. In that case, you would do much better purchasing foreign bonds. Besides, then you wouldn't have to live with the thought that you are financing murder in Iraq.

[GoodSpeak]

Originally posted by Scott Dolan
Alright, so this is something that I have never been able to get anyone to give me a full explanation on. What exactly is the national debt, in other words, where does it come from, who are we in "debt" to, and how does it effect the country/the common man?

Each persons share is $23,446.70? So what does that mean? Should I be awaiting a collections call? Are Rocco and Tony going to show up at my door some time soon?

Should I have a lawyer?

C'mon, Scott.

This is the same type of "question" you asked regarding the exact dollars and cents relative to the radical christian right and their continued support/CONTROL of the GOP. I think you know that.


It is the great unanswerable question and I think you know that one, as well. Is it your contention that if there is no immediate answer that the deficit doesn't exist now? It is fairly obvious that Bush is floating our economy on paper and false economic promises of growth.

see also;

Tax cuts/giveaway of Clinton's budget surplus.


The point is...and I know you know THIS one...the higher the deficit spending, the higher the interest rates go and GEE Dubya's banking buddies make a shit load of money.

Besides, the "borrow and spend" republicans are FAMOUS for this.


Spin don't change nothin', my firend.































And I think you know that one, too.

[RBS]

I must admit that I've always been a little bit in the dark about what the debt means, too.

Thanks for asking the question, Scott!

[Monte Smith]

I think John L.'s answer is pretty concise and accurate. Bravo!

So, like Scott, I have some questions, too. I hope you will take a sec to answer, John. You seem to know these things. But I welcome anyone's educated opinion.

What was the national debt like in the late Reagan/Bush and Clinton years and how does it compare to the debt levels now? What did the supercharged US economy of the info-tech bubble do to that debt? I know we grew out of our deficit spending for a few years at the apex of the boom, but what about the debt?

Also, shouldn't we expect debt and deficit to grow during periods of recession and recovery? Should we expect the debt and deficit to shrink during good times?

John L, thank you for the info, I am very grateful for such a concise and thorough breakdown. I guess my biggest question now becomes: So what?(and please don't take that in a nasty way)

What does it all really mean in the grand scheme of things? So we're in debt to ourselves. Wowee. Does this ultimately mean ANYTHING?

To clarify what I really mean, my former neighbor, who was a huge time Clintonite, and all around hardcore liberal once told me that the deficit was nothing but numbers and ultimately meant nothing. That was fine by me of course.

And to help my good friend Goodz out, one of my main contentions is that the "national debt" IMO is nothing more than something for the non ruling party to use against the president. There has been a deficit as long as I've been alive(at least I never remember there NOT being one), but I never really knew it to mean anything. When Clinton was in office, it was certainly used against him, and of course now..........

So I guess my real question is, what does it REALLY mean? What are the ramifications?

And once again, John L, I really do appreciate your insight.

Originally posted by GoodSpeak
C'mon, Scott.

This is the same type of "question" you asked regarding the exact dollars and cents relative to the radical christian right and their continued support/CONTROL of the GOP. I think you know that.

I don't know Tim, this really doesn't have any similarity with the other question at all. This is a definite number, something that almost everyone is aware of. This is something you can actually put a value on. "Hard numbers", as Gary likes to call them.

The point is...and I know you know THIS one...the higher the deficit spending, the higher the interest rates go and GEE Dubya's banking buddies make a shit load of money.

Maybe I'm missing your point here brother, but interest rates are still at an alltime low as we speak.

Spin don't change nothin', my firend.

Hold on just one minute here my friend, I'm not trying to spin anything. I'm simply looking for clarification. Wrong is wrong, but I still don't have a clear picture of what I'm even looking at.










Cut me a fuckng break already....................





















sheesh..............

[Gary Sisco]

The deficit figures are trickier than the debt figures, to arrive at an accurate sum, because the various congresses change the accounting tricks from this time to that. For example, for once I agree with Dolan albeit accidentally: In the 90s, both the Clintonoids and the Repubs and Dems in the Congress juggled the books with accounting fudges to make it appear as if the annual budgets were balanced when they weren't, and that there wasn't a "deficit" anymore but actually a "surplus." But the only way they could make this work was by counting Social Security/Medicare premium payments from workers and employers as if it were general revenue. But it's not. It's supposed to be kept in a trust fund for future Social Security and Medicare payouts, and therefore should not have been counted as general revenue. Most businesses would be in a lot of legal trouble if they did the same thing. For example, a law firm that counted (and spent) money that it was supposed to be holding in escrow as general revenue for the practice's books. This practice made it seem, by accounting lies, that the government's annual revenues were greater than its annual expenses (assuming Congress spent according to its own rules, which it never does) and that therefore there was a "surplus." This practice wasn't new under the Clintoids but was more brazenly resorted to than before, when they did it but didn't talk about it much.

(This practice of raiding the Social Security/Medicare accounts, by the way, if stopped, which it should be, morally speaking, would instantly take care of any financial problems in that system now or in the future. But they can't, because while legally and morally those payments are insurance premiums, both parties have been treating them on the revenue hand as if they were income taxes, which, in practice, they have become in fact but no one wants to say it because then the income tax rates in the US would look very much like and probably higher than the Euro welfare states they've been favorably comparing themselves to for so many years and perhaps higher, proportional to (earned) income.)

So, in fact, there was no "surplus" in the 90s, except on the books, which were cooked. Much the same as a huge lot of the boom "profits" of the 90s were created by accounting lies rather than actualized profits in the real corporate sense. They were paper profits, like the paper surpluses.

Nevertheless, however one looks at it, there have been huge deficits for years back, true, but the *magnitude* of the deficit spending, and the accelerating nature of the current deficit spending, are historically unprecedented, even by comparison with Reagan's mad arms buildup deficits of the 80s (which may or may not have been part of the military strategy for dealing with the USSR by running it broke, gambling that the US economy could sustain the deficit spending and subsequent debt service easier than the Soviets', which it did -- so far). There is nothing in American history, no matter what party you're talking about, that can compare to the wildly irresponsible borrowing and spending that's going on under Mad George.

That, combined with the tax cuts (for themselves, primarily, with some doggie bag leftovers going to the middle and especially the very upper middle class, a bit of chump change for the workers, a couple/three hundred bucks or so), is an inevitable disaster that will cause problems that the boomer generation has never experienced in the economy's normal boom and bust cycles, and also a disaster that will very much coincide with them entering their elder years and hence requiring, in also unprecedented numbers, services that will inevitably, if current practice is allowed to continue apace, be being cut back to a point that will also be unheard of -- but this time being applied to not only the largest generation of Americans in history but also by far the most spoiled, who aren't and won't be accustomed to be told "no" when they need medical care and it isn't forthcoming. From anyone. Private or public. Just when they need it most.

To further confound this disaster, the boomers will also have a very significant number of people "retiring" (from age, disability, or ill health, if nothing else) for whom there will be no company pensions such as the modest but crucial one my father enjoys, for example, as they are things of the past for anyone sub-upper-middle-class except, to further the irony and the tragedy as well, public employees of all sorts. To continue with my parents as an example (both of whom worked full-time from WW2 until the early 90s) my father's pension *together with* their also modest but responsible savings for people of their class, and *together with* both of their SS benefits, allow them to have an income to live on in the elder years in the low 20 g's. Take SS out of that picture, never mind Medicare, never mind the pension that also includes while my father lives generous health benefits from the Old IBM, the likes of which no or very few boomers will ever see, and you're talking near destitution. Even with the IBM insurance and Medicare, my father's recent journeys to the hospital for surgery and testing and what have you, amounted to several thousands in out-of-pocket payments.

But my folks both worked full-time for many years and very responsibly lived within their means (they brag that they've never paid a dime in late charges or interest to a credit card company), never borrowing any money except for their mortgage (which was minimal as they paid down a large down payment from their savings), never using credit, never buying an automobile unless they had the money in hand to pay for it, and, being working class people, not having "had to" put their kids through college. We were expected to do that ourselves if we were going to, and my oldest sister and I did, the first in our family to do so. In short, they were hardworking and financially very responsible people, throughout their lives.

By contrast, the boomer generation is busy running up consumer debt to amazing levels and living way beyond its means, and behaving as if some bit of magic is going to protect them or save them somehow from the inevitable: getting old and frail. It's too late for them to suddenly recover from their lifelong habits and start saving now. I mean, they could, but it wouldn't be enough because there's not time enough left, now. So, what they're going to be looking at in the elder years is: little or no savings and in fact very probably significant debts to continue paying off (somehow, since a large number of them, however the dice fall, are going to be rendered by age and lifestyle incapable of continuing to work beyond a certain point); for most, no private pensions; for most, no private health insurance (see previous); for most, no or not anywhere enough investments to make up the difference; and, quite possibly, barring a miraculous recovery of the senses in DC, an entirely different or no Social Security/Medicare system, depending on how stupid American workers want to continue to be. Perhaps one day they'll decide to quit being chumps, but that's a gamble with extremely unfavorable odds, I'd say, and if it's going to happen, it's going to have to happen soon. Like within the next presidential term. Or it'll be too late. It would already be too late today were it not for AARP watching out for their asses for them (whether altruistically or not doesn't matter) but most of the people who've made AARP a formidable presence in DC will be long dead by the time the boomers start retiring in large numbers.

In short, you'll be seeing a lot more gray- and whitehairs bagging groceries at the Piggly Wiggly and driving messenger cars and delivering pizza and what have you than you're seeing today. And I'm already seeing a significant number, now, at least where I live, where IBM in particular but other companies, too, have fired a goodly percentage of VT workers in recent years, almost all of whom are well into middle age. One guy in town here was one year shy of the thirty years necessary for a pension. I don't know how many of youse here that are clearly of a certain age have tried getting a regular, working job lately, but if you have, you'll know that age discrimination is a real and present danger. Unless you dig bagging groceries. I mean, there are worse fates for sure. But it's not the way most people in America think they're going to spend their "golden years." And you have to bag one hell of a lot of groceries to pay for the health club, the kids' college, the BMW, the nice wine, the imported olives, not to mention the credit card debt, the mortgage, and etc.

And you'll also be seeing a lot more than that who are simply disabled by age or medical issues and unable to work at the Piggly Wiggly whether they want to or not. The question is, for them, if current practice in DC continues apace, what they'll be living on and how they'll be paying for their health care, which will be an unavoidable necessity then, unless they want to just go directly from their working life to the grave (which some will and always have).

I won't even go into the very real political problem that's emerging in a generation that can with a straight face ask why it should be helping to pick up the tab for the elderly. I mean, I could ask with an equally straight face and with the same logic, why adults should pick up the tab for the young. It's not like every kids' parents paid their way. They didn't, none of them. We all paid for and built and created everything that generation takes for granted. They just haven't thought about and probably never will, or they'd never have formulated such questions to begin with. (I mean, if I use their logic, I can ask without contradiction why Bronwyn and I should have to pay nearly six grand in taxes *just* for the local schools, k-12, when we don't have any kids and won't. Why should we have to pay federal taxes to cover their financial aid -- and defaults -- for their college bills. And etc.) The answer of course is that human society couldn't exist any other way, as humans are necessarily, whether admittedly or not, every one dependent on every other. In short the entire race is interdependent. No one can just take care of their own little asses. There'd be no society at all in such a case, and there never has been. Humans require cooperation and mutual aid to physically survive. Without it, the necessary surplus of making things (and food) is impossible as it requires the efforts of all. No one human can survive on his or her own efforts. Never could, under any social order.

But the fact is ideology can and often does override the obvious reality in front of people's eyes, and there is in fact a generation coming up behind the boomers, large proportions of which don't "believe" they should "have to" pay in to help take care of the elderly and disabled. And the boomers will have no one to blame for this but themselves, since they'll be their own children, after all, which they raised and helped educate (or mis-educate, as it were) or at least lived passively enough on the political level to allow others to do the mis-educating for them. In any case, they'll be the generation that raised the generation that isn't going to want to pay to support them in their old age -- if only because they're so busy and so strapped *paying off the deficits as well as the deficits that have cumulatively been added to the ever-spiralling national debt* in the meantime. And you know, the young people might have a point, considering the enormous debt, and accompanying extraordinary taxes, that will be their real "inheritance" to look forward to. Again, largely because of the boomers' self-willed political passivity and choice of a private, retiring life being "left alone" to putter about in their yards or home entertainment center.

Whatever. It's not going to be pretty, and if you think American politics has a bitter and acrimonious partisanship now, fasten your seat belt and strap on your helmet, y'all.

The debt is an extraordinary thing to get one's mind around, but it's real nevertheless, and will have to be repaid, eventually, with interest. And the only way it will be paid is by taxes and/or cuts in services that people take absolutely for granted every day. The people who *own* the debt, in the form of bonds or what have you, will be expecting it to be paid back and it will be, because we all know the one law in the universe that no one can change is: Everyone has, sooner or later, to pay The Man. No escaping that one.

Originally posted by Monte Smith

What was the national debt like in the late Reagan/Bush and Clinton years and how does it compare to the debt levels now? What did the supercharged US economy of the info-tech bubble do to that debt? I know we grew out of our deficit spending for a few years at the apex of the boom, but what about the debt?

The national debt currently stands at about 64% of GDP. Under Reagan, the share of national debt in GDP soared from 33% to 50%, and continued to mushroom under Bush Sr., reaching 62% by 1992. It peaked at 67% in 1995, but the strong GDP growth of the late 1990s subsequently reduced its level to 58% at the time that Bush took office.

The current worry is not so much the absolute level of the debt, but the dynamics and future prospects. Given the combination of tax cuts and spending plans of the federal government, many are projecting an increase in government debt of over $3.5 trillion by 2011. If the economy grows on average by 3% during that period, we would be talking about an 80% debt/GDP ratio.

Most probably, things would never get that far before the shit hit the fan. Once interest rates start to rise, the accumulation of debt will pick up speed. As the spiral moves on, the huge amount of "safely invested" foreign money that supports high consumption levels in the US will start to move to other parts of the world. We will end up with painful alternatives: much higher taxes, deep further cuts in public education and social programs, and/or inflation rates much higher than wage increases.

Bottom line: We will have to pay for what we are spending on "terror" one way or another. If we enjoy our tax breaks today, we would be best advised to save some of the windfall.

[Gary Sisco]

John -- They are only spending a fraction on terror. They're mainly just treating the entire economy like it's one big happy white elephant sale for the capitalist class. Everything must go! Come on down!

Their hurry (indeed, near franticness) to make sure their kind gets the largest slice possible of the pie (even though they own nearly all of it to begin with and no one was threatening to take any of it away) indicates to me that they don't themselves expect to rule for another four years. Or if they do, they're not willing to wager.

[Gary Sisco]

And today it's:

U.S. NATIONAL DEBT CLOCK
The Outstanding Public Debt as of 03 Nov 2003 at 02:30:34 PM GMT is:

6,859,205,904,531.08


The estimated population of the United States is 292,425,839
so each citizen's share of this debt is $23,456.22.

Note that that's each citizen, not each household. How many people are in your household? Do the math, counting kids and elderly.

[Gary Sisco]

Oh, yeah, the debt's still rising, whether we talk about it as citizens and make it a political issue or not:

U.S. NATIONAL DEBT CLOCK
The Outstanding Public Debt as of 15 Nov 2003 at 02:33:30 PM GMT is:

$6,880,319,297,927.08


The estimated population of the United States is 292,526,659
so each citizen's share of this debt is $23,520.32.

The National Debt has continued to increase an average of
$1.59 billion per day since September 30, 2002!

So, in addition to the mortgage (our only other debt), Bronwyn and I now hold an additional $47,040.64 (and climbing, daily) debt to the 1% that owns everything, including the debt and its interest. Great. Thanks a lot, motherfuckers. And the thing that really makes it fun is that, despite all of the taxes we pay, they're not paying it down with any of it, but just taking it and spending it, madly, while the debt continues to mount up.

The magic of compounding interest!

[Gary Sisco]

U.S. NATIONAL DEBT CLOCK
The Outstanding Public Debt as of 01 Dec 2003 at 01:46:55 PM GMT is:

$6,946,904,725,578.70

The estimated population of the United States is 292,660,791
so each citizen's share of this debt is $23,737.05.

The National Debt has continued to increase an average of
$2.64 billion per day since September 30, 2003!

[mke]

Originally posted by Gary Sisco
[on november 1st]
The National Debt has continued to increase an average of
$1.58 billion per day since September 30, 2002!

[on december 1st]
The National Debt has continued to increase an average of
$2.64 billion per day since September 30, 2003!

?

[Brian Olewnick]

You know, I'd always seen this figure here and there (including on display near Times Square) and, of course, was impressed by the size. But when you see it expressed per individual at something less than $24,000, well, I hate to say it but if for the sake of argument we say that this debt was incurred building and producing "good" things (infrastructure, etc.), that strikes me as a pretty reasonable amount. Now, we'll argue about the virtues of this or that expenditure but if I'm paying this off in the form of taxes at $1,000 or so a year, that seems not to be so bad for the services provided. What am I missing? (Aside from the inequity in ease of such payment depending on one's income level).

[mke]

Also, the US population has increased by nearly 260,000 in a month!

[Uli]

Originally posted by mke
?

If that's how it has grown in one month it starts to scare me too. My personal debt share also seem to have grown about 300 in one month.

To appreciate my debt share it would be interesting to know what percentage of the total population has that much in assets and what percentage that individual debt is of individual assets.

[Gary Sisco]

Brian -- As usual, your argument is based on an "if" but what is, is. We know what they're spending it on and what they're not, as the evidence is in front of our eyes. Noticed any grand social investments, lately? Hell, that figure includes much of the six trillion or so we've been forced to grant the Pentagon over the past 20-odd years (never mind the "black budgets" which don't show on any printout), and, yet, apparently, it wasn't enough to create a military that could actually fight a war, since every time they're called on to fight, they all of a sudden "require" multiple hundreds of billions of dollars on top of the hundreds of billions of dollars they were already going to get that year, anyway. So, I have to ask, what exactly would it cost to have a combat-ready American military, already. For chrissake, we're already talking more money than can even be imagined, really. My calculator doesn't even have that much room for digits.

I think it's safe to say that we've already seen what they're going to do with the money (I mean, aside from collecting the interest from the rest of us, as the famous 1% does *own* the debt, after all). Otherwise, I'd have to go on faith and optimism, alone, and both are irrational ways of viewing the runnings in DC, whatever party or man or woman is in charge.

By the way, the figure isn't per household, it's per every individual, man, woman, child, elderly, sick, etc., in the US of A, so each household can multiply that figure by x number of people in the household. It might not sound like a lot to you, but that share of the debt alone is more than probably 75% of Vermonters each gross in a year's worth of wages. Plus, it has to be viewed in relation to the staggering amount of consumer debt that's out there, which is truly mindboggling.

Well, as I always say, sooner or later, the man gets paid, one way or another. In this case, it will be through both enormous cuts in services, especially for the elderly and handicapped (which includes all of us, if we live long enough), and enormous tax increases for those of us who aren't allowed "deductions," and "breaks," and etc.

Also, I get this info from the clock at your comrades' Libmansworld.com, a libertarian website.

MKE -- The magic of compounding interest, dude. No state in all of human history has borrowed and spent money at the rate and in the amounts that the Bushists have been. It's completely unprecedented. The tax-everyone-else-borrow-madly-and-spend-uncontrollably Repubs have been adding to the debt at a nearly a hysterical rate, and of course, the interest just keeps mounting along with the principal, second by second. Run your credit card up a few tens of thousands more than you can afford to pay back and watch your debt mount. You'll be amazed. That's why I never put anything on plastic if I don't already have the bread in my checkbook to cover the purchase. For me, it's plastic money, never to be used as actual credit for which I'm to be charged interest or "late fees" or any of that crap.

My sister's idiotic ex-husband used to just put everything on plastic -- groceries, beer, whatever, and then just pay the monthly minimum charge. Til my sister finally realized that they owed the credit card company eight large and counting, the same year she decided to bail on him. But the debt belongs to both of them and who knows how long it'll take to pay off.

And every day almost there's an article in the paper somewhere about the mad use of government credit cards for personal purchases or "unaccountable" purchases. Indeed, they don't even know with any great accuracy how much they're really spending and on what and who's doing the spending. That they admit (repeatedly, for years, without any change in practice).

[Brian Olewnick]

Gary, as I said, I'm sure there would be great disagreements on the appropriateness of what makes up that figure and I'd to a large extent agree with you on the military side of things. I'm just saying that were I to be presented with this $24K figure, knowing nothing else, and told this was my share of the "mortgage" on government services (even if I'd prefer that those services be vastly reduced, wastage corrected, etc.), I'd think, "Hmmmm....that's lower than I would've thought." Now if you adjust for working individuals and the figure jumps to $50-100K or something, it's correspondingly more of an issue.

[walto]

...or if you have two non-income earning children...

[mke]

Originally posted by walto
...or if you have two non-income earning children...

Damn those child labour laws!

[walto]

Oh, they're not enforced anymore under the Repubs, Mwanji. It's just that my girls won't work!

[Tom Storer]

Brian, I'm very ignorant about these things, but I would think that in theory, federal income taxes are meant to pay for the year's federal spending, not the year's spending plus a huge debt. It's sort of like imagining a bank account with a ballooning overdraft. You're getting your paychecks, and using them to pay your living expenses, but meanwhile your overdraft gets bigger and bigger. That's fine until the bank starts to bounce your checks, at which point you have to become drastically more frugal and stop buying CDs. !!

[Brian Olewnick]

Tom, I'm ignorant also (as usual!), but I assume some portion of one's federal taxes goes toward paying off the interest on the national debt. Maybe someone who knows more will confirm or deny.

There's also the question of how high the debt is as a percentage of the GNP, which would seem to be a more accurate measure than actual dollars. I have no idea what that ratio is currently.

Don't get me wrong, the lower the debt the better as far as I'm concerned and I'm confident that much of consists of spending I'd strongly disagree with and tons of wastage. It just that, when expressed in per person debt, it was smaller than I would've guessed.