I assume they chose $20,000,000 just to make the numbers more useable. Based on a $100,000 "income" it is easy to see the percentage of debt and spending. If the "income" was $3,000,000,000,000 they would probably have divided by $30,000,000.
That's right, it is, especially today, with Argentina still trying to pull herself up from her morass. And a collapse of the US economy would have incalcuably more impact worldwide than Argentina's did. Even more reason not to destroy the US economy, don't you think? Something else to think about... when India and China have economies as developed as our economy is today, something we may see in 20 years, do you think the collapse of our economy would have the same impact then, as it would today, internationally? Just a thought. I hope our economy has developed even further, so we maintain an economic "edge," but that isn't carved in stone. Keep D&D Civil.
Sure, that's why there is vested interest for China/Japan to continue to finance us and not let US to default on their bonds. We can argue whether Bush's economic plan is good or bad, but personally I don't think any sitting president has that much impact on the overall health of the economy, especialy during his term. So I don't think we are "destroying" the US econcomy, a lot of things would have happened regardless who is in the white house.
