>> is no[t] bolstering one’s own case.
I’m not making my own case! I’m agreeing with the author’s (common sense) case. What’s wrong with that exactly?
Or are you prepared to argue that unsustainable debt is actually sustainable? THAT ought to be good...
>> I’ve brought four links to the ball-game with countervailing stats.
Yes, and not particularly compelling ones. So?
>> Google is your friend
Proofreading is your friend. Lackadaisical unconcern for your blather is your enemy.
Yes, in my typing, I left off a t—mea culpa. Very good of you to note that.
There is a big leap from “unsustainable debt” (any debt that is increasing is arguably unsustainable, which places Chicago into a category with tens of thousands of other organizations) to “NEXT.”
The author is not arguing that Chicago has an unsustainable debt, the author is arguing that Chicago is NEXT.
If you don’t think that the ratio of debt to tax base is relevant, that is your prerogative, but I happen to think that it is of some concern—and so does the author of the article, at least implicitly, as he lets NY off the hook, even though its per capita general obligation debt is worse than NY’s (in the last sentence of the article as posted)—he doesn’t say why, but the very logical reason is because NY has an even higher tax base to draw off of.