Could you give some numbers to explain why this is only as bad as 1992. Assuming what debt? And what interest rate?

i agree; what does 1992 have to do with today:
"There is no evidence presented in this article"

You probably want to look at the debt payments as a proportion of federal revenue, gdp or some other such measure.

The estimate that the interest burden will be manageable depends on

1)Congress letting the Bush tax cuts expire.

2)An employment recovery in the next few years.

If you believe both will happen, then the interest burden will be manageable.

*It should be noted that Mr Andrews has personal trouble with his mortgage when you consider his phrase: " a payment shock similar to those that sent legions of overstretched homeowners into default on their mortgages."

See
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/17/magazine/17foreclosure-t.html

However, there was no payment shock in his case; just buying a house in Silver Spring that he could not afford while paying alimony to his previous wife, and a a current wife with credit card trouble and a previous bankruptcy.

"The charges included almost $350 for groceries, $700 in clothes from J. Crew, $179 at GapKids and $700 for airplane tickets for two of Patty’s children to visit their father in Los Angeles. Our balance climbed from $14,118 to $17,135, and in January 2006 we maxed out at our $19,000 credit limit. And there were other expenses on other cards: $1,200 in dental work for Patty’s son Ben; $1,600 to rent a beach house the previous year for us and all the children."

The funny thing is Krugman's column inside is a warning against precisely this stupidity on the front page.

Interesting how quickly Public Radio picked up the story and ran with it. Our local station had an hour on the article. I did not have the opportunity to listen to all but about two minutes. Here is a link:

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2009/11/23/midmorning1/

Regarding the 1992 comment...data for 1992 indicate that the interest payment on the national debt was $292 billion dollars. Adjusting for inflation, that would equal $450 billion dollars in 2008/2009 dollars. Currently,our interest payment on the debt is $451 billion (for 2008). So in reality we are paying almost exactly the same amount (adjusted for inflation) as we did in 1992. I think that was what he was getting at..

Taxes.

Have 30 years of the insanity known as neo-liberal economics actually achieved their goal? Can we not even think of, much less mention the words 'raise taxes' without fearing a lightning bolt smashing us (more) senseless?

Has it become inconceivable that policy makers, looking at an America that would have been unrecognizable just 40 years ago, an America where 50% of all children in America will be fed using food stamps cannot consider balancing a budget by raising taxes? Where 1% of the nation owns more than the bottom 90% creating a asset and income inequality not seen for nearly a century and not consider raising taxes?

The issue raised by the NYT is not only the analytical red-herring appropriately pointed out by Dean, but is a problem of our own creation as we apparently remain so dopey and dazed by the 'low taxes create prosperity' meme pedaled by the greediest, richest and most shameless among us that we cannot solve the problem by .... gasp.... raising taxes on the wealthiest among us.