Re-read what I wrote. He pulls the 10:1 ratio out of his ass with no supporting arguments for it. The premise of the article is that Dion's proposed spending would cost more than the US bailout. If there's no support for the ratio then the figures are wrong and the premise is bust. Nevermind that a government's budget and the bail out are not exactly the same thing. Of course the bail out is a sexy topic so who cares, right?