when the welfare state threatened to ruin them, which direction did they move? and no, they are not 'far more'
Great, but the article is talking about IMF projections, and then goes in about spending on welfare alone, which is Mav's argument.
Ahh, well if you want to bring in the IMF, let's discuss their recent study of the multiplier, and their recommendations to the first world governments re austerity. Anyway, perhaps Mav88 would like to measure government size taking population into account. <img src="http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/9789264075061-en/images/graphics/g04-02.gif">
We can talk about the IMF all you like. I'm not in this debate. I'm just telling you what I think Mav's argument was, and your wikipedia link didn't really refute anything he said. As far as that chart goes, 6 years is a little out of date considering the last 6 years of US spending trajectory. You might want to use something a tad more recent if you're going to stress a point (whatever point that might be). Just a suggestion.
If you took all the income of people over $200,000, it would only yield about $1.89 trillion, enough revenue to cover the 2012 bill for Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. The rich, in short, arenât nearly rich enough to finance Mr. Obamaâs entitlement state ambitionsâeven before his health-care plan kicks in.