Spin is not only a matter of factual misstatement and omission. In fact, I'd use a stronger term for those ("lying", for instance). The spin is in the use of sl

Spin is not only a matter of factual misstatement and omission. In fact, I'd use a stronger term for those ("lying", for instance). The spin is in the use of slanted terms at every opportunity. Hard-earned tax dollars. Highest level in American history. Staggering budget deficit. Dumped in the laps of our children. No free lunch. System risks collapsing. Doubling all income tax rates. Unemployment costs have surged. Numerous strings attached. Are taxpayers getting their money's worth? Even if there is not a single misstatement of fact, and not a single consequential omission, even if every single one of those phrases is in itself an entirely defensible description, that's a whole lot of spin. And all that spin makes the article look much less useful to me, because -- not being an expert on US taxation or federal finances -- I don't know whether there are in fact any misstatements or omissions that are relevant, and the spin suggests that the author may be more interested in promoting a particular viewpoint than in giving as accurate an account as possible. (So: thank goodness for the spin; it saves me from being taken in from something that looks even-handed and factual when it isn't...) It's certainly not hard to think of some things that might be important omissions. For instance, it seems like there's a considerable difference between a one-off huge spend and a general policy of spending a huge amount; the US government has (reasonably enough, prima facie) been doing a lot of one-off spending in the hope of stimulating its troubled economy; so are those big increases "since 2008" and "in the last decade" systematic increases in government spending, or are they part of a short-term attempt to stop the economy collapsing? Oh, and are they inflation-adjusted? One other comparison in the article is, but curiously the author doesn't say about these conveniently scary figures. As for your final question: That figure of $31k is for spending, not taxation; the amount collected in tax is allegedly $18k per person. So, the question is more like: Would the average person say "I'm willing to give 45% of my income to the federal government, so long as I get back 70% more than I put in"? I suspect the average person probably would, although of course that might just be because they wouldn't appreciate that the difference is going to come back to bite them or their children in the ass. (Yes, I appreciate that most of that $31k/person doesn't reach them in the form of cash: some of it is in public education, infrastructure, defence spending, etc. And yes, I appreciate that it doesn't reach or benefit all people equally; but then the $18k isn't taken from all people equally, either. But a discussion that takes all that stuff into account isn't going to begin with talk like "give 80% of my income to the federal government".)