Then there are the Arts bludgers.

If ticket sales cannot cover the costs of a production then why should the taxpayer?

Then there are the Corporate bludgers

If profits or commercial loans cannot cover their costs then why should the taxpayer?

and the Club bludgers who enjoy subsidized meals and drinks at the expense of the unfortunates who are addicted to, or stupid enough to, play the poker machines.

Foxy,

Perhaps if you bothered to read the link you posted, you would recognise that the ABC either deliberately or through error did not address the issue raised either by Andrews or myself.

The first error was to use only the treasury's narrow definition of "welfare" as a separate line item to health care.

The dictionary definition of state welfare is:
statutory procedure or social effort designed to promote the basic physical and material well-being of people in need. - which clearly includes medicare, hospitals, and the PBS.

As your article indicated the vast majority of additional expenditure did not come from pension pay outs, but from the vast increase in health costs for the elderly.

The second major error was to use the projections from 2010 which assumes that current legislation is not changing, and does not include:
- The vast new benefits doled out by Juliar to compensate for the carbon tax lie,
- The vast increase in disability expenditure through the NDIS.

So the IMF and Andrews were correct, and the ABC was wrong again.

Yep, the HUGE success of the pokies is 100% proof of the utter stupidity of the Australian public. Any mathematician can tell you it's 100% *IMPOSSIBLE* to make an overall profit from playing the pokies. The *ONLY* people to come out ahead are the club and casino operators and the pokie manufacturers.