When an article has a paragraph like this:

The data flies in the face of received notions about wealth, partisan affiliation, and dependence on the federal government. The five largest recipients of federal largesse in 2002 were all non-Northeast states: New Mexico, North Dakota, Alaska, Mississippi, and West Virginia (four of which went Republican in 2000). The states shortchanged the most were New Jersey, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Nevada, and Massachusetts - four of five of which are in the Northeast, and four of which voted Democratic in 2000. In fact, when you look at the voting behavior of states based on 2000 per capita income - 11 of the 13 wealthiest states voted for Gore while 15 of the poorest 17 states voted for Bush.

You know someone needs to get stabbed with a toy Tonka truck. Slowly, repeatedly, methodically and painfully.

I myself prefer this very cool knife for critical commie stabbing tasks requiring "5 9's" reliability (i.e. .99999 reliable), but my younger readers need to use whatever tool is handy to stop the commie menace.

The monkey poop above has managed to stick itself to a study done by The Tax Foundation
The Tax Foundation seems fairly neutral to me. Well, I guess they are not advocating violent death of money stealing communists, so that makes them raving lunatic monkeys, but aside from that, it seems like they are fairly neutral poopflingers.
The center piece of the study is a map showing "Adjusted Federal Expenditures Per Dollar of Taxes by State" which, in english, means how much money the "federal senators' and representatives' cronies and pet programs get" divided by how much money the "federal government stole from the state". In other words local corruption divided by federal stealing.

But lets put that aside for a moment. The monkey poop says that the wealthiest states have the lowest ratios and vote for democrats (except for texas?), and that this is surprising because only republicans are rich and democrats are poor hardworking folk. Well, I got news for you people - the poor hardworking folk are in rural areas and they vote Red for Republican (hopefully not Red for commies, but you never know) . Yessssss. The poop is melting quite nicely in the hot sun, my precioussssssssss.

The poop also says that poor states vote for Bush, and that this is surprising because republicans are all rich elitists. Sigh.

Lets all remember the truth. We are taking about local corruption divided by federal stealing. Both corruption and stealing SHOULD GO TO ZERO. At that point the ratio swings wildly and becomes meaningless.
Also, The money back to the state is always representative of corruption because the money NEVER gets back to the original taxpayer as cold hard cash.

The conclusion that democrats are somehow more moral and less dependent on the government is just more monkey poop in a forest full of screaming monkeys with diarrhea.

What this really means is that democrats put in place stealing programs - because all they know how to do is steal. When the distribution of stolen goods comes along, those places that DID NOT LET THEMSELVES BE ROBBED get more stolen goods because those places that set up policies for stolen goods distribution must distribute those goods to all states, not just to democratic states.

States like MA and California are unable to resist being robbed by the federal government because they are controlled by democrats who, being democrats, are unable to articulate any reasons against stealing by anyone (otherwise they would look foolish). While some people stand up and refuse to be robbed, almost no one refuses stolen goods. States have different mixes - some have no political power, and are forced to pay high taxes (New Jersey). Others have high political power, and pay low taxes because they are hard places to live (Alaska). Other states resist robbery, but have even lower local corruption (Texas).


Until next time, dear reader,
as always, remember that guns don't kill people, democrats do.

--Proud supporter of trigger locks for all democrats.
-posted by Bad Commie @ 10:02 PM