Please ignore the fact that leftists are so stupid that they cannot spell or produce a logical argument. They are lefties, that MEANS they are stupid.
What constitutes a "Red" state? To lefties, it means a state which voted for the Republican in the presidential election. What they fail to understand is that poverty is caused a little closer to home.
What really constitutes a "red" state? I would say that it was one that the majority of the state house is Republican. Let's see which states fit MY criteria that makes more sense.
States with budgets controlled by Republicans are Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming.
Which are BLUE? Or more to point, run by the Party of Perpetual Moronity?
Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.
The state houses are split in nine states, Alaska, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Montana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Virginia.
But, don't take my word for it.
Now, tell me again which states receive more welfare, the Red or the Blue ones?
Oh, NOW, shut the fuck up, idiot.
Please take the time to comment.
6 comments:
Subtle to a fault. Paul's the best
If you really want to argue the point of welfare programs and usage, shouldn't average income of the state be involved? How about state residency numbers? How about percentage of state welfare programs versus federal programs?
Should I continue?
Yeah, LA almost always votes Republican in Pres. elections, but never has had Republican lawmakers.
Odd. We've got 5 Republican congressmen, to one dim, a Republican goober, and 1 Senator. But, at the local level (where State money is thrown away), dims have always been in charge.
Simple math, to anyone but a libtard: the more money throwd at a perceived 'poverty' problem, the more dependency, generated, the more bureaucracy created, the more cost involved, the more money needed to throw at a problem that grows in proportion to the money throwd. Nothing solved, increased dependency, and more morons per square dollar.
And almost without exception, this is the simple math wherever libtards are in charge.
Paul 100, Morons 0.
I would feel a little better if you had said where the headline came from. The real problem as I see it is that the Supreme Court is not declaring it unconstitutional as the feds erode our rights with money. Why does the Federal Government get to withhold federal Highway fuel tax rebates to make the States pass a helmet and primary Seat belt law?
How can nebraska get more MEDICAIDE money if their senator votes for the Health care Bill. If it doesn't pass the Dennis's stupid rule it should be stamped illegal by the Supreme Court. MUD
(That rule is that anything that a simple old man from Kansas calls stupid has to be filled with pork and therefore illegal)
MUD, do you mean my blog post title or the image headline? The image is from a dude that was Tweeting about this topic. My blog post title sprang fully formed my my melon.
As someone that is adamantly opposed to seat belt or helmet laws, even though I use them both, I am in total agreement. The federal government handing down EDICTS stating that they will not give tax money back unless a state falls in line, seems somewhat FASCIST.
And try this one, Monica Conyers, John Conyers' wife, is headed to jail for three years for extortion. He has never been investigated for the same crime, PLUS! he is chairman of the committee that oversees the prisons. WOW!
Post a Comment