Gee, Alaska and South Dakota are WAY down there on the list, yet the U.S. derives a huge economic benefit from their natural resources. I know that Utah would LOVE to follow in South Dakotas footsteps. Hmmm, perhaps this can't be explained with a simple graph...
It's basically one of my favorite hypocrisies of the hard right.
it must less a hypocrisy as it is a paradox. Because every "government is the solution," person who tell themselves that their government takes care of people, advocates for a higher/worse progressive tax system, and then sees how the wealth is actually distributed takes offense and then calls republicans hypocrites and get pissed off because they don't like the way the money acutally gets funneled. but at the same time continue to put democratic representatives in power who continue to vote for farm aids and alike that only make it worse people they are stupid stupid to understand that states with higher wealth (Blue) will be paying more into the system and giving to states with lower wealth (Red).
At the same time I'm willing to consider that republican voters who advocate smaller gov't and less welfare/subsidies either:
want to reduce federal spending only if it means cutting other people’s handouts
might be convinced that only liberal urban jurisdictions get large subsidies for entitlements, welfare, and industry bailouts, while failing to understand how much their own states benefit from agricultural and welfare spending
mistakenly equate life in a low-density environment with self-sufficiency
tell themselves that big government is mostly a problem in blue states
cliffs:Officer pulled over a car because a license plate check claimed its driver had three unpaid parking tickets.
In the course of the stop passenger was caught with a small amount of crack cocaine.
In Ohio, photo tickets and parking tickets have been made civil violations to minimize due process protections for ticket recipients, streamlining the collections for municipalities.
Durring appeals Judge Mary E. Donovan wrote for the appellate court. "He did not observe a traffic violation or testify that he possessed a reasonable articulable suspicion of criminal activity when he stopped the car."
I am leaving a house party when a fight breaks out and a random 250lb guy hits me in the face. I did not hit back. About 6 cop cars responded to the scene of the fight which I was not involved in. The man that hit me ran away once the cops arrived. Keep in mind that I was just an innocent bystander watching the fight from about 10 feet away. The officer was hesitant to take a police report probably because he was too lazy to file all the paper work. I think he used the breathalyzer as a scare tactic to get me to not file a report. He threatens to cite me for public intoxication and then tells me that I blew double the legal limit on the breathalyzer then proceeds to put his breathalyzer away. I only had two beers at this point so I request that he shows me the reading on the breathalyzer. He is not able to pull up the reading so I call BS and tell him to redo the test. He claims double the legal limit on the second try and I read the screen to see a .016. I tell him that .08 is the legal limit and .16 would be double that not .016. Officer obviously does not know his basic arithmetic! He then continues with questions about the man that hit me during the fight. After all is said and done he gives me the option of letting me go if I decide not to file a police report. Seems to me like the lazy officer scared me into not filing a police report with threats of citing me for public intoxication when I was clearly below the limit. For the record this is a wonderful officer from the LAPD.
This is not the first time I've been a victim of battery. They always try to convince you not to file a police report by pointing out all the negatives.