There is no doubt that it skews the numbers, but what im asking is "does it balance it?" Also how do we explain the states with lower foreclosure numbners also getting more money? BTW something that may come as a surprise since i didnt want any of that money spent to begin with: I honestly think that once it was a foregone conclusion that money was going out the door, the governors of their respective states should have fought like a fucking dog for it. Its not like the federal government is now going to turn around and say "well your taxes are going to be lower, since you spent less of our wasteful stimulus." I understand the symbolism of saying "we arent taking any of the money" but the fact is that once it was a foregone conclusion that "X" amount of dollars were going to be spent on stimulus then it meant that everyone in America was on the hook for it, and it didnt matter anymore if you didnt take any of it. Its not like the states who turned the stimulus money down are going to get any special considerations when taxes go up cause we cant afford it. This is half the reason why we have gotten to where we are, with 15 trillion of debt, you can make a stand and be noble, and say "im not taking any of that money" but where does that leave the citizens of your state at the end of the day? Further in debt federally with no share in the money that is being spent anyways while everyone else enriches themselves off of it. The money is going to be spent anyways, so either you can fight for your piece of the pie, or you can make a stand and let everyone else split your piece of the pie. This is precisely the reason why we are being overrun with debt, so long as the majority of states are willing to take the money, then the ones who dont take the money are the suckers who are getting screwed.... since they are on the hook for it anyways....