From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.advocacy

wrote:

On 31 May 2026, Jon Ball <invalid@noone.com>

posted some

news:2K2TR.9317$h6ib.7792@fx46.iad:

Who wants to

wear dresses for pride month?

Rudy, that's who.

Southern whites are far lazier than niggers. Red
States are welfare states.



MAGA AMERIKA IS A DRAG ON US ALL.

America's Southern Rightists are lazy and
unproductive. Here's proof:

Blue states contribute to the economy while red
states are welfare states.

Rightists die younger than leftists as well.

The GOP’s Welfare States Problem: How Red America
Drains Blue America

by Richard Gosk | Sep 17, 2025 | Economy


California’s economy is larger than the United
Kingdom’s. New York sits at
the center of global finance. Massachusetts,
Washington, Oregon, and other
blue states collectively represent over 60% of
America’s GDP. In short,
the engine that powers the United States economy
is overwhelmingly powered
by blue states.

And yet, the states most dependent on federal
welfare, subsidies, and tax
redistribution are overwhelmingly Republican.
These states drain resources
from the federal government while exerting
disproportionate political
influence over how it operates.

Top Three Takeaways from the Article:

Republican-led states are net takers – relying
heavily on federal dollars
to run their states that come mostly from blue
state taxpayers.

Political representation is skewed – giving
resource-draining red states
disproportionate power over national policy.

Blue states could push back – through interstate
coordination, selective
compliance, or even secession threats, forcing a
reckoning over who truly
sustains America.
Red States as Welfare States

Look at the numbers: states like Mississippi, West
Virginia, Alabama, and
Kentucky consistently receive far more in federal
spending than they
contribute in taxes. Mississippi receives about
$2.13 in federal money for
every $1 it sends to Washington. Meanwhile, states
like California and New
York send billions more to the federal government
than they get back.

This means that the so-called “fiscally
conservative” states are, in
reality, welfare states propped up by the wealth
generated in blue states.
Without blue state subsidies, many red state
governments would collapse
under the weight of their poverty rates,
infrastructure needs, and
healthcare costs.
Political Power Without Economic Weight

Despite their dependency, red states hold outsized
political power. The
Senate grants Wyoming’s 580,000 residents the same
representation as
California’s 39 million. The Electoral College
system compounds this
imbalance, handing disproportionate influence to
rural states that
contribute relatively little to national economic
output.

In practice, this means red states that drain
federal resources wield veto
power over national policy. The states most
reliant on federal welfare
dollars are the ones most aggressively blocking
climate legislation,
healthcare reform, and education funding that the
rest of the country
desperately needs.


What Blue States Could Do

The imbalance raises a provocative question: what
if blue states stopped
playing along?

Blue states already experiment with interstate
compacts, such as climate
agreements formed when Trump pulled the U.S. out
of the Paris Accord. But
the options go much further:

Selective compliance with federal laws, much
like Northern states
resisted fugitive slave laws in the 1850s.

Irish Democracy–style passive resistance,
where millions quietly stop
cooperating with federal overreach.

Economic independence, with state-level
initiatives in healthcare,
immigration policy, and even currency.

If pushed far enough, some argue that blue states
could even explore the
possibility of secession, not as political theater
but as a credible
negotiating tactic. After all, Quebec nearly left
Canada twice, and each
time it forced major concessions.


The Harsh Truth

At the heart of the issue lies an uncomfortable
reality: the red state
vision of America – one of social conservatism,
weak social safety nets,
and corporate dominance – is subsidized by the
very blue states they
attack as “socialist.”

The U.S. has two incompatible futures. One is a
multi-ethnic democracy
with robust public institutions. The other is a
regressive, exclusionary
system kept afloat only by federal redistribution.
The former is paying
for the latter – and sooner or later, blue states
may decide the cost is
too high.

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2