If my point is ridiculous.... consider that you think a company can eat, sleep, or go to the bathroom. A company is not a human, animal, fish or a plant.... it has human needs or requirements....

But, regardless of that. Let us talk about government subsidies (although has nothing to do with your initial thread). And tell me, which ones would you eliminate.

Farm Subsidies....America's food supply must be protected from droughts, tornadoes, and recessions. In fact, agricultural subsidies were originally created to help farmers ravaged by the Dust Bowl and the Great Depression of 1929. This price support system lasted until the 1990s. The federal government guaranteed farmers a high enough price to remain profitable. Most subsidies go to farmers of grains, such as corn, wheat, and rice. It is because grains provide 80 percent of the world's caloric needs.

Oil Subsidies..... ended by obama.

Ethanol Subsidies.... ended by obama

Export Subsidies, WTO bans export subsidies. But it allows two U.S. federal government export subsidy programs. They help U.S. farmers compete with other countries' subsidized exports. The U.S. Department of Agriculture promotes:

The Export Credit Guarantee Program, which finances U.S. farm exports. The USDA guarantees the buyers' credit when they can't get credit approval locally.
The Dairy Export Incentive Program, which pays cash subsidies to dairy exporters. It helps them meet the subsidized prices of foreign dairy producers.

There are/were others like obama's cash for clunkers, obamacare, and housing subsidies.
And then you may not be talking about subsidies but rather tax insensitivities provided by states to encourage companies from moving to more tax friendly countries or states. If that is the case.... consider how much these companies give back to the community and how many people they employ.

I ask that you reconsider your view. An opinion may be based on facts as the person knows them..... and many of the "lies" are not necessarily lies, states and the federal officials do not regulate everything. Good examples the food bought or the cars driven. There are also loopholes that some people take advantage.... no lifetime ineligibility for those who have been on the program for maximum time limits. Illegals, even if they are not personally receiving aid still benefit from aid given to household members; who keeps track of what they eat in a community or household refrigerator? Who tracks if they have electricity in the rooms paid for by the government, or the car bought under government assistance? What I consider "living big" is not necessarily what you would consider "living big." If I flew to Hawaii every Christmas, I would say that is living big.... but, as you know there are government officials who have come to expect the taxpayer to foot the bill. For some, living big means that once a month they can go to a good restaurant or own a home at the lake. So, it is a matter of perspectives. And finally, Huff Post clearly state that their piece came from "Arloc Sherman, a researcher with the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal-leaning think tank in Washington, D.C., that advocates for antipoverty programs, said the data outlines two broad categories of people who use public benefits." Hardly unbiased.

The point I responded to was: "Blue States are great for welfare queens."
Not which states (blue or red) have the most people on welfare. Here are the top for maximum spending on welfare:
1. New York

Welfare spending per capita: $3,305

Total public welfare expenditures: $19.85 billion

Fact: New York has the fifth-highest cost of living in the country.

2. Alaska

Welfare spending per capita: $3,020

Total public welfare expenditures: $2.23 billion

Fact: Alaska is one of the least populous states, and its total public welfare spending is actually the sixth-lowest of all the states – even though its spending per capita is ranked No. 2.

3. Massachusetts

Welfare spending per capita: $2,911

Total public welfare expenditures: $19.97 billion

Fact: The percentage of Massachusetts households that lived in poverty during 2016-17 is 10.1 percent. Massachusetts is also the fourth-most expensive state to live in.

4. Vermont

Welfare spending per capita: $2,842

Total public welfare expenditures: $1.77 billion

Fact: Although Vermont’s welfare spending per capita is high, its total welfare spending is the fifth-lowest of all the states, which is likely due to its low population.

5. Minnesota

Welfare spending per capita: $2,805

Total public welfare expenditures: $15.64 billion

Fact: Minnesota is among the top five states that spend the most on welfare per capita, and it’s among the top 15 with the highest total public welfare expenditures.

6. New Mexico

Welfare spending per capita: $2,741

Total public welfare expenditures: $5.72 billion

Fact: New Mexico has the third-highest poverty rate in America at 18.2 percent.

7. Delaware

Welfare spending per capita: $2,544

Total public welfare expenditures: $2.45 billion

Fact: Per capita spending in Delaware is among the highest, but the state’s total welfare expenditures are the seventh-lowest of all the states. This is likely because it’s the sixth-least populous state.

8. Maine

Welfare spending per capita: $2,530

Total public welfare expenditures: $3.38 billion

Fact: Maine is one of the states that spends the most on welfare per capita. However, it’s among the top 15 states with the lowest total public welfare expenditures.

9. Oregon

Welfare spending per capita: $2,520

Total public welfare expenditures: $10.44 billion

Fact: Although Oregon spends a lot on welfare compared to other states, it’s not one of the best states for poor Americans, a separate GOBankingRates study found. This is due to an overall high cost of living, high crime rates and a lack of affordable housing.

10. Kentucky

Welfare spending per capita: $2,517

Total public welfare expenditures: $11.21 billion

Fact: The poverty rate in Kentucky is 14.8 percent – tied for the seventh-highest of all the states – which could account for its high welfare spending per capita.

And figure this one out.... "34% Of the nation’s welfare recipients live in California but only 12% of the U.S. citizens resides here." https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/sdut-welfare-capital-of-the-us-2012jul28-htmlstory.html Good article....

A new report by Cato Institute, which examines the state-by-state value of welfare for a mother of two, said benefits in Hawaii average $49,175 — tops in the nation.

Are these examples red or blue.... I have no idea or do I care. Fact is, there are states that are very generous to those receiving benefits.