I think that, as usual, the truth is somewhere in between. I mean, on the one hand there are lots of people on a financial relief who just plain enjoy the situation and are busy making some extra untaxed cash on top of what the government (=the other people that is) is providing them with. On the other hand, though, there are lots of people who would LOVE to go on doing skilled jobs and are qualified to do it, but are plain stuck with some specific situations: like they don't have the local experience and have poor lying skills to pretend they do. Even though I'm also on the conservative side, and I think the socialism and communism are definitely not the way to go, I must admit the capitalism also has lots of embedded social issues. So, there should be some balance and, I guess, the only way to get close to it would be to allow the competition between the left and the right to make the system fluctuate around some optimal values.

Also, kidkboom, if you allow me to make a comment, there seems to be a noticeable gap in some of the leftist logical deductions you mentioned above. You see, it is definitely humane to share what you have, and it's also socially-proven as right throughout the centuries. However, there are various ways to get there. Do you think a BUREAUCRAT would be a better person to distribute the 'extra wealth' fairly? Do you think you are not capable to make that decision yourself of how much you want to spend and to whom you want to give it? Are you aware that some very rich people find it humane to establish their own relief funds and campaign for it among their circles and in the media? I bet you are, but it seems like a tiny drop in the ocean of what needs to be done, particularly because MOST OF THE MONEY HAD ALREADY BEEN TAKEN BY THAT VERY BUREAUCRAT and spent to whatever that guy seems right. Have you ever seen how much power and influence those officers have? And they use that power to their own satisfaction. They are generally rude, speak their narrow mind with superiority and they know those who are on a relief usually don't have much choice and have to take it all. No wonder the not-so-fortunate people's perception of the government is usually formed based on their own experience with those rude officers. And you can't blame them, but in the end you have a situation with people who don't work anywhere (or work illegally constantly worrying because legally they can't make an extra dollar as they would loose all their benefits) and at the same time they hate the government and (SURPRISE!) everybody who makes more money. So, you don't spit in their change cup, but instead of giving them some change you would open your wallet to a stranger and say: "ok, ask how much the poor people in this street need, take that from my wallet and give it to them." So, after doing that you wonder why instead of the grateful "thank you" all you hear is the shouts of hatred and envy from the alcohol-n-drug impaired people in your neighborhood. Can that situation qualify as what you intended it to be?