Yeah I really hate how people attack us for not being compassionate, when in fact we're more compassionate than them.

Is it more compassionate to feed a man a fish every day, making him dependent on you, or is it more compassionate to teach him to fish and let him be independent?

In a perfect libertarian economy, there wouldn't BE poor people. In our economy, people have obstacles to start their own businesses, and the poor are hit harder with taxes. (sales taxes, real estate via rent, all hit the poor harder.)

In our economy, welfare is a subsidy to the poor. If you subsidize something, it increases. For all the welfare our country has paid, it's not decreased the amount of poor people at all.

Ask yourself what are the motivations of those who are statists and love government?!

State-socialists love poor people and wish that there were a lot more of them.

State-socialist policies act to maintain those who are currently poor in their praiseworthy condition of poverty, and to encourage a greater number of people to adopt this condition as well.

State-socialists consider that the chief virtue of a nation or other polity is that it provides for its people rather than leaving them to provide for themselves. The more people depend on a polity, the more successful and virtuous that polity is. Thus, increasing the ranks of the dependent, and discouraging independence, is a primary goal of state-socialism.

State-socialist education has several functions to promote and encourage poverty and dependence. These include the regimentation of youth and conditioning for obedience, the promotion of linguistic isolation among poorer ethnic groups, and the inculcation of programmed fear of specified targets.

Another state-socialist technique to ensure maintenance of poverty is to ensure that the poor are not tempted to escape poverty through individual enterprise. Stringent regulation of small business and the forceful punishment and closure of unauthorized enterprises in poor communities ensure that the currently-poor do not self-organize their way out of poverty.

It seems to me that statism is much more harmful on the wellbeing of society than putting all powers into the hands of the state to 'take care of everyone'.