Some people seem to have the simplistic though process, that if you're not giving increasing amount of money/welfare to poor people you're increasing poverty.
The problem is far far deeper than that, and weaning people off of welfare will be painful, but will be a worthy goal, not for economic reasoning, but entirely for improving the quality of life that people have and aspirations they pass on to their kids (the real victims of welfare dependency).
People who need welfare should get it, those that can work should, it's the only path out of poverty, "feed a man a fish ..." and all that.
A paid in vs paid out system like France would be beneficial (pun not intended), it would break the generational dependency.
This seems to be the whole left vs right methodology, left looks to the short term fix for today, using emotive language like compassionate, while the right looks at fixing the underlying long term problem and comparatively look like the bad guys.
This is sullied by the idea that the right are rich folks bullying the poor, and the left are the paragon of virtue that is on the side of the poor.
I see it is as tough father vs. the one who wants to be your mate (both love you equally but have different methods of showing it), in the long run the former will see you right, even if you need to do the hard things you would rather not.
Anyway that's my personal treatise on a pure left vs. right (not that such a thing really exists as both are polluted with all sorts of other vested interest groups).