I instinctively lean left on economics because I can't stand the suffering of the poor. Despite this, I've learned enough about economics to realize that socialism is not, in the long term, an effective system, and that, all other things being equal, government intervention in the economy usually hurts it. Therefore, trickle-down economics works for most people- those who can find steady employment.
But what about the unemployed? They benefit only if the employed give money to them, and great suffering and tragically shortened lives are the result of chronic unemployment. So yes, unfettered capitalism does boost the overall economy and leave more money that can potentially be given to the poor. I emphasize the word potentially. If a wealthy person has $1 million dollars now and would have $2 million in a laissez-faire society, that is $1 million more dollars they could give to the poor- but they could also hoard the wealth. Removing safety nets from society could do one of two things: It could lead to the replacement of a tangled bureaucracy with more efficient private charity or it could make society so obsessed with obtaining and holding on to wealth in this new economic jungle that the rich would not give any more to the poor than they did before despite overall economic growth. This is uncertain; poverty and its consequences are all too certain.
Moreover, the poor are not, as a rule, lazy. Almost no one would be lazy and choose the miseries of poverty, and I can say with certainty that most of the poor people I've met would give anything to be able to work. All of them are, in one way or another, through genetics, bad luck or a combination of the two, disabled in some way. Sometimes their disabilities are subtle and sometimes they are obvious, but the constantly unemployed are invariably disabled. It should also be noted that they are no less moral than any other economic class. I've met mean, immoral poor people and I've met kind, virtuous ones. In this respect they are the same as every other class. So it cannot, as a general rule, be stated that they have earned their lot in life, and I, for one, despite my sometimes bitter temper, would not wish the suffering I have seen on anyone- and I do mean anyone.
The pith of the matter is this: I have neither met nor heard of anyone who had no ability for which someone would not pay, yet there are risks involved in hiring certain people (such as the mentally ill) that employers seem unwilling to take. Why is this and can it be fixed? Until and unless chronic unemployment is made so scarce that the current level of private charity would easily deal with it, I must consider the welfare state the only acceptable system. I appreciate all replies. Thank you very much.

__________________
"Some people complain about the system. The system is not good, so they can't do anything. It's an excuse. Freedom is in your heart." (Jin Xing)