To show how the political debate is today, it would be good to look at what leading economists noted for pro-capitalism and free markets said. Take a look at Milton Friedman and F.A Hayek.
Milton Friendman:
Milton was no fan of big government programs at all. He also believed the government was responsible for most of the reasons for people staying on poverty, and firmly believed in the free market as an engine for solving problems. You can see this here in this clip, where he says people have resposibilities, not government: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zD64byAIto8
And yet, in light of this, he proposed a negative income tax to help the poor, which ended up paying people money during tax season they didn't pay into the system, as a means of providing a minimum income so they could survive: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax
F.A Hayek:
Hayek road the book "Road to Serfdom", and was very anti-socialist and defender of free-market capitalism. You can see his work "Road to Serfdom" spelled out here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkz9AQhQFNY
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Hayek
He, however, proposed and advocated for a minimum income for every citizen in a country:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income_guarantee
Interesting today, that redistribution of wealth, which was what the above HEAVILY argued against, is blurred with redistribution of income (money derived from owning wealth) in the debate, and lumped together, and argued that any form of giving help to the poor from the government, in the form of cash layouts is a road to socialism. But that is what it is today. Can the two be viewed separately? I would say yes to that. Maybe others can't.
