>>73
That is your opinion.
This is an argument.
Groups of people, or societies, create administrative organizations to, in part, address common problems within the society. National governments, which are globally omnipresent institutions, are examples of these organizations. It is the responsibility of these organizations (governments) to address these problems, like all, in a manner consistent with the wishes of its members, and in the most efficient manner possible.
Poverty is a public nuisance, and an enormous drain on resources, manifesting itself in higher rates of crime and disease. Cost effectiveness analyses have proven, by overwhelming evidence, that these decidedly negative effects can be mitigated by employing a system of public charity.
If the mitigation of these effects is in accordance with the wishes of its members (citizens), and the most efficient means is the effective administration of a mechanism of public charity, then it is “government’s responsibility to give out money to those that need it”, to borrow your imprecise language.
See the difference there? Of the many arguments for public assistance, this one shares capitalism's interest in "the bottom line". It's just cheaper.
It remains the "the responsibility of the individuals themselves to escape poverty", but finding productive work is incalculably easier when you have showered, eaten, and have an address.
If they can't, then that's just the price we pay for a capitalistic democracy.
The price we pay for a capitalistic democracy is hard work, and "eternal vigilance".
A permanent economic underclass institutionalized through neglect is the price we pay for arrogance, stupidity, and greed.