I posted the following quote from Milton Friedman’s 1951 essay “Neo-liberalism and Its Prospects” in response to one of your critics, but it might go unnoticed there.

Finally, the government would have the function of relieving misery and distress. Our humanitarian sentiments demand that some provision should be made for those who “draw blanks in the lottery of life”. Our world has become too complicated and intertwined, and we have become too sensitive, to leave this function entirely to private charity or local responsibility.

Ronald Reagan, one of the first politicians to use welfare as a wedge issue, claimed to base his economic policy on the laissez-faire capitalist ideas of Milton Friedman. But while Friedman opposed government intervention in the marketplace (e.g. to set prices or wages), he understood the nature of poverty as you have outlined it, and the proper response of government. I believe the majority of welfare opponents (perhaps those criticizing your ideas in the comments section) see capitalism as a zero-sum game in which the poor are stealing the lunch money of the rich whenever they rely on government subsidies. These vulture capitalists use the notion that welfare recipients are lazy and could obtain economic self-sufficiency if only they’d get off their easy chairs. If that were the case, then we should not only eliminate government subsidies to the poor, but we should also outlaw support from private charities as well. It’s the logical consequence of economic Darwinism.