[maskedmelon]

The right tend to side with the wealthy either out of admiration or pride. The poor on the right align themselves with the wealthy so that they too may be a part of the winning team. They can speak proudly of what "they" collectively have done. The better to do on the right look back on hardship throughout their lives and are proud of where they have persevered when they might have thought it not possible. They view their good fortune as a direct result of their perseverance and argue that anyone else who realizes poorer results just isn't trying hard enough.

The left side with the poor either out of a sense of superiority or guilt. The poor and average on the left side with the poor because it demonstrates their superiority of their station. They are able to mitigate a nagging sense of inferiority by replacing it with one of superiority in helping others who are less fortunate. The more well to do on the left, align themselves with the poor because they feel poorly about the decisions they've made and wish to give back in some small one as atonement for those they've wronged in their climb to the top. One does not climb to the top without stepping on others.

The problem is, society needs neither the poor nor the wealthy and one is no more worthy of subsidy than the other. Both are equally detrimental to man's advancement. The poor lack whatever it is that is needed to meaningfully contribute to society whether it is due to their own action/inaction, the cruelty of nature, that of their god, or the almighty FSM. Success on the other hand is a factor of one attribute that is of limited value to society and most often only beneficial to the individual: the ability to influence others. It is unrelated to intellect, talent or genetic fitness. It is a mechanism by which inferior conditions may thrive at the expense of others.

The greatest happiness may only be purchased with the everlasting guilt of responsible conduct.