The truth of the matter is that the wealthy receive enormous gov assistance through subsidies. The poor on the other hand get peanuts.
Let's start with the poor and SNAP (food stamps).
The average SNAP recipient receives $133 a month. The average SNAP recipient has a gross income of $744 a MONTH per household. 76% of households have at least one dependent living there. 83% of households receiving SNAP are below the poverty line. The other 17 are at the poverty line or make 130% of the poverty line. And despite what you cons like to believe, food stamps fraud is RARE.
All the sobering facts on food stamps are here.
SNAP (Food Stamps): Facts, Myths and Realities
Now the wealthy. Oh boy.
1) corporations receive $80 billion a year through state and local subsidies.
2) Federal subsidies for corporations cost TAX PAYERS 100 billion a year.
3) The official tax rate for corporations is 35%. However, because of tax breaks, corporations only pay 13% a year in taxes.
4) wealthy hedge fund managers cost tax payers 83 billion a year.
5) subsidies for fast food companies cost tax payers 243 billion a year.
6) deductions for mortgage cost tax payers 70 billion a year. 77% of this funding goes to income earners of 100,000 a year or more.
Top Ten Examples of Welfare for the Rich » CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names
The more facts we learn, the more realize just how much bullshit republicanism really is.
Let me take a crack at this one. First, I must say, you do bring up some good points. As a former liberal, these are the exact type of arguments I would have made.
Here are a few thoughts:
Subsidies: First, this isn't always a left/right issue. Liberals are much more supportive of the ethanol subsidy, for example, while conservatives often support more in agriculture subsidies(though not always; see 1994 Contract with America)
Note this: Corporations pay around $300 billion in federal taxes. The subsidies, in general,
reduce their total tax burden as opposed to the business being a net loss for government funds. So these businesses are still producing revenue for the government.
And I think there's a key ideological difference here....I believe that this money belongs to the business and the government's "fair share" is 0........but since taxes are the price of any society, they need to be levied, but should be kept as minimal as possible. If that includes subsidies, I'm OK with that. But I'd MUCH prefer eliminating the subsidies and replacing it with a flat corporate tax of say, 5%. You believe it's a "loss" when this money doesn't go to the government......but I don't think that the government is entitled to a business's money in the first place, except for the bare necessities of government.
With regards to the effective corporate tax rate, it is true that some companies, like GE, use some of Obama's corporate subsidies and pay nothing in corporate taxes and sometimes get money back(GE is a super rarity though due to its insane tax-credit-chasing). However, it's still higher overall than countries like Ireland and Hong Kong, and many entrepreneurs are on record saying this makes them less likely to HQ here in America.
Fast food-I assume you're talking about welfare here. I'd just want to point out that people working here would likely make the same or even less working at a "small business" of some sort as opposed to a chain. In fact, small businesses generally give lower wages than chains like Wal Mart. They're just low-skilled workers.
Your full of shit 
Liberals are way less charitable than conservatives - you are only liberal with other people's money 
