So from all the arguing and politicking fuss I've seen lately (thank you, election season), it feels like the two major camps on economy come down to really basic arguments:

The Republicans, focusing on accountability and the achievements of the individual, accuse low-income people on welfare and other government assistance of potentially being lazy, not having motivation to use the assistance to get themselves to a point where they don't NEED the assistance, and just abusing the system by being greedy instead of contributing as much as they can towards society.

The Democrats, focusing on humanitarianism and the well-being of the group, accuse the wealthy CEOs of abusing government assistance given to the corporations and banks they control, putting the money in their own pockets instead of using the assistance to get themselves and their companies to a point where they don't NEED the assistance, and just abusing the system by being greedy instead of contributing as much as they can towards society.

Is it just me that sees the trend here? Am I getting the picture wrong? Or are BOTH sides just focusing on a certain group of people getting assistance and saying, "No wait--they're being greedy, or at least have the strong potential to be. We need to cut back on what we give them and regulate this better." So instead of just saying, "the other side is being greedy," why not just accept that ANYONE, regardless of their position or accomplishments in life, can be greedy, and work to keep greed in check as much as we can. I don't just mean from a standpoint of imposing strict regulations all over the place--I mean systematically bettering ourselves as human beings so we don't feel the corruption of greed so strongly within ourselves. Why aren't we looking for ways to do THAT for everyone, instead of just finger-pointing and playing the blame game of petty politics?