The big ?

What I hate is there's purely selfish reasons to help too.

People with nothing to lose, tend to act like they have nothing left to lose.

And that's usually bad for society

This is the messaging that we, as the left, fail to get across. Multiracial, multiethnic, international cooperation is good and has knock on effects for everyone.
But those words can’t overcome primal fear and greed.
- Not saying the liberal message doesn't need fine tuning. It absolutely does.
  But let's not ignore the fact that for many conservatives, suffering is the goal.
  Conservatives are fully okay with things like welfare and social programs.....so long as it's only for them.
  It's all those other people who are too lazy to get a job and work for a living. They are the ones that don't deserve government hand outs.
- I read that as international corporation.
We've actually arrived at the point in social development where it's more beneficial for everyone to spread the resources around for everyone else to have as dignified a standard of living as is needed.
The problem is that the right know this and absolutely do not care about it, because to them that net benefit to society is worth less than the ideological goal of an oligarchy of household owners where every man of house is king absolute over his subjects and said subjects have no means to escape the abuse without entering into crushing poverty except to submit to the whims of a new king.
- The definition of conservative is preference for old systems, policies, and power structures. There is no other definition. Conservatives are just people who resist and undo change on reflex.
  What about the modern right?
  They do not care about individual liberties -- because that would mean they are liberals and they tell us they are not liberals. They do not care about making a more effective and efficient government -- because that would mean they are progressives and they tell us they are not progressives. They do not care about having a fair, just society that promotes the most good for the most people -- because that would make them socialists and they tells us they are not socialists.
  Normal people think many different things at once about many different subjects. It's normal to have policy preferences that are a combination of all these things are more -- including conservative preferences to avoid change for its own sake. But normal, reasonable people realize there are competing motivations and goals that have to be balanced. The right tell us they are only conservative and nothing else because they are not reasonable people.
- the right know
  I feel like you might be giving them too much credit here.

The spectrum is quite rellative. I live in a country where our right, would probably be called socialists if not communists in the US.

I mean it's sort of.. in the United States it's less that our "right-wing" politicians hold particular positions and values, and more that they are committed to destroying the concept of government and undermining everything that constitutes a government. I think at this point even they don't know why they're doing it. Republicans represent the party of self-destruction and Democrats represent the party of "government should exist, but beyond that we don't care much."
Meanwhile the actual body politic of the American people, if you actually ask them, mostly support things far to the left of Democrats.

This went over my head entirely, can you explain what I assume is a fine meme
- the Overton window is a concept that politicians only do what is "acceptable", if you push further and further in a direction, things that were considered unacceptable in one epoch are now considered acceptable in another.
  In the meme the Overton window is drifting extremely right extremely quickly (illustrated by the car) - implying that things that were unacceptably too far right are now considered more acceptable
- This should help.

"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why they are poor, they call me a communist."
Source: https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/H%C3%A9lder_C%C3%A2mara

Hélder Pessoa Câmara (7 February 1909 – 27 August 1999) was a Brazilian Catholic archbishop. A self-identified socialist, he was the Archbishop of Olinda and Recife, serving from 1964 to 1985, during the military dictatorship in Brazil.

So... that's a yes then.

It's dependent on what you're actually saying. 600 people a year in the US starve, it's not exactly widespread in a country of 400M+. I've literally never met a person in my life in favor of letting people starve.

"Starving" and "Starved to Death" are different things. It seems you are only counting actively dead people. "Starving" doesn't have to be fatal if corrected in time.
13% of U.S. households are considered food insecure though. I've met plenty of people that argue for abolishing social programs, and quote the Bible about "if you don't work, you don't eat" or something like that.