Agree, I would draw a distinction between true social safety net programs, which are designed purely to ameliorate conditions of extreme poverty and misfortune, and the use of welfare programs to redistribute wealth, which is really an abuse of the idea of a social safety net, turning it into a Trojan Horse for egalitarianism.
To my mind programs intended to provide a subsistence level of support — keep people from starving, provide basic medical care, maybe rough public housing — aren’t objectionable, since the sort of desperation that accompanies extreme poverty invariably leads to social instability that negatively affects everyone.
On the other hand, programs which seek to directly redistribute wealth through transfer payments and regulations like housing, credit and hiring mandates are both economically destructive and socially corrosive — the former, by undermining natural incentives and the later by encouraging class division and conflict.