Good comment, but I'm going to quibble about it anyway.  The definition of "noblesse oblige" being quoted here is somewhat limited.  The problem with the whole concept is not with the "oblige" part, but with the "noblesse."  I know the definition of nobility is now rather generic, and there's nothing wrong with being noble by current standards, but the original concept is based on the notion that some people have a right to rule by accident of birth.  This used to be largely "God given," but we've somewhat dispensed with that.

In societies where your privilege is a function of who you were born to, the government serves the powerful.  In such instances, the function of the "welfare state" would indeed be charity.  The whole idea of democracy was to abolish this -- the government deriving it's power from people.  Such a government's welfare provisions are no more charity than parents feeding their children.  The beneficiaries of welfare in a democracy are entitled to the safety net because they are a part of the whole, not because a ruling class is feeling generous to outsiders.

(do I get any PN points for this?)

Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding. -Hobbes