It doesn't sound to me like you understand very well what money is either. On this level, capitalism needs a lot of money -- money which it must extract from welfare uses to devote to the formation of ever more capital. Capital in capitalism is a bit like the church during the Dark Ages, sucking up ever more wealth that would have been used for necessities by serfs and devoting it instead to the construction of ever more grand but utility-lacking cathedrals and of course, comfy lifestyles for the priestly class. What I suppose you would call "socialist intrusions" are necessary on this level to prevent such "malinvestment" in the modern world.
In perhaps more elegant terms, there is nothing at all within free-market economics that assures socially desirable or even socially acceptable outcomes. Markets are by definition amoral. They do not care what damage they might do so long as they can find or remain in what they experience as an equilibrium. "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices." That's Adam Smith with a warning that free markets are ever targets for manipulation and exploitation by the actors within them, all of course to their own benefit and the detriment of all others. Even he called for micro-level "intrusion" on such and other accounts.
Then there is the longstanding historical example of laissez-faire macro practice having resulted in nothing but one long series of collapses, panics, scares, and depressions. All that has ever succeeded in calming the waters and introducing even remotely durable periods of macro-level consistency has been managed capitalism -- what latter-day right-wingers want to call socialism.
Your desire to run away from the "who's a socialist" data is meanwhile understandable as the distribution is rather shocking in its clarity. People nearly everywhere have made decisions in the matter of whether to rely on the public or private sector for the provision of goods and services that are very different from the ones we have made here. The data strongly suggest that the US has in fact undervalued the marginal utility of public sector production. Recent debates of the cost and effect of national health care systems should have highlighted that problem. Our profit-driven, private-sector dominated systems deliver at least nearly the worst levels of overall health care and do so at the highest levels of cost. Everywhere else relies more on "intrusions" into health care-related markets, and they get better and cheaper heath care for their trouble. The point seems to be lost on assorted free-market ideologues, however.
So, I will see your supercilious "leeches" ramblings and put a few actual theses on the table for you. First, it is capitalism, not socialism, that drains wealth away and devotes it to non-welfare purposes. Second, free-market micro-level notions come out of the box offering no protection against amoral markets or against deliberate market-rigging by unscrupulous profiteers. Third, laissez-faire approaches have never known macro-level success and have been easily overshadowed by more "intrusionary" approaches. Fourth, utility evaluations in the US are so out of line with those of the rest of the economically successful world as to suggest that we have indeed missed something. Feel free to deal with one or more of those if you can.