(Note: It's not clear that Turnus Rufus was an actual historical figure. Most of his Google hits yield references to rabbinic literature. But that doesn't matter.)
וזו שאלה שאל טורנוסרופוס הרשע את ר"ע אם אלהיכם אוהב עניים הוא מפני מה אינו מפרנסם א"ל כדי שניצול אנו בהן מדינה של גיהנם
The wicked Turnus Rufus asked Rabbi Akiva this question: "If your God loves the poor, why doesn't [your God] provide for them?" [Rabbi Akiva] said to him: "So that we can be saved through them from the judgment of Gehinnom." [I.e., so that we have the opportunity to give tzedakah.]
This isn't the main point of the post, but I'll interrupt for a second and say that, even though Turnus Rufus is asking a tough theological question that anyone would have an understandably difficult time answering, I find Rabbi Akiva's answer to be especially lame. People in the world are suffering so that I can get mitzvah points? What kind of self-centered worldview is that? This sounds like something we'd expect to hear from a late-seasons Ned Flanders on a day when the writers are feeling particularly bitter towards religious hypocrisy. (Though to be fair, given what we know about Rabbi Akiva's encounters with the Roman authorities, he may have been answering the question under pressure, and his thoughts may have been unusually focused on otherworldly matters.) But anyway.
א"ל [אדרבה] זו שמחייבתן לגיהנם אמשול לך משל למה הדבר דומה למלך בשר ודם שכעס על עבדו וחבשו בבית האסורין וצוה עליו שלא להאכילו ושלא להשקותו והלך אדם אחד והאכילו והשקהו כששמע המלך לא כועס עליו
[Turnus Rufus] said to him: "On the contrary, this makes you liable for Gehinnom! I'll tell you a parable. What is the thing like? Like a king of flesh and blood who got angry at his servant and locked him in prison, and ordered that he not be brought food and water, and another person went and brought him food and water. When the king heard, wouldn't he get angry at him?"
And here we have conservative philosophy in a nutshell. The supreme being (called God in the "religious" manifestations of political conservatism, or called the free market / invisible hand in the secular manifestations) determines everyone's position in society, and messing with this is a sin. Thus, government intervention in the economy is wrong, except insofar as it helps to bolster this preordained social / economic / educational / etc. hierarchy. (In the latter case, government intervention is acceptable, because it is carrying out the will of [fill in the blank].) Even individual intervention is questionable, and should be very limited in scope so as not to arouse the anger of "the king".
The Talmud places this philosophy into the mouth of the wicked Turnus Rufus. Draw your own conclusions.