No advocate of economic freedom has "contempt for the poor" since poor people in an economically free society can become rich people quite quickly and vice versa. Socialists view poverty as an identity, while free men view poverty as a phase.
And I have no idea what usury you're talking about.
When people brag about how they secured the good retirement through their ingenuity they dsiplay "trust in accumulated worldly treasures"
The ground of a certain rich man brought forth plentifully: And he thought within himself, saying, What shall I do, because I have no room where to bestow my fruits?
And he said, This will I do: I will pull down my barns, and build greater; and there will I bestow all my fruits and my goods.
And I will say to my soul, Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years; take thine ease, eat, drink, and be merry.
But God said unto him, Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee: then whose shall those things be, which thou hast provided?
(St. Luke 12:17-20)
No advocate of economic freedom has "contempt for the poor" since poor people in an economically free society can become rich people quite quickly and vice versa.
So you see the poverty or especially persistent poverty as a fault of the poor. This is a form of contempt.
And I have no idea what usury you're talking about.
I see the Freemaketeers defending the usurious practices of credit card companies which charge interests of 30% and more. This defence is based on the contract ("they should have read the small print").