asterism
Congress != Progress
Interesting that you would interpret the Op this way. By contrast, I saw the message as "wealth is derived from society, and as part of the social contract, we provide sustenance for the members unable to care for themselves, such as children and the elderly".
Whichever, way you view it, do you truely desire to live somewhere that the poor are allowed to starve, even the children? If so, it can be arranged boedicca....such places exist.
The underlying message in the OP is collectivist.
And your post is undeserving of any response other than to say a government whose purpose is Forced Charity does so by enslaving the productive.
Wealth accumulation is a "collectivist" activity. All societies are inherently "collectivist". Damning the social programs we rely on to prevent undue loss of life via starvation, etc. as "charity" begs the question.
IMO, these programs (the ones we should have, not the ones we actually have) are a legitimate expense of living together and serve the needs of us all. There is greater peace and security in a society in which no one (or very few) are left to starve, and that not only benefits all members, it benefits the wealthiest members disproportionately.
The truly sad part is that it seems you think you are doing good by posting your opinion. Meanwhile thousands of truly needy people within a few miles of you could really use a cup of hot soup right now. Instead of getting out there and leading from the front, you tut-tut those who won't do what you aren't doing either.
Funny that.