No one should be hungry

I am constantly hearing two phrases:

America is so rich, no one should be hungry.

and

Jesus said to take care of the poor.

Both statements are used to justify social programs (i.e. food stamps), and, technically, both are correct statements. But they are incomplete. The assumptions in the middle are not voiced, skewing the discussion, making anyone who is against social programs look cruel.

These statements should read:

America is so rich no one should be hungry AND the only way to feed the poor in our country is through government-force programs, SO we need to push for more, bigger social programs.

or

Jesus said to take care of the poor, AND the ONLY way to do that is through government-force programs, so we need to push for more, bigger social programs.

Once you have the whole argument laid out in print it becomes obvious where the logic flaw is. This is actually where the disagreement between conservatives and liberals in the area of social programs is;

• liberals believe only the government can/should feed the poor (exemplified by their average charitable contributions of less than 1% of their income), 
• conservatives believe individuals can/should feed the poor (exemplified by their average charitable contributions of about 7% of their income).

Ok, liberals, it simply doesn't count as compassion to vote to send the IRS's gun to your neighbor's house to take away their money to give to the poor. It might make you feel good (and superior), but it isn't moral, much less compassionate.

Compassion is dipping into your own pocket to give your own money to feed your poor neighbor.