There are some encouraging signs: Americans are already quite generous people with their time and money, and there are studies that show that private charity increases when government assistance decreases. And there are reasons why private charity could be better than federal programs. Charities can tailor themselves to the specific needs of their communities, create a communal atmosphere by building better relationships with the people they help, and be more efficient in how they spend money. Charities are also more transparent to the public eye than large government programs. So I think we would be better off if we were to transition to more charitable giving. Ideally, we should be seeing government welfare covering the extreme low end of the scale, with an emphasis on younger Americans, while charity picks up the slack elsewhere. We would need credible oversight and reporting, but the more transparent and responsive nature of a private company could help there. To those concerned about charities only helping a select few, let's keep in mind that's no different from what government programs can already do; it's not exactly a secret that the government is geared towards "helping" those who don't need it, while turning a blind eye to those who can't contribute enough to the campaign. And it's far easier to keep that system in place when you've got the power of bureaucracy and politics behind you. That said, the country isn't in a position to be able to move away from what little assistance is being provided to the needy. Our policies have consistently been geared towards disenfranchising the poor, solidifying the class structure to discourage social mobility, and removing what little control they may have over their own destinies. There are fundamental changes that need to be made before we can make this viable, and our Libertarian friends will probably be thrilled to know the solutions involve things like government spending.