Anti-Climacus

FOLLOWING THE BELOW:

Then there's this part:

"After all we could use a verdict: Are we really two nations, rich and poor, where elections can function as national jury awards, redistributing wealth from the Big Guys to the Little People? Or are we a middle-class country where--beyond a few glaring instances--most people must take responsibility for themselves?"

Consider this an inversion of TruePravda's taxes question: do Republicans/conservatives really believe that whenever a Democrat talks about social responsibility for people who fall behind/are poor (Bill Clinton's people who "work hard and play by the rules" but never seem to get ahead), that they're really using this as code for a socialist redistribution scheme run by the government?

Or, to take the possibly stronger tack, let's assume that it's true that we're mostly a middle-class country where everyone mostly does fine, except for a few people, and let's assume further that it's the case that the private sector has not (through charities, foundations, or what have you) done a sufficiently good job helping people who need it: why is it unacceptable for the government to step in at that point?

I'm a Third Way Democrat, so I have a lot of sympathy for people who believe that government should not reflexively be our answer to every social and economic problem, but what's wrong with the government stepping in when no one else will?