I don't think the founding fathers ever intended for the federal government to be a charitable organization.
Some charity numbers from 2015 are in:
The biggest giver was Richard Mellon Scaife. He died and left $759 million to charities.
John Santikos gave $605 million last year.
Michael Bloomberg gave $510 million last year.
John Paulson gave $400 million last year.
Pierre Omidyar gave $327 million last year.
The Walton family gave $407 million last year.
Bill Gates gave $272 million last year and $1.9 billion the year before.
Jay Faison gave $166 million last year.
it goes on and on....
They don't need that much. They should give more.
It's just important not to fall far this lie. I would love to know what Bernie gives to charity, but I haven't been able to find that published on the net. I'd be willing to bet that it's less than 5% of his income. Democrat politicians are notoriously terrible at giving. (great at taking though).
I really think it might come down to your world view. Conservatives think individually and liberals think collectively. A conservative thinks, "I can really make a difference if I give $500 to a charity. A liberal thinks, "We can really make a difference if we can take some of the wealthy people's money and redistribute it to the poor, I mean, look at this chart!" Neither side wants the poor to suffer, it's just the approach. A Democrat is more likely to see the government as the source of charity and a conservative is more likely to see the church as a source of charity. Democrats WANT the government to be a charity and Republicans think that's the role of church/charities.
That's our battle today. Is the government a charity? Are individuals giving enough? The less individuals give, the more power the government will convince us of they need. The more they convince us, the more individuality we lose and we become a collective society (socialists/communists).