Caring for the poor? Who's job is it?

I like to vastly oversimplify things, but perhaps this isn't such an oversimplification when I think about it.

I read a very interesting article posted by Rod Hardy: http://www.npr.org/2012/09/06/160676765/mormon-democrats-on-drawing-on-faith-for-politics Really liked the article, gave an interesting perspectives.  Near the end of the article one of the people talk about how the scriptures, and specifically the Book of Mormon talk a lot about caring for the poor.

If we translate that into politics many people interpret that as the government caring for the poor, but should that be so? The scriptures mention very little of institutionalized giving to the poor outside of church institutions. It's hard to suss out some of these things though as it's not specific, or when the government is a theocracy. So understanding that we're not in a theocracy in the US, and that in fact this is a very diverse nation and many people don't even believe in God, how should we handle caring for the poor?

How do we think is the best way to go about caring for the poor? Should it be the government's job to take care of the poor? Charities (whether religious or not)? Corporations (via charitable giving, stimulating employees to give of their time, or charitable giving)? Individuals (perhaps via voluntary donations of time and money individually or via charities)? or some mix of them all?

Overgeneralizing things a bit it's easy to say that Democrats would favor a government system to take care of most of the needs of the poor, with others stepping in where the social safety net has gaps. There is a general distrust of corporations to do this, because of perceived abuses by large companies in dodging taxes, lobbying government and other things, so they don't believe that they will help much. Many of the most devout of the democrats find it a pleasure to pay their taxes and they willingly do it and see it as their patriotic duty.

Overgeneralizing things a bit it's easy to say that Republicans want the government out of the charity business, except of course when it comes to medicare which they're very, very much in favor of. In this camp there is a general distrust of government run programs because of perceived lack of efficiency and corruption. Republicans generally hate paying taxes, they see it as a waste, something that is forced upon them, and stealing from their earnings. They loathe being told by the government who to help and when. They want to make those decisions themselves (or keep it all, though I don't think this happens as often as some people think).

In my opinion I'd like to see lots of opportunities for people to serve others. I also think that if people had to be humble enough to ask for and accept help it would actually be helpful for all involved. It would help those who are serving to become more humble as they realize that they can do something meaningful for others, and that what they do really matters. If we leave it all to the government we take away lots of opportunities to serve others and grow together as communities. If the government does nothing at all though, this is not a very good choice either.

My perspective is this: the government should provide some sort of basic social safety net. Determining what that is, to me at least, is the real issue here. I think that should this safety net become too encompassing it will in fact lead to people being less charitable with their time and money: why should they do it, if indeed it's not their job, but the government? They've already paid their taxes, why do more? I've seen this attitude here in Holland. Several of my friends here have either alluded to this or outright stated that this is the case.

So does that mean I'm voting for Romney? Probably not. He seems to be a respectable person, but I don't trust that he'll do the right thing. I do not think you can simply yank these things away from people. People need not to be outraged at government cutbacks in such programs and lament them, but instead say, "how can we do this better locally?" This will not always be comfortable, and it cannot be left to "someone else." It will become our job to help take care of the poor, to feed them, to clothe them, and to house them.