I think it's the government's responsibility to deal with that.

I think the situation here is that Jeff would prefer to attack the problem by having people donate money to take care of these problems, rather than having the government do it. Maybe he's an idealist, and thinks it's actually possible to get the rich to care about something other than becoming more rich. Those same rose-colored glasses led to trickle-down economics in the 80's, and everone was shocked and amazed to learn that, instead of trickling down, the rich took all the money before it got down to those who needed it. Or, at best, some of the rich will make donations to certain causes that may seem like a lot of money when they sign the cardboard check, but in reality, are a tiny portion of their massive wealth, not nearly enough to compensate for what the have-nots don't have. I think Rockefeller or someone like him pioneered these practices way back when.

I will concede that government meddling in things can sometimes go the wrong way, and create situations where people expect handouts to sustain their living instead of to fulfill emergency situations and temporary shortfalls. But the fact is, if the government doesn't do it, no amount of preaching to the wealthy is going to get them to give more than a token donation to those who need it. If more effort is put into tracking down and punishing those who abuse the system, programs like welfare, social security, and medicare can do their job without draining the government's budget or requiring too much in the way of taxes. But simply leaving it up to "the good will of the wealthy" isn't the answer.