Exactly what is blocking "people in the cities" from giving money to less well-off people in rural areas? There are legitimate reasons to object to redistribut

Exactly what is blocking "people in the cities" from giving money to less well-off people in rural areas? There are legitimate reasons to object to redistribution schemes via the federal government. Framing those objections as lack of empathy and furthermore suggesting that this reluctance is the primary reason these problems aren't solved is an unfair and simplistic view of these sorts of complex problems. There is also lots of evidence that conservative/right-wing/republicans give way more to charity than progressive/left-wing/democrats (e.g. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html). So I'm not sure the 'lack of empathy' theory holds water. As for legitimate reasons to be wary of federal wealth distribution mechanisms: * private charitable activities can be more effective * administrative overhead associated with a federal bureaucracy * federal misunderstandings of state/local concerns and conditions * federal one-size-fits-all solutions * lack of controls to prevent fraudulent receipt of benefits * there is often an assumption of zero-sum thinking, sometimes the analysis ends there as if lack of wealth was *the* problem * no actual plan for how to use the money effectively or any attempt to measure progress I'm not suggesting that there are never reasons for a federal program but there are lots of reasons why private charities, local initiatives, and state control is to be preferred.