No I wouldn't. I already know private charity can only cover multitudes of sin, not official poverty.
A free market is the best way to fight poverty, it is dynamic and changes with the needs of the many, socialism on the other hand is filled with little choice, no competition, and less incentives for innovation and productivity. A bunch of beurocrats in government are not able to lift people out of poverty. Socialism is the enemy of the poor, it makes the poor dependent on a broken system
I would agree with you, but the right found even ten simple commandments too difficult; so, it is socialism all the way, now. In any case, socialism is a requirement for States and statism to exist. So, from that perspective, we simply need elected representatives who are willing to explore the concept of Pareto Optimalities.
No government should just exist to protect life, liberty, and property. It is not statism to hae a police force to arrest people who murder and rape.
Article 1, Section 8 specifically enumerates examples and qualifications of the Social Power to provide for the general welfare.