I come from a different culture than you, one where socialized systems are common place, accepted, and expected within the national framework. I'm against big government, but I'm also in favour of functional government that serves as a member of the community.
Government is not a member of the community. Structurally, it cannot be a divisible member of the community, but is rather an expression of the community. Philosophically, government tends to act as an impediment to the advancement of a community.
If the government is not actively helping members of the community who are in genuine need (much like a neighbour would), then there is no point in forming any kind of coherent nationalism. We will all just be flapping in the wind.
Government has a limited set of functions that it is competent to carry out. They are most succinctly stated in the Preamble of the Constitution of the United States:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The function most immediately relevant here is "promote the general Welfare." Note that it does not say "promote the welfare of all citizens," or "promote the welfare of each and every citizen," but merely the "general" welfare. Government exists to preserve and promote conditions which allow individuals the freedom and the opportunity to prosper; it's involvement in the welfare of people is necessarily broad and imprecise. Welfare programs, being as they are payments and subsidies to individuals, are specific and precise. Yes, government
can do such things, but that is poor justification for saying government
should do such things, particularly when even the Preamble of the Constitution suggests that government
should not do such things (providing for the "general Welfare" is separate, distinct, and demonstrably in opposition to providing for the "specific welfare.").
I might agree with you if it was 200 years ago and modern technology weren't separating people more and more from one another. When I grew up, children actually played in the streets. And now? Children stay inside and surf the net, or play video games. Few people take the time to know their neighbour anymore, so frankly I think it's a little late to revert to depending on a community support structure.
Government welfare is a "community support structure", albeit a defective and dysfunctional one. The question is not whether the community should support its less fortunate members, but how.
There is no "reversion" to be had, merely a change from a dysfunctional support structure to a functional one.
The fact that welfare programs have grown rather than declined over the years is categorical proof of one thing: they do not achieve their goals. Welfare is a demonstrable failure. Continuing welfare is thus social madness.