nobody "funds" a tax break
Well the government has x amount of spending, which has to come from somewhere, i.e. taxes. If you hold spending (and borrowing) constant, and cut taxes for one group of people, then you're going to need to increase taxes elsewhere to make up the difference. Basically if you want to cut taxes on the top 1% of earners, you're going to either have to cut spending, increase taxes elsewhere, or increase borrowing (i.e. put off the problem for another day). The money has to come from somewhere though.
Let's keep this discussion in the realml of reality
Money is exchanged for goods and services, at least, that's how it's supposed to be. But look out, here come the Democrats where money is taken from one person and given to another with no service or good provided in return solely based on the subjected assertion that this person "needed" it.
The state isn't a charity. It is supposed to...be essentially a neighborhood association - provide services that support common causes
That's the problem though - by arguing government should play no role in the redistribution of wealth at all, and tax not on ability to pay but rather more heavily tax the poor (relative to their ability to pay) than the rich, you will end up with situations where people are put in terrible conditions as a result of not having enough money, since they will have to work out what necessities to cut in order to pay taxes. As for keeping the discussion in reality, in practice neither the democrats nor republicans or likely any major political party in a developed country (although I could be wrong here having not read up on all of their manifesto's+policies!) support such harsh measures. That is, you appear to be suggesting that there is a flat rate tax with no annual exemption (or possibly even a fully regressive tax although I doubt that is likely) - that is someone on $10k pays 20% in tax, and someone on $1m also pays 20% of that in tax (the possibly regressive part of tax would then come in if you extended that principle further into services used from the state and decided that people should pay fixed levels equal to the use from certain facilities, or a head/poll tax), since that means you have no redistributative effect. Now what is wrong with that flat rate of tax? You're taxing the 'gross' income of people equally, not their disposable (i.e. real) income, and so can end up with them having to sacrifice necessities to pay tax.
What I've essentially outlined my support for in my posts in this thread is at most potentially a flat rate tax with an annual exemption, along with a benefits system for those on the lower incomes (and opposition to anything going further than this). The flat rate tax w/ an annual exemption itself is a fairly extreme right wing policy on the political spectrum, and a far cry from the current tax systems in countries such as the US or UK (where progressive tax rate systems are used). Meanwhile such countries also have much more extensive benefit systems (from the sound of it; I don't have a highly in depth knowledge of the US's benefits system, so am reliant a bit more on what others have said on it along with a general background knowledge than any detailed research into it) than what I've been supporting/suggesting. It also ties into the charity issue, because I do see the government as needing a 'charity' element where it offers support to those in need - that is, (hypothetically) if people were working full time and earning too little to feed themselves, I would want the government to provide them with enough income to feed themselves, rather than leaving them and hoping that a charity was to stop them from starving. As such I would see the role of charities of being to provide additional support to particular groups above what the government is currently giving (which could of course be nothing in some situations), and then those people who agree with such aims can give to those charities, while people who don't won't.
Nobody dies of starvation in America, so why don't you quit with the (admittedly) melodramatic references to it?
Nobody is denied medical care, either. It is ILLEGAL to turn anyone away from the emergency room, and it simply isn't done.
The poor have programs like Medicaid and SCHIP to take care of more routine medical needs, they have WIC and the Food Stamp program to provide nutrition
But this discussion is in part theoretical, since it is discussing different peoples beliefs/ideas on the role of the state with taxation+spending+benefits etc.; that is, the comment that was first raised in the OP: "We need to make sure all Americans are ensured a certain basic standard of living". Hence if I am saying I agree with the principle that the state should ensure people have a basic standard of living such that they can survive, and it is disagreed with, I can then legitimately point out that the alternative would mean those people potentially starving and/or being refused necessary medical treatment. As to the current state of the US benefits system I'm not trying to say that that does happen, I'm simply providing a justification for (some of) those benefits to be in place.
I take it you...are as ignorant as most Europeans are when it comes to what mean old America does or doesn't do for it's poor...Anyway, your impressions of our country are erroneous at best
Descending into personal attacks and sweeping generalisations already? Please point to where I've said that America is "mean", or doesn't provide for it's poor. I'd also ask you to provide proof that the majority of Europeans are ignorant as to what America benefits there are, but I doubt there's much point. If I was to have given some of the top of my head (prior to you listing all of those of course ) it would've been unemployment benefit, food stamps, medical help (and yes I did know that you're not meant to be turned away from emergancy treatment if you can't pay ), and likely various other ones such as a form of housing benefit and additional support for the disabled. As it turns out I was pretty accurate with all of those.
On a side note it's pretty amusing seeing you attacking me by listing the various benefits you've enjoyed or know to exist (to disagree with me you'd then need to be saying you don't think those should exist, and hence would operating from the rather hypocritical standpoint of using those benefits and saying they're wrong). Even more so for you to do this after accusing me (and the majority of Europeans) of being ignorant!