because i do,

what is your question,it sounds like university lefty b*llshit,no one gives a f*ck when you have to get a job and provide for your own family

you will step all over the stupid morons to get what you need for your kids

It would be interesting if everyone with money gave their $1, euro, or etc to any charity program at one day of the year. Perhaps there is such a holiday for the US, but I haven't heard of it.

Crap my post is off topic. 

On topic: I guess the fortunate should help. But to what extent, I'm not sure.

No one is arguing that you shouldn't get what you need for your kids. Or that you have a right to buy things that make you happy.
The question is simply do you think there is a moral imperative to help the less fortunate, and to explain the situation in which you think there is or is not. However it seems to be your opinion that anyone with less than you or anyone you compete with is a stupid moron, so I'm going to assume your stance is that you feel no need to give to anyone what you could have for yourself.

Note: I'm not saying that maliciously.

Kind of; they have the moral obligation to give the unfortunate a proper chance to help themselves.

Yes we have to help them. Its alright if we continue spending money on luxury goods but we should help the poor as much as we can

You can't exactly force people morally to help the less fortunate. Personally, I think that a government of the people has the responsibility of protecting rights and liberties assigned to those people from infringement by other people, and pursuing the prevention of the great natural evils such as disease, starvation, etc. And also that it should work towards the goal of eliminating deficits of birth in less fortunate circumstances by enabling quality primary education for all, mandating adequate care for children, and subsidizing basic nutrition as needed.

All of those things I'd consider helping the less fortunate, and at least in that vision are accomplished by the collection of the tax dollar. My list of things that help the less fortunate is not complete, but I am in support of providing equality of opportunity. I could speak more on what that means later.

The view I present is sketchy and I'd like to refine it. How would such a government function and remain small to serve the main purpose of protecting the rights of the people? What role do non-government charities play and should they have a bigger one? Do I have a moral obligation to them? How to implement this for foreign people outside my society?
I'm not sure on all that and more. I'll have to talk to more people.

So in short, I think much of the true obligation itself may fall upon the organizing structure of society rather than the individual, but we as a population do have an obligation to help people survive and have reasonable opportunity.
If given the choice to spend a nebulous $500 on an Xbone for me or that $500 on medical care for a child my decision is clear. But how does that choice change if the money is earned by my work, or is $50,000 instead, and how far should I go looking for ways to help? It's tough to parse it out.

that is correct,where i come from we call it champagne socialism

i thought we did provide for the less fortunate ,free health care,free schools,housing benefit(free rent),free council tax,disability benefit,income support,,you don't even have to get out of bed and everything is provided for a chance in life by others

You're helping the less fortunate too by buying luxury goods. Part of the taxes you pay on it are used to support people in your own country, while the goods are manufactured in developing countries.
Growing your own food and making your own electricity, now that's selfish ;)

If you go by moral, everyone has the obligation to do everything. Good for us that morals are subjective from person to person and everyone bends it to their favor as they please.

What I can see is that 100% of people who do charity are doing it more for themselves than the ones they're helping.