The tendency of affluent Americans has been to turn poor people into pets, giving them food and an occasional pat on the head, but not pushing them to be all they can be. Over time, bad charity has tended to drive out good, because people given a choice of pampering or needed pressure generally take the easy route. But those who consider the good of others as more important than their own satisfaction challenge clients (and themselves) to stretch perceived limits. Hard, character-building work is often particularly important in this process. Compassionate conservatives do not merely give the poor a safety net that may turn into a hammock; they provide a trampoline. The goal is to have the affluent stretch their limits also. It's easy to write a check but hard to check pride and arrogance at the door when dealing with those who don't get much respect, or to travel to a part of town that is outside the middle-class comfort zone. (p 17-18)I think we all agree that there must be some sort of safety net in civil society. But government handouts are never going to solve the problem. The poor need skills and discipline to get economically productive jobs and keep them.
