It's odd, I feel like I totally agree with that statement. Yet I don't think that being a "decent human being" and "caring about the less fortunate" neccesatates giving others money. It's not always selfish to look out for No. 1. If everyone looked out for themselves and our family and our coworkers/neighbors/churchmates, in such a manner that they didn't harm others, then everyone would be looked out for and we wouldn't have a need for charity.
Charity should be voluntary, personal, and rare. It shouldn't be ran by the government and it shouldn't even be ran by professional charity corporations (like the United Way). If you have as much as you need, and you see more meet or hear about someone who has truely fallen into hard times, then by all means, help them out.
The largest reason that we have the poor is because thats the lifestyle that they prefer - its a lifestyle in exchange for not having to work much tradeoff. If people choose that, then it's not right of me to interfere.
The largest reason that we have the "working poor" and "lower middleclass" isn't because the government doesn't give them enough, it's because they have a lack of power. There's a direct relationship between power an income and it is exponential. The working poor don't have much power to negotiate better wages, they don't have much power to turn down a job while waiting for a better one, and they rarely get the opportunity to set their own salaries. Welfare does nothing to correct this issue. I do believe there are solutions to solve the plight of the working poor, but welfare is not one of them.
Poor people just mostly need to start looking out for themselves, and if that requires getting a job, then so be it. We have a culture of professional poor people. People who have that profession and the lifestyle that accompanies it have it largely by choice. If it requires living in a shack with no utilities then that must be the life style that they prefer, otherwise they would live a different lifestyle.