Shameful Society

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

- Compassion requires empathy.
- Empathy requires a level of relation with the subject in question.

Many of the big wigs out there stop at the first point, they are socio/psychopaths and cannot feel empathy for anyone.

The rest are so removed that consider the poor/suffering as far as other species in other fantasy planet they rarely interact with. I remember when Katrina struck that while FEMA's boss was drinking whisky with his buddies and Dubya was on fancy fundraiser dinners he was talking about so and so friend of his who lost his beach front mansion to the storm and how he would help him and those like him. I don't remember the exact words but it was clear that his poor, poor millionaire friend deserved help while the people on the roofs of New Orleans weren't his concern. I suspect that they are low on empathy to begin with and then they filter out those outside their circle of friends. Once that is done is so easy to criticize those 'living on handouts' etc.

[pieces o nine]

This discussion reminds me of a party I was invited to back in my 20's.  (alla y'alla will be STUNNED to learn that I was not invited back to that particular group again -- ha!)  But I digress.

So I was at this party in which a very blonde, very well-maintained second wife (also in her early 20's) drifted over and breathlessly began a conversation about how disgusting welfare programs are, and how Democrats *must* be voted out of office so welfare programs could be shut down, permanently.  I smiled my sharkiest smile and agreed with her that it was a perennial issue, adding that under Democratic regimes welfare programs are crafted to benefit the poorest citizens, while under Republican regimes welfare programs are crafted to benefit the wealthiest citizens. Dismay clouded her perfectly tweezed brow, leaving her speechless until her husband (whom I knew through work) came over. She clutched his arm and repeated what I had just said, sounding very much like an eight-year-old complaining to the teacher that another girl had called her a "meanie" or something.

Her husband turned to me and smiled a very pleased smile,  (he seemed to genuinely like intelligent women in the workplace, but prefer absolute morons in his private life, although, once again, I digress)  raised his glass to me in a little salute, and turned back to his trophy to tell her that what I had said was true.  "But, but, but," she sputtered, "we're  not on welfare!!!"  He smiled at me again, nodded once, then turned and steered her gently to a more suitable conversation partner, chuckling a little as he told her that business does, indeed, strongly benefit from "welfare" when its friends are in power.

I was left with a somewhat pyrrhic victory, as even his ready understanding of reality had little effect on his politics and actions. I would also imagine that his non-working first wife, that non-working second wife (and whatever non-working wife he is up to now) also still steadfastly vote against  programs to benefit people 'beneath' themselves, citing their 'laziness,' their 'cheating,' and their 'sense of entitlement' while also seeing to it that their own benefits are *never* decreased by any amount, for any reason, because they need  them.  It is depressing.

[Roland Deschain]

"Let them eat cake" isn't apropos, "Let them eat grass" is far more accurate a statement here. I do get angry when I see someone blatantly fiddling the benefits system, but this is nothing compared to the fiddling that goes on in the highest levels of government, banking, and business. When you look closely at quite a few of the laws meant to stop the richest escaping taxes, you see that it's not those who suffer; it's the people who have worked hard all their lives who do this (not saying all those with lots of money don't deserve it, as i'm generalising).

As a case in point, my father had an accident around 10 or so years ago. To cut a rather long story short, he ended up with a settlement payout from the other driver's insurance company, which went towards a bungalow large enough to cope with him (which also needed a lot of work to accommodate his needs), paying back the legal aid he'd received (you have no idea how much that was!), paying a lot of medical bills (apparently you pay back some if you get money), with the relatively small amount left over being invested in a trust fund, the interest from which pays his living costs (they're reasonably high due to his disability).

Now, when Gordon Brown was chancellor, he waged a "war" on tax cheats, and pushed through in one of his budgets new requirements for paying tax on exactly the sort of trust fund that my dad had. Not being uber rich, he had no option but to pay a large amount of tax each year on his investments, over and above the usual requirements, but for someone who is genuinely rich, there are no end to ways around this. I have nothing against the principle of it, but it is the people who genuinely rely on their savings who lose out. Even though it meant more money for dad's financial adviser due to more consultations in the year, he was still very angry at the chancellor for bringing the law in, as he knew exactly the sort of person it would hit the most.

I know my view is seemingly quite a subjective one, but the point stands. It's almost always those most in need who suffer.

[Griffin NoName]

Raising the bar for who counts as sick/disabled enough to qualify for benefits does nothing to stop fraudsters. It just means genuine people in need are denied it. The blind, the deaf, people in wheelchairs no longer count as disabled by the Welfare bill just passed. How utterly disgusting. And how many of the general public know about this? Or care? On a slightly different tack, a lot of seriously ill people are being found fit for work, even terminally ill people. One person, terminally ill, even died while waiting for an appeal process.

Sorry - I am just spitting anger. I am sooooo cross. I think this current govt. is truly evil.

[Roland Deschain]

I'm with you there, Griffin. Who was it who said that it is better for 10 guilty people to walk free than for 1 innocent person to be imprisoned? Well, something like that. The principle is exactly the same here. I'd rather the cheats prosper than the needy suffer. There's a limit, of course, but to be responsible for another human's suffering while being in a position to do something about it, yet not use your power, is to disassociate yourself from decent society.