Ruthless Welfare Cuts Causing Untold Misery

[Portrait]

Dearly beloved friends,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

Many of God’s poor in the UK are currently being adversely affected by the governments ruthless welfare cuts, including many sick and vulnerable people who have no voice.

Unfortunately, dear friends, it appears that a large section of the British public have fallen hook, line and sinker for the propaganda put out by the ultra right-wing press, which is fuelled by the present government’s ideological war against the unemployed and chronically sick. The fact that such propaganda is widely believed is surely evidence that men no longer have the ability to think for themselves and to critically analyse the truth between the lies and rhetoric. The extreme right-wing press always likes to feed and manipulate the ignorant prejudices of the wealthy and privilleged by angrily talking about a bloated welfare culture, it helps sell their rags.

It is, dear friends, very easy to demonise the sick and unemployed who have the sad misfortune to find themselves reliant upon welfare relief. Using divisive phraseology such as “skivers vs. strivers” is downright inexcusable and almost implies a presumption of malingering on the part of many thoroughly decent people who already have much to contend with. The fact is that the vast majority of the sick and unemployed are proud and aspirational and would gladly earn their living if only they could. Men must distinguish between not wanting to work and not being able to work on account of a chronic illness. Only a very small precentage of hardcore unemployed actually choose welfare dependency as a lifestyle choice, but if you were to believe everything put out by, for example, the UK Daily Mail, you might be pardoned for concluding that welfare abuse had reached endemic levels. This sensational tabloid highlights unique and rare cases of benefit fraud, which no man would defend, and then deduces from them that benefit abuse is a common occurence, at great cost to the hard-pressed British tax payer. That is a jolly massive leap, but its what the chattering middle-classes like to believe and its what sells newspapers.

If there is any injustice being perpetrated today, dear friends, then it is against the sick and disabled of Britian. Many of the long term sick are being declared ‘fit for work’ after attending a work capablilty assessment, carried out by ATOS Healthcare (the company contracted by the government to carry out medical tests on Britain’s sick and disabled). These flawed tests were, it is true, introduced by the Labour government in 2008, but the present coalition has rapidly expanded their use. However, ATOS has faced severe criticism after it emerged that a staggering third of decisions that went to appeal were overturned. Whilst it is true that ATOS does not make the final decision about a person’s fitness for work, the ‘health professional’s’ report and test results are used by the ‘decision maker’ at the DWP (the UK government department responsible for welfare benefits). The actual evaluation process used by ATOS is seriously defective because it relies upon a computer-based tick system that cannot begin to address the numerous health issues with which people can be afflicted. For example, most sick and disabled people have a series of illnesses that accompany the prominent one. Moreover, there is very little scope to discuss complex mental health problems, such as acute Social Anxiety Disorder, and thus the DWP decision maker could be misled into thinking that a chronically sick person is actually fit for work, when in actual fact they clearly are not. Needless to say, this can be the occasion of much distress to the client and can result in exacerbating the symptoms of an existing illness, thus rendering the client even more unfit for work than he was in the first place. Thus the process is counter-productive and only serves to make it appear that the government is tackling the benefits culture, when in actual fact it is only making people more unwell.

The bad news for Britains sick and disabled, dear friends, is that ATOS Healthcare have, just this month, began a £400m, five-year contract undertaking tests for the new Personal Independence Payment (PIP), which replaces the old Disability Living Allowance and determines whether people require extra money to help cope with their disability. These are times of great anxiety for many here in Britian, and I genuinely fear that many legitimate clients will not be awarded the vital money that they so much need and deserve. This is a demeaning, harsh and faulty system of evaluation, the sole purpose of which is to cut the benefits bill at all costs, not help people back into work. That this sort of thing is taking place in a progressive and prosperous country is a national disgrace and makes me almost ashamed to be British.

God bless and thankyou for taking the time to read the above.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Aelred_Minor]

The majority of people active on this site are from the United States and are either conservatives or moderates by American standards. For this reason I imagine you will get responses reflecting this political viewpoint.

For myself I don’t know much about the UK welfare system and the cuts and changes the Conservative government has made. But it does sound like the pattern we see from one side of our own political system: a hatred of the poor that disguises itself as natural justice and a readiness to put the burden of correcting the government’s financial mismanagement on those least able to bear it, all for the sake of protecting the perceived interests of a powerful few with more money than they could possibly have a rational use for.

 

[RPRPsych]

It is, dear friends, very easy to demonise the sick and unemployed who have the sad misfortune to find themselves reliant upon welfare relief. Using divisive phraseology such as “skivers vs. strivers” is downright inexcusable and almost implies a presumption of malingering on the part of many thoroughly decent people who already have much to contend with. The fact is that the vast majority of the sick and unemployed are proud and aspirational and would gladly earn their living if only they could. Men must distinguish between not wanting to work and not being able to work on account of a chronic illness. Only a very small precentage of hardcore unemployed actually choose welfare dependency as a lifestyle choice, but if you were to believe everything put out by, for example, the UK Daily Mail, you might be pardoned for concluding that welfare abuse had reached endemic levels. This sensational tabloid highlights unique and rare cases of benefit fraud, which no man would defend, and then deduces from them that benefit abuse is a common occurence, at great cost to the hard-pressed British tax payer. That is a jolly massive leap, but its what the chattering middle-classes like to believe and its what sells newspapers.

Very well said. This happens not only in England, but in other “welfare states” - including mine, to a lesser extent - where the press is quick to pounce on unusual or exceptional cases to make it seem as if the people are taking advantage of the poor, innocent, oppressed government. At times I suspect that some degree of collusion between the Government and the press must be involved.

Prayers for all concerned.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

Prayers for those affected, but I have to admit that once you started talking about the right wing press I almost thought it was satire. Granted, I am not from the U.K, but every now and then an article from the Guardian or Daily Mail is brought to my attention, and they’re hardly conservative.

I understand the pain caused by cutting on welfare spending, and wish it were not so, but from what I read in your post it seems to indicate that you haven’t examined the issue any amount beyond “giving to the poor is good and taking from the poor is bad.” And that’s undoubtedly true. But it’s not all that is true.

But while it is necessary that we support the poor as we reasonably can, and it’s admirable to even sell all one’s possessions and donate to the poor, it is not admirable to sell all your neighbor’s possessions and give to the poor without his permission. I’m not just talking about taxation here - a reasonable amount of taxation for the support of the poor is fine, a high amount of taxation for support of the poor could be argued (and with consent of the taxed is inarguably fine) - I’m talking about borrowing large amounts of money with no intention to pay it off.

There are, essentially, two functions of government:

1. To keep the country from falling into disarray: infrastructure, defense, food inspection, etc.
2. To better the country in ways that private citizens generally won’t do, or won’t do sufficiently (helping the poor, research grants, education, etc)

Both are critically important, but type 1 must be met. You can try to cut type 1 budgets and make do with less, but when it comes down to it if your government doesn’t do type 1 stuff, it fails as a government, and your country dissolves, and you lose type 2 anyway.

So then there’s type two stuff. And the government must do as much as it can with a reasonable tax rate after satisfying type one stuff to do it. But the problem is that neither your government nor mine is taxing as much as it’s spending. The UK has a deficit of about 170 billion pounds per year. Tax revenue last year was about 556 billion pounds, if I calculate correctly (I could only find it in percentage of gdp so there’s some fuzziness here). That means that in the UK tax income would need to increase by about 30% to become financially stable. Or, spending has to be cut.

More likely, both. Raising taxes by that much isn’t feasible. We’re talking about the net worth of most of the world’s richest people (who amassed that wealth over a long time) per year. So raising taxes might be necessary, but it won’t ever be enough. The only other option is to cut spending.

And you can only cut type 1 so much. Once you cut it to where needs are met with minimal waste (which for the most part appears to be true, at least over here), if that’s insufficient, then you have to cut type two. You can start eliminating education, and research grants, and aid to the poor, etc. All of which are critically important. And none of which anyone actually wants to cut.

But there’s this magic idea here: you can’t spend money you don’t have, even if you really want to. You can pretend to for a while, you can pull tricks to make it work for a while until the tricks implode and you have to deal with the money you spent while you didn’t have it. You can borrow, as we are, but the way our governments are doing it, it’s just way to die more slowly, because you really do owe that money. It’s making things worse for your children so that you can pretend it’s ok now.

And so, as sad as it is, and whether or not these people really need all they money they’re being given or not, that money simply isn’t there. Cuts have to be made. They should be made to make things as painless as possible, but they have to happen, and they have to come from programs that are actually good. Programs that are necessary.

I suggest this video on why being conservative sucks. I don’t agree with everything he says, of course, and it is from a U.S. perspective, but there it is.

 

[cargau]

I think , many conservatives do not “hate” the poor, they merely question the methods being used to help them. Is a government sponsored welfare system in the best interest of everyone concerned? Really, that is a fair question.

In the 1960’s Lyndon Johnson conceived the “Great Society”. His vision would make great use of welfare type programs as a means to offer a hand to those in need.

Today, we see that the very people these plans were supposed to assist are deeper in poverty than ever. Why?

I realize that some people can never do anything to earn money. They need to be aided. But others who use the system as a lifestyle may be better served by providing mentor systems and training programs that equip them to become constructive members of society.

One’s own sense of self worth is to a large degree predicated and what they are able to give, not take. How do we offer the hand up to make as many folks as possible givers and producers?

 

[SamH]

I think , many conservatives do not “hate” the poor, they merely question the methods being used to help them. Is a government sponsored welfare system in the best interest of everyone concerned? Really, that is a fair question.

In the 1960’s Lyndon Johnson conceived the “Great Society”. His vision would make great use of welfare type programs as a means to offer a hand to those in need.

Today, we see that the very people these plans were supposed to assist are deeper in poverty than ever. Why?

The claim was that the “Great Society” programs would eliminate poverty. Instead it made 4 generations of poor with no hope of them ever getting ahead. The exact opposite what was claimed.

 

[Portrait]

Very well said. This happens not only in England, but in other “welfare states” - including mine, to a lesser extent - where the press is quick to pounce on unusual or exceptional cases to make it seem as if the people are taking advantage of the poor, innocent, oppressed government. At times I suspect that some degree of collusion between the Government and the press must be involved.

Prayers for all concerned.

Dear RPRPsych,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for your supportive response and also for your prayers for those adversely affected by these inequitable and iniquitious UK welfare cuts.

It is, dear friend, very hard to believe that the Prime Minister, Mr. Cameron, in his Hugo Young lecture (2009), spoke with apparent passion concerning the deep damage done by inequality: “We all know, in our hearts, that as long as there is deep poverty living systematically side by side with great riches, we will remain the poorer for it”. However, once he was elected, the uncharitable and harsh language that he and his ministers used to blame the poor for their plight was utterly despicable. One has to go back to Edwardian times to find politicians and social commentators so viciously dismissing all on low incomes as cheats, loafers and drunks. That a small minority are feckless and milk the welfare system is something that I would not stop to deny, but to keep on talking of a bloated benefits culture where systematic abuse is the norm, is just ultra right-wing propaganda designed to curry favour with the middle-classes. Alas, once in office he and others revealed their true colours and showed that the Conservative party is still very much the ‘nasty party’, at least as regards their harsh attitudes towards the sick and unemployed are concerned.

God bless and, once again, thankyou, dear friend, for your prayers for God’s poor and oppressed in the UK.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[RPRPsych]

That a small minority are feckless and milk the welfare system is something that I would not stop to deny, but to keep on talking of a bloated benefits culture where systematic abuse is the norm, is just ultra right-wing propaganda designed to curry favour with the middle-classes.

I think this is the heart of the matter.

The majority suffer because of the actions of a small minority.

We see the same here in India. Hospitals that were previously providing treatment at low cost to mentally ill people, many of whom cannot pay for their own care, are now going back on their policies, giving ridiculous excuses such as:

“Those so-called poor mentally ill people own cell phones!” (News flash: everyone has a cell phone these days. It’s not a sign of wealth. You can buy a cheap one in any town in India for less than the cost of a week’s square meals.)

“A few people have fake documents stating that they are poor, so all the folks attending the hospital must be fakers!” (Faulty generalization)

And all the time, extravagant claims are made about the great Indian middle class, and about how our country is on the verge of becoming a “super-power”. The collusion between cheap propaganda and “neo-liberal” economics is creating a nightmare in many parts of the world.

 

[Portrait]

Prayers for those affected. You can borrow, as we are, but the way our governments are doing it, it’s just way to die more slowly, because you really do owe that money. It’s making things worse for your children so that you can pretend it’s ok now.

And so, as sad as it is, and whether or not these people really need all they money they’re being given or not, that money simply isn’t there. Cuts have to be made. They should be made to make things as painless as possible, but they have to happen, and they have to come from programs that are actually good. Programs that are necessary.

Dear Iron Donkey,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for your response and prayers, which are very much needed at this time of uncertainly and anxiety for Britain’s poor and vulnerable.

Unfortunately, dear friend, the sick and unemployed are a soft target and the coalition government here have gone after them to raise a bit of money to make up for the reckless spending of the wealthy and powerful a few years ago. That is inexcusable and can never be justified. No one would stop to deny that we have a deficit in the UK, the proverbial billion pound balck hole, and men understand, no matter how basic their grasp of economics, that we must needs fill it somehow. However, why should this be from the pockets of the most vulnerable members of society, the sick and jobless, who are already of exceedingly slender means? Moreover, the question that urgently needs to be addressed is, why are we employing punitive and harsh measures against people who are already down on their luck for the irresponisble misdeeds of the wealthy? Why, instead of directing all this national vitroil at the sick and unemployed, as Conservative politicians and right-wing newspaper columnists have done (shame on them), are we not hauling over the coals those at the top of the financial hierarchy who led us all into the calimitous financial mess that we now find ourselves -including, but not limited to, CEO’s and Bankers? Uncomfortable questions these, but they demand an answer.

As for the funds simply not being available any longer, dear friend, this is simply not true. The vital money required to support the sick and disabled could easily be obtained from other areas of the welfare budget and taxes from the very wealthy, thus there is no need to borrow large amounts of money. For example, the elderly in the UK have, because of a pre-election pledge made by Mr. Cameron, thus far remained completely unaffected by the recent welfare reforms. Mr. Cameron knows that he cannot afford to upset the ‘blue rinse brigade’, for they are among his primary supporters and he needs their vote. However, we are in an economic downturn so why should they not be subject to some benefit cuts if it is found that they really do not need them? Their various benefits need to be means tested and those who have sufficient money coming in should clearly not qualify for free travel passes, winter fuel allowances and free TV licenses. The money saved, a substantial sum, could then be re-directed to the chronically sick and disabled whose need is clearly much greater. If it be said by way of reply that this is unfair because penshioners have worked jolly hard for this money and have paid their dues into the system, then we must reply that so have many sick and disabled people before they became unwell and could no longer continue working.

Certainly, dear friend, we cannot encourage men to feckless and I would shout from the housetops that work is a positive reinforcement in giving a sense of self-worth and purpose - provided, of course, a man is not precluded from working on account of a severe physical disability or mental health problem, in the latter case working could be postively harmful. Not everyone without exception will be able to hold down a job and men must face up to this fact. Indeed, those afflicted with a chronic mental illness such as, for example, acute Social Anxiety Disorder, will sometimes never be able to enter the world of work and in a civilised society these poor souls must surely be provided for indefinetely. No one would dispute that there are a tiny number of bogus clients who swing the lead and abuse the welfare system and it is right that they are weeded out and severely dealth with. However, it is a grave injustice to tar all benefit recipients with the same brush and imply that a high percentage of claimants are probably malingering and being dishonest regarding the gravity of their medical condition. This is nothing short of deplorable and ought to be repented of as it is tantamount to disability denial.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Portrait]

I think this is the heart of the matter.

The majority suffer because of the actions of a small minority.

We see the same here in India. Hospitals that were previously providing treatment at low cost to mentally ill people, many of whom cannot pay for their own care, are now going back on their policies, giving ridiculous excuses such as:

“Those so-called poor mentally ill people own cell phones!” (News flash: everyone has a cell phone these days. It’s not a sign of wealth. You can buy a cheap one in any town in India for less than the cost of a week’s square meals.)

“A few people have fake documents stating that they are poor, so all the folks attending the hospital must be fakers!” (Faulty generalization)

And all the time, extravagant claims are made about the great Indian middle class, and about how our country is on the verge of becoming a “super-power”. The collusion between cheap propaganda and “neo-liberal” economics is creating a nightmare in many parts of the world.

Dear RPRPsych,

Hello again. Jolly well said and thankyou for your splendid (name removed by moderator)ut dear friend.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[markomalley]

In recent years the range of such intervention has vastly expanded, to the point of creating a new type of State, the so-called “Welfare State”. This has happened in some countries in order to respond better to many needs and demands, by remedying forms of poverty and deprivation unworthy of the human person. However, excesses and abuses, especially in recent years, have provoked very harsh criticisms of the Welfare State, dubbed the “Social Assistance State”. Malfunctions and defects in the Social Assistance State are the result of an inadequate understanding of the tasks proper to the State. Here again the principle of subsidiarity must be respected: a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.100

By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending. In fact, it would appear that needs are best understood and satisfied by people who are closest to them and who act as neighbours to those in need.

Pope John Paul II, Centesimus Annus, 48
​

Sadly, it won’t do anybody any good if a State’s economy collapses under the weight of public debt. It also won’t do anybody any good if a State, in seeking to avoid such a collapse, imposes such draconian taxes on those who are at the upper end of the economic spectrum determine that the benefits of being a citizen of that country are no longer worth the expense and quit that country.

Sadly, it is the poor who end up suffering: first, because of government dependency and second, when that largesse is withdrawn because it is no longer available.

Remember: limiting emigration from a country is a violation of human rights. Even for the well-to-do.

 

[Portrait]

I think , many conservatives do not “hate” the poor, they merely question the methods being used to help them. Is a government sponsored welfare system in the best interest of everyone concerned? Really, that is a fair question.

In the 1960’s Lyndon Johnson conceived the “Great Society”. His vision would make great use of welfare type programs as a means to offer a hand to those in need.

Today, we see that the very people these plans were supposed to assist are deeper in poverty than ever. Why?

I realize that some people can never do anything to earn money. They need to be aided. But others who use the system as a lifestyle may be better served by providing mentor systems and training programs that equip them to become constructive members of society.

One’s own sense of self worth is to a large degree predicated and what they are able to give, not take. How do we offer the hand up to make as many folks as possible givers and producers?

Dear cargau,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for your response.

What I think does not admit of any doubt, dear friend, is that the UK coalition government has effectively demonised many of the most vulnerable members of society, namely the sick and God’s poor. Even if some individual Conservative politicians believe their parties policies to be wrong and misguided, they must tow the party line and keep silent - sadly, there are very few, if any, convictional politicians left now.

As I have remarked in previous posts, dear friend, we cannot encourage people to opt for welfare as a sort of lifestyle choice, but in a civilised progressive country it is right and proper that there should be a safety net for those that need it, especially the sick and disabled. Lately, there has been much silly drivel spoken about sick people being better off if they are working, even if it is a difficult and stressful process for them. Some have smugly spoken about ‘abandoning’ people to a fruitless life on welfare etc. However, this is nothing more than just cheap political rhetoric, mostly uttered to curry the favour of the ‘overburdened tax payer’ or secure the middle-class vote at the next election. Politicians are past masters at knowing all the right buttons to press and we are not ignorant of their devices.

The present UK coalition government, aided by the ultra right-wing press, has sadly fostered a hardening of attitudes towards the unemployed and sick, thereby causing unnecessary division in society. Defending their cause in today’s Britain is likely to elicit a hostile response and one risks being dubbed a ‘bleeding heart liberal’ for daring to do so. How very sad. It seems that for sick and unemployed there can be no bowels of compassion, only a so called ‘tough love’ approach which refuses to listen to reason and is only about punitive measures.

No right thinking man, dear friend, wishes to see any of his fellow-men being forever dependent upon state welfare relief. Clearly, those that are able and capable should certainly work, be it in a paid, or if that is not possible, then in a voluntary unpaid capacity. Welfare should never be seen as a lifestyle choice, for over time it is damaging and enfeebling, both mentally and physically. However, it is important for men to make the important distinction between not wanting to work (indolence) and not being able to work on account of chronic ill-health. Sadly, what is happening at the present time is that many sick and vulnerable people are being declared ‘fit for work’ by the flawed ATOS medical assessment process, which I refered to earlier in this thread. These poor souls, some of whom have even taken their own lives because of the distress, are being expected to actively seek gainful employment, or attend stressful anxiety provoking interviews at the local labour exchange. This is just counter-productive as it only serves to exacerbate their (sometimes severe) medical condition, epsecially if it involves a complex mental health issue. This ought to tell the powers that be that something is seriously amiss here and that the ATOS evaluation process is plainly not fit for purpose. To date the government have stubbornly refused to listen and take any real action and ATOS this month have again been given a very lucurative contract to undertake assessment tests on Britian’s sick and disabled. This is an outrage and does not bode good for some of the UK’s most vulnerable people. No doubt ATOS have been employed again because they are doing a sterling job in declaring multitudes of very sick people fit for work and getting them off benefits, benefits which they rightly deserve, thus making the government look good for grappling with the alleged burgeoning benefits culture. Many people could be pardoned for smelling a rat here.

It is freely admitted, dear friend, that the sick and disabled of Britain have to be evaluated before they can be eligible for welfare benefits. However, the manner in which the current process of evaluation is undertaken is a national disgrace and a clear violation of human rights as it is tantamount to disability denial. The only people who should be making momentous decisions regarding a man’s capability for work is his family doctor and his medical professional, not some ATOS anaylst who (name removed by moderator)uts data. We are talking here about people’s lives and their mental and physical welfare. No one who has always had regular and well-paid work can possibly know what it is like for a very sick person to be told that they are not very sick and must start looking for work, or else loose their benefit entitlement.

God bless and on that sombre note, may I wish all contributors to this thread a jolly splendid and relaxing weekend.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax:tiphat:

 

[TimeEntrance]

Dearly beloved friends,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

Many of God’s poor in the UK are currently being adversely affected by the governments ruthless welfare cuts, including many sick and vulnerable people who have no voice.

Unfortunately, dear friends, it appears that a large section of the British public have fallen hook, line and sinker for the propaganda put out by the ultra right-wing press, which is fuelled by the present government’s ideological war against the unemployed and chronically sick. The fact that such propaganda is widely believed is surely evidence that men no longer have the ability to think for themselves and to critically analyse the truth between the lies and rhetoric. The extreme right-wing press always likes to feed and manipulate the ignorant prejudices of the wealthy and privilleged by angrily talking about a bloated welfare culture, it helps sell their rags.

I’m going to say something, although it probably is futile and unwise. I’ve come to find that a number (usually the younger and not so much older people in the 50s and above) of people from the U.K. that identify as liberals are very judgmental and don’t connect with my life experiences in the United States. I need to say that because I can connect a lot more with Latinas and Latinos from Latin America. And compared to them my life history and views might even be more pampered than theirs.

You might immediately object because you might have seen TV showing ethnic Black-American women talking. But that’s more complex than what one might think at first sight. The U.S. has a long history of encouraging division between ethnic black males and black females. So, bear that in mind when I state to you that welfare cash checks are a birth right for American women and not American men.

I was floored some years ago when I found out from a Brit online that you British actually give free housing to young men unemployed due to being drug addicts .

Then I see on TV London riots with young women in England giving moral support to young men that in the United States would be regarded as “scrubs” and “losers” even among black women on welfare. The cultural differences almost blow my mind.

I was almost universally (not 100% of the women but about 98% of them) regarded as a Loser by young ethnic Black-American women in college and the others on welfare, when I was in both the U.S. Marine Corps and after I was honorably discharged from the Corps and worked two manual labor jobs, neither paying me much, and both combined largely consumed by the costs of my car I was still paying off (and in and out of the mechanic’s shop too) . Let me try to reemphasize here that almost universally women on welfare viewed me as a loser. I was about one step above a pedophile in their eyes.

Even Vietnam vets usually had female lovers that embraced them and morally supported them when they returned. So, carrying the stigma I did was not particularly easy.

Among many ethnic Black-American ex-cons (not all) in the U.S. you make your way no matter what. No matter what. If you get a job making $3 an hour (you won’t, I’m making a point of their mind set) then you make your way into having a place living off of that. If you have to hustle or rob then you do.

There is a similar attitude with violence. You win or you lose. You have a problem? “You ‘handle’ your business.”

My point being here is that from my own life experiences (which is a teacher) I can’t connect as close to those in the U.K. and France that not only demand but expect a certain level of charity and caring from their governments and society than I’m use to here in the U.S.

It blows me away the French youth riot over some of the things they do. On one hand I admire your English and French youth. You people go about like you have no fear of the police! You motion to fast to a cop in the U.S. and you might get a couple bullets in your chest. The police are the government and the government will likely side against you. And not even liberals in the Democratic Party of the United States are going to suggest let alone support tax payers footing the bill for free housing for 25 year old drug addicts that could work if they stayed off crack or heroin. Not happening.

My point is–whether money or violence (though especially with violence)–I view life similar to many Black-American males. That being with an analogy like this: You’re told not to go out an engage the bears, you think it’s all a game, so, you go out to hunt the bears. A bear ends up mauling you. You got what was coming. Hunting the bear was a game for you. But this was no “game” for the bear.

That’s why I say I either learn how to swim or I drown. For me it’s as simple as that.

You will find some White-Americans that will sympathize and cry over the hunter that gets mauled by the bear. Angry the bear did not just think this was a game. But white people got white people. They are traumatized by the state of the U.S. economy now for example. But the U.S. economy is “old hat” for ethnic Black-American males (we just shrug it).

I’m one of the well off Black-American males of my generation in the city of Milwaukee. I get a V.A. pension. I’m almost rich. I’m 41. I can’t connect with the complaints of 24 year old Brits and French males.

What I’m saying is that I guess the 24 year old Brit getting kicked off benefits is just going to have to work two low paying jobs like I did when I was in my 20s. His girlfriend isn’t going to leave him, so, he just has to swim or sink. [shrug]

 

[CrossofChrist]

I believe that people are concerned, but I think that support for euthanasia by liberals in England should cause more misery than welfare cuts by conservatives.

Of course if there were stronger unions in the first place there’d be less dependence on welfare. But I digress.

 

[livingwordunity]

Unfortunately, dear friends, it appears that a large section of the British public have fallen hook, line and sinker for the propaganda put out by the ultra right-wing press

But the UK is ruled by the liberals. Does not compute.

 

[pete_29]

Would it be a problem if people who were on welfare do some kind of work to earn it?

 

[TimeEntrance]

Would it be a problem if people who were on welfare do some kind of work to earn it?

If it keeps them on welfare I would argue yes.

But different nations have different policies and different extents of severity and issues revolving around poverty. I’m a big fan of Bolsa Familia in Brazil. Wonderful program.

While the poor in England, the United States, and Brazil all share some psychological similarities I think, they also have some very different mind sets I would presume. From what I can tell at a distance, it seems to be true.

As for the similarities all of them might purchase their child a radio before pencils for school. All of them will likely blame the rich for their state in life.

But I think with respects to the differences in mind sets the Brazilian living impoverished expects a lot less from their government and feels less entitled. For one thing, the poor in Brazil have often worked 2 and 3 menial jobs, often in the underground economy (not taxed), just to survive. Their children have often had to leave school before finishing grade school or high school to work a menial job to help bring food on the table.

This causes a cycle of poverty. If capitalism promotes meritocracy and contemporary meritocracy often goes hand-in-hand with academic and professional credentials, then part of the great leap out of poverty in service based economies, will be heavily tied to post-secondary education. You can’t become a lawyer without first going through an undergraduate program. You can’t enter an undergraduate program until you complete your secondary education. You can’t enter an institute of secondary education until you complete your primary education.

So, a woman with no high school diploma on welfare, raising kids dropping out of grade school to shine shoes and sell peanuts on the street corners of Sao Paulo, will produce two or several generations locked in poverty.

I’m not sure about the English system as I have no experience with it an people on it. However, there are some inefficiencies in the U.S. system given some of the women on government (state) programs have acquired hundreds of thousands of dollars personally, and possibly for a few, millions, all off scamming the system while still officially being “poor.”

A poor Brazilian woman in Brazil would be knocked over flabbergasted at what she and her kids could obtain her in the U.S. through government programs.

Brazil is pulling itself more into the modernity of the West though and in doing so is creating more and more government housing. Some of them in the past were pretty bad from what I here. But the ones being built more recently are actually of better quality. They aren’t millionaire pads but a person and their kids can live in dignity. Some poor housing projects in Europe, like in Italy and France, constructed many decades ago, are far more dilapidated and horrendous than some of the new government housing going up in Rio.

You might fond this short video interesting. It is of the government of Rio preparing the infrastructure of the city for the coming Olympics. Before my memory the City of Milwaukee destroyed huge sections of housing throughout a long section of the city to build a highway cutting right through were tens of thousands of people used to live. And in the process the city effectively wiped out a large chunk of the Sicilian neighborhood that once was. I’m not sure what to make of government projects that seek economic growth and sacrifice many citizens life long homes to demolish in the pursuit of progress and economic growth.

journeyman.tv/65147/short-films/reshaping-rio.html

 

[Portrait]

I believe that people are concerned, but I think that support for euthanasia by liberals in England should cause more misery than welfare cuts by conservatives.

Of course if there were stronger unions in the first place there’d be less dependence on welfare. But I digress.

Dear friend,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for your response.

Whilst it is true that some kindhearted people, even among the wealthy, are sympathetic to the plight of God’s poor, who are suffering as a result of the current UK welfare reforms, there has undoubtedly been a hardening of attitudes. Many of us are horrified by news stories that regularly appear showing how the needy and vulnerable are being endlessly squeezed and marginalised to pay for the misdeeds of the wealthy and powerful. The irresponsible people that got into the present financial mess do not have to worry themselves about harsh government medical assessments or savage welfare cuts.

Failure to consider the poor is a dereliction of duty and, dear friend, a most serious sin which, according to our Lord’s parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus (St. Luke 16: 19-31), does have eternal consquences. The sin of the rich man was not so much his dress and diet, but his thinking of and providing only for himself. It is not even said that he spoke harsh words about Lazarus being a ‘scrounger’ or ‘freeloader’, it is that he shamelessly displayed no concern for this poor chap and took no steps to care for him, which he was quite able to do had he so wished. Here was a genuine and deserving object of charity if ever there was and yet he missed a golden opportunity to be an agent for good. It is not enough that we do not trample on or oppress God’s poor; we shall still be found unfaithful stewards in the Day of Judgment if we have refused to help or relieve them - even on the grounds that we considered other issues of greater importance. The reason for the fearful doom of many will be “I was hungry and you gave me no food”.

It is, dear friend, so very difficult to understand how those well-off Catholics who read the Gospels, and profess to believe them, can be strangely insensitive and unconcerned as regards the necessities and miseries of the poor and afflicted.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Portrait]

In recent years the range of such intervention has vastly expanded, to the point of creating a new type of State, the so-called “Welfare State”. This has happened in some countries in order to respond better to many needs and demands, by remedying forms of poverty and deprivation unworthy of the human person. However, excesses and abuses, especially in recent years, have provoked very harsh criticisms of the Welfare State, dubbed the “Social Assistance State”. Malfunctions and defects in the Social Assistance State are the result of an inadequate understanding of the tasks proper to the State. Here again the principle of subsidiarity must be respected: a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.100

By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending. In fact, it would appear that needs are best understood and satisfied by people who are closest to them and who act as neighbours to those in need.

Pope John Paul II, Centesimus Annus, 48
​

Sadly, it won’t do anybody any good if a State’s economy collapses under the weight of public debt. It also won’t do anybody any good if a State, in seeking to avoid such a collapse, imposes such draconian taxes on those who are at the upper end of the economic spectrum determine that the benefits of being a citizen of that country are no longer worth the expense and quit that country.

Sadly, it is the poor who end up suffering: first, because of government dependency and second, when that largesse is withdrawn because it is no longer available.

Remember: limiting emigration from a country is a violation of human rights. Even for the well-to-do.

Dear markomalley,

Cordial greetings and very good day. Thankyou for response.

Unfortunately, dear friend, there will, owing to man’s fallen estate, always be “excesses and abuses” in any welfare system, however it does not follow that all state social relief of the poor and needy is unhelpful and necessarily leads to lifetime welfare dependency. For many it is a vital temporary safety net if they have fallen on hard times and do not have the wherewithal to support themselves, for others, such as the chronically sick who cannot work, it is there only means of survival, prehaps indefinitely.

Public charities, dear friend, can only do so much and this is why the Welfare State was created here in Britain to provide the necessary assistance from the cradle to the grave. Prior to the creation of the Welfare State many in Britain were reliant upon the charitable relief of the local Anglican parish, which simply did not have the funds to meet all the demands made upon it from the poor of the parish. As a citizen of the UK I am very proud of our Welfare State, for it has saved multitudes from homelessness and begging and in so doing has acknowledged the dignity of the human person. This is why it is deplorable that the present coalition are savagely cutting the benefits of the poor and vulnerable who so urgently need that vital support to survive.

In modern Britain, dear friend, one could never rely soley upon charitable giving to provide for the multitudes of the sick and unemployed, which is why men need to be provided for by state welfare assistance.

The hackneyed argument, dear friend, about so called punitive taxation driving the wealthy out of the country does not really stand up to scrutiny. We have no way of knowing how many would take the drastic step of leaving these shores to escape “draconian taxes”, probably not enough to make any substantial difference to the welfare budget. Moreover, many well-healed people do have a social conscience, especially if they have come from humble origins and are well aware that there will always be some who are loosers in the struggle to survive. In any event, I think that the government has a duty to educate those that are rich concerning their financial obligation to the less fortunate members of society who, for whatever reason, are genuinely unable to help themselves.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[ora_pro_nobis]

Thank you Portrait for your post.

I am disabled with complex physical and mental health problems and find myself in the crosshairs of this government’s bid to cut benefits to the most vulnerable sections of our society. Nearly 20 years ago I was granted Disability Living Allowance indefinitely because of the severity of my needs. It’s not much, but means I don’t have to choose between, say, going to the laundrette or having a meal. Now the criteria for assessing disability have been changed, and while over the past 20 years my illnesses have got worse, I will no longer qualify. I feel absolutely sick with worry about how I’m going to cope.

On top of this is the “demonisation” as you rightly say, of the poor. There has been a rise in physical attacks on disabled people, and while it may be difficult to prove that these attacks are linked to the government’s policy, the terms of abuse such as “skivers” have been used in these attacks. So the attackers seem to be taking on board the government attitude.

For the information of our American friends: the Daily Mail is not a “liberal” newspaper - it is a mouthpiece of the government, extremely illiberal in its treatment of the poor, and certainly no friend of the Church.
Living word unity: your perception of the UK government as liberal is somewhat off - while we have a Liberal Democrat party in coalition with the tories, they are nothing like what you might think of as liberal or democrat - they come from a different tradition altogether, and have been subsumed (willingly) into the tories.

I could write more, but the whole topic is really so upsetting and I can feel my anxiety levels going through the roof. For people like me the future has become very dark and uncertain.