While the poor may not deserve our efforts, they are vital to the future of a middle class. They have never actually been properly represented in political history and are much more likely to be minorities.

The wealthy class needs the middle class (mostly tradesmen who fix their machines and tend to the mechanics of the economy), but they don't really need that many as technology replaces more and more of them. The wealthy view the poor as unnecessary "eaters" that contribute nothing to their betterment in monetary terms.

This, sadly, will remain the standard view of the world as long as the wealthy are considered as the "source" of a limited supply of money. Thatcher summed it up when she stated "There is no "public" money" about the same time that Reagan was promoting the "welfare queen" falsehood in the US. Both had the same purpose, to promote the concept of an economy dependent upon every member "earning" their keep.

The reality is that "all" net money in either economy is "public" money created by the respective governments. Only those dollars/pounds have the ability to be net saved or to retire private sector bank debt and both governments create those units of measure at will without regard to tax revenue or borrowing.

As long as the "little people" can be distracted by economic myths of who is deserving of basic necessities in an atmosphere of shortages they will not rebel against the ruling class as it wallows in the abundance provided by the commons. It the middle class continues to erode and add to the legions of poor the time will inevitably arrive when the call for revolution sweeps away the advantage the wealthy have. No two class economy has lasted long since America and France established the concept of democracy.

Meandering to a different drummer.