Are you really advocating that poor people shouldn't have children? That children are a privilege reserved for those wealthy enough to afford health care and apartments in the suburbs? That's ridiculous and I tried to vote that I didn't like your review, but it turns out that just by hitting the "vote" button I was voting for you.

Thanks for your comment. No, I don't believe that individuals who cannot even support themselves should breed until they've attained sufficient financial stability to cover all costs for proposed children THEMSELVES. It's about personal responsibility, Nyana. Having children and expecting others to pay for them is irresponsible and parasitic.

I hear you about how having a car as an added expense versus relying on public transportation. However, I can only speak from my limited experience, but in the cities where I've lived where there is good public transportation (New York City, DC) the housing costs are much higher. Opposed to other cities where I've lived that had low housing cost, but poor public transportation (Houston, in particular...like I said, limited experience). Maybe she steered clear of big cities with public transportation because they were too costly and thus she could not conduct her experiment without making other sacrifices (like her desire to live alone). (I'm not trying to stick up for her or anything. I disliked her book for other reasons.)

I would prefer to have read the real facts/beliefs from someone who actually lives the life rather than the report of a short-term member of the working class but the working class does not produce a lot of writers, at least not many that get published. The 2nd hand writings of the middle class college grads from real working class informants or from their own short-term sojourns in life of a low-wage earner are usually the closest we get to the dirty end of work. If you don't like the liberal/socialist view as you define this to be, please feel free to take the trip yourself. I look forward to your report.
As someone who has had children before becoming sufficiently prepared financially I can agree with much of what you say about the practice.
As for your condemning workers for using a car I must disagree as many workers do not have access to public transit because they live outside the cities with transit in order to get a job ie food processing which is rarely done in an urban setting (ask Tyson Foods, Cargill etc) or to find a home they can afford to rent/buy. In this area the escalating cost of rent,increased condoization of rental accommodation & the rapid increase in home values (approx 40% in less than 24 months) is forcing low-wage earners to move to small towns in the area - none of which provide transit back to the jobs in the larger centres. Within the city in which I live the city transit system does not serve the industrial area which leaves those workers with a long walk in a climate that frequently experiences minus20 & colder temperatures (-10 to -40 plus 20 mph windchill this winter) conditions like these often result in frostbite, hypothermia & occassionally death. Oh well that's one way to thin the weak from the breeding pool, eh?.

Breeding is not necessarily followed by reproduction. How about leaving them the pleasures of sex and just sterilizing the poor?

Loved the review. I work at a place where we attempt to make the unemployable employed. The author doesn't know her rear end from a hole in the ground (pardon the expression) about any of these people, how they live, why they live the way they do.

The biggest problem with her experiment is that it is just an experiment – she can return to her comfy upper middle class life, while demanding that the government do something about the minimum wage and poverty.

Agreed, but where are the lower-class, labour-class writers? Who would publish their less than polished prose? As for the gov't. doing something (ie,to alleviate) about poverty: Why not? Gov't policies have done much to create poverty and gov't has little or no problem in assisting the wealthy & corporations. Corporate welfare appears to be more acceptable than welfare for the poor?

Whew! Where to start?

First off, Lisa, as a woman who has been on both sides of the coin (or is it 6?) I have been unemployed, homeless, a single mother, and I have also been on the other side of the desk when people are asking me for help. I think N&D is a *very* accurate portrayal of being poor in this country.

As for her owning a car, you do realize that *most* cities/towns in this country do not have adequate and/or reliable public transit, right?

"until they've attained sufficient financial stability"?

Major assumption - that they ever will. When being poor is a temporary state, as with grad school, this might be a reasonable thing to say. However, the point is that for many people, being poor is a lifetime prospect. And you've just said they don't deserve to breed.

And Ehernreich clearly states why she avoids major cities - the populations filling the low-wage jobs are almost entirely racial minorities, where she would be conspicuous.

I would _love_ for the poor everywhere (and everyone else) to have good public transportation to use, but that requires public funds that conservatives never want to give. Many poor today need a car.

Given the high costs of fuel & vehicles & insurance the poor shall get poorer & some of the middle class will spend a larger % of their income on transportation other than mass transit hoping to avoid looking poor. Others have seen the sense of reducing costs & commute times with mass transit of moving from the suburbs to the center & to areas with employment possibilities. These high costs may make the outer suburbs less desirable to home buyers. Realtors are featuring community characteristics such as the commute time & access to employment areas as much as other aspects of homes for sale.

You've missed the whole point of the book.

somewhat off on a tangent, I agree, goodbye.

Renee,
Not everyone CHOOSES to be a single parent. Calling someone a "parasite" because they cannot afford all the expenses of raising children is disgusting. FYI, I was married before I had children and was suddenly plunged into single parenthood. Daycare for three children is roughly $1,000 a month in my area (and that's not nearly as much as in some larger cities).

The general idea of the book seems to be that living in a country as wealthy as the United States, one should be able to afford to make ends meet as long as they are hard-working. That is the American dream - to work hard and not only survive but eventually to thrive. However, this is not the case unfortunately.

It's abhorrent to me that there are people in this country who choose to undergo voluntary plastic surgery purely for VANITY when there are children in this country who do not even have basic health insurance. Most of the people I know who are rich didn't even earn the money they have. It's just not fair that someone who works hard 40-80 hours a week can struggle to put food on the table in a country as prosperous as ours. Anyhow who does not see this as an injustice is just plain selfish.

it's nice to see that there are some folks who think everyone owes them a living. /sarcasm.

you seem to think that people's earnings are not their own. of course, you think that people should not be able to use their own earnings the way they see fit instead of supporting folks who don't take responsibility for their own kids. haven't you heard of personal responsibility??? i really don't care how you or anyone become a "single parent" - anyone who has children must plan for their support. period. evidently, you think that you can just breed without consideration for their future. It must be a beautiful and feckless world in which you live.

What's disgusting is that you demand support for YOUR children. Grow up!

Um...I think that's the whole point. It's kind of difficult to take responsibility when you are making minimum wage and the cost of living is what it is. Sure, you could argue for them to get a better job, but some people might not have the abilities to get a better job or the resources to get training to get a better job. Poverty is a cycle.

We want cheap goods from Wal-Mart, so Wal-Mart is forced to use cheap labor, buy cheap products from oversees, and conveniently contract out their janitorial services to out of status persons and then claim they didn't know. Thus, our desire for cheap goods ensures people lose jobs or keeps people in low paying ones, and helps create this problem. But yet people don't think it's irresponsible to shop at Wal-Mart and perpetuate the problem.

I totally don't think it's disgusting that society help ease the burden it created. What I think is disgusting is ad hominem attacks. Oh, now that you've told me to grow up, I see your point.

Excuse me, (insert dirty word here). I am currently able to support myself and my three children single-handedly NOW. HOWEVER, there is no way I would have been able to the first few months after my husband was gone without help from programs like food stamps and daycare assistance. How would I have been able to FIND a job if I had no money to pay for daycare after the loss of my husband's income?? And how would I have been able to continue feeding them in the meantime while I was waiting on my first paycheck??

People like you make me sick - what, would you rather see a child STARVE TO DEATH? You shouldn't be so damn judgemental - nearly everyone in this country is working paycheck-to-paycheck so much so that if they were to suddenly lose their jobs, they would only be able to support themselves 2-6 weeks without that income coming in. And then what??

And as much money as it takes to keep social welfare programs up and running, it would cost MUCH MUCH more for the state to have taken custody of my children. You should be THANKFUL that support programs are in place to help people like me (and perhaps someday you - you never know) until we can get back on our feet. Because guess what? I have since then. And in the meantime, my kids have been able to live with me and be raised by me and are better off for it rather than having become wards of the state because my TEMPORARY situation wasn't allowing me to be able to make ends meet.

I am not sure if you are religious or not, but it really burns me up when I hear people who purport themselves to be Christians spout similar nonsense as yourself. Whatever happened to "Love thy neighbor?" I don't think preaching to someone while sitting back and watching their children starve to death would qualify.

I wonder why you're so hateful. I am guessing probably either you can't have children yourself or if you do, your own children hate you. If you're not already a mother, I hope you never become one. Seems to me you would make an AWFUL parent.

That's all from me (although I'm sure you will post some backlashing comment in return - but some of us have better things to do than spend all our time judging others and spewing hate and bitterness).

Melissa & Renee:The character of a nation, as in an individual or family, is reflected in the way it cares for it's members when they are in need.
Good comments. Given your experiences & ability to communicate perhaps you should be writing a book? I would look forward to a 1st hand account of the state of the social welfare system in USA today. I have used the Canadian system in the past when I was unemplyed & continue to use the almost free public health care system, the public transit system, public roads, the public library & the subsidized housing program today.

ITA with everything you wrote Melissa.... I'm glad things have turned around for you! :)

Wow - some of you sure have a lot of time on your hands!

If you find my views so heinous, simply don't read my reviews. Thx.

Renee - I would suggest to you that if you can't take some lively discussion then perhaps you shouldn't post your reviews in a public forum. You have the option of making your profile private. Your comments were provocative and, unless you live under a rock, you can't be surprised that you've gotten some backlash.

About the book: I haven't read it and I don't plan on it. It sounds pretty unappealing to me. Sure it's an interesting premise and I suppose I should applaud her effort. It takes much less energy to just judge someone and shoot 'em the finger for being a lazy slob than it does to examine the complexities of a situation and maybe even lend a helping hand. (This is why many of you find yourselves hitting a brick wall trying to argue with the OP.) But the truth is you can't 'fake' being working class. Being working class isn't just about the jobs and lousy pay. It's really laughable for me to think about this woman going through her little pretense. Maybe I'm way off the mark here but it seems really self-indulgent and condescending to even attempt it.

Renee, I enjoyed your review & the responses. Had I known you were not receptive to counter-views & to reading the arguments of readers not in synch with your views I would not have responded. Perhaps you should label your reviews: "For like-minded readers only. Others should not reply."
I look forward to future reviews. 'bye, time flies, eh?

Coalbanks,

Is this a good example of what Chandra calls "a lively discussion" or simply an "opposing view"? If so, I could do without this nonsense.
-----
Melissa: "I wonder why you're so hateful. I am guessing probably either you can't have children yourself or if you do, your own children hate you. If you're not already a mother, I hope you never become one. Seems to me you would make an AWFUL parent."
---
My original review was balanced - I gave pros & cons. Some of the responses I rec'd gave me the impression that those commenters believe:

- that insults pass for intelligent discourse or "lively discussion";

- that people have the right to bear children without thought to their financial needs or future, and that the nanny state (ie, the rest of us) has the obligation to pay for them;

- poor people are too stupid to understand contraception and to make prudent decisions to delay parenthood until they're on better financial footing;

- that people in general don't have any control over their lives, so they can't be held accountable for their choices.

Clearly, I don't concur.

I didn't read Melissa's full comment until just now. Sounds like she let her emotions get the best of her. I defintely do not think personal attacks like that belong in a discussion like this.

Neither do I, I leave it to Melissa to sort out her emotions/feelings & make a rational response. My response dealt only with what I assumed was response response to my comments. Overal I believe we have much the same viewpoint on some of the issues raised. Still looking forward to future reviews.

"poor people are too stupid to understand contraception and to make prudent decisions to delay parenthood until they're on better financial footing"

While I see your point, what do you think of the argument that there is a system in place designed to prevent people from getting the resources they need to "delay parenthood?"

A person or a couple who has children despite living on the poverty line may have legitimate circumstances that leave them poor. Your blatant and continual disrespect for such people as "breeders" is unacceptable. Even if it were ture that people just pop out kids with the expectation that taxpayer money will take care of them (and that is not true) how are you to strip someone of their humanity!

So, working class people don't "raise" their children now? They're animals now? Working class people don't instill values in their children, insist on getting educations, or attend school sporting events? And their is no welfare system that is enough by itself to provide for a family of 3 or 4.

Sometimes reading what we've written helps us correct errors.

Been there, done that. Thanks for the sanctimony.

Renee wrote: "Been there, done that. Thanks for the sanctimony."

Yeah, what you said!

Jeff wrote: "Really? I doubt it. Sorry, but your lack of compassion leads me to believe otherwise. Thanks for your bullshyte."

Believe what you want, but I don't understand why people have pity for the poor. That seems a bit insulting, to me. Their lives are full of just as much meaning as mine. Their joy is the equivalent of mine. They can aspire to just as much as I can.

We all have different struggles in life and I guess I don't just have a lot of assumptions about the poor to cloud my opinions. Probably from being one of them for so long and knowing that a lot of people there made, make and will always make the kind of decisions that will limit them to being there. It's just who they are.

Conservative - vs. Liberal
Purely a case of stingy versus generous. Why are you so bitterly opposed to caring for the needy? Isn't that what we as Christians are charged to do? As far as your righteous judgement of the poor who have children - The countless unforeseen circumstances that can put a family or a parent in the precarious position of poverty are beyond your heartless capacity to comprehend. For someone to make a blanket proclamation on planning parenthood with the perfection of insurance and the white picket fence takes nothing more than the simple ignorance of privilege. You couldn't walk a mile in worn out struggling shoes - you are too proud - and pride comes before the fall.

I don't think it's that simple at all. Conservatives are often very generous with their time, their taxes and their family. To make a blanket statement about all conservatives, and their motives, as you have is unreasonable.

Lets assume, for a moment, that both the conservatives and the liberals have the same goal - 100% employment. The conservative's approach is to educate people in order to empower them to employment. What is the liberal approach? To feed them, thus minimizing their need to find employment?

Or, has the liberal actually given them a job, by giving them charity?

Some of the needy have, in all honesty, come across circumstances that are truly unforseen. But we have millions upon millions of needy in this country - it's hard to argue that they ALL fell upon hard times that they couldn't forsee. There are much better explanations, such as greed, ignorance, or laziness.

We should certainly have charity in this country, and I'm all for personal charity for personal reasons. But giving my tax money to the poor is almost (close, but not quite) as bad as spending in cruise missiles - the return on the investment is just awful.

ok Rob - I am liberal - even in my flexibility. I agree that in any economic circumstance - there are the greedy, the ignorant, and the lazy. I also agree that education is essential. So why did the previous administration cut funding - leaving so many children behind? Is education charity too? Educational funding: be it student loans, inner city bonus pay, addressing the rising rate of autism or other learning disabilities - is essential and Conservatives Don't Like to Spend There Either! They can afford the private education for their children. The poor get the poorly funded, and the poorly staffed. Poor poor them.
And I guess you are proposing being judge and jury for the destitute who have come across circumstances that are truly unforeseen - throwing the baby out with the bath water - because - heck - it just costs too much money to care? Sorry - I will meet you on certain issues, but Renee is beyond a humanitarian meeting of the minds. Frighteningly entitled - caustically cruel.

You know, frankly, this was a mediocre book. I gave my review & I stand by it. I made my comments & stand by them. Period.

Keep in mind, folks, this is a share-your-views-on-books site - read the book or not, that's your personal choice. What it is NOT is a political forum or a place for ad hominem attacks. While some of you have made reasonable comments, others have gone beyond what I think is acceptable discourse for this venue. In that vein, I will feel free to flag comments that fall into the latter category & let the site administration sort it out.

I disagree with Renee - the notion that a site "is" something, and thus anything else is forbidden, is plainly false.

Luckily what you think is acceptable discourse is irrelevant. I'm curious to see if your flags will have any impact, but I seriously doubt the moderators will see the above attacks on you as anything worthy of note, let alone action.

I also doubt that this fact will change your feeling of "Harumpf, I will not be talked to that way!"

Deal with it, princess.

Rosemarie, what does the previous administration have to do with converstavism? Here's the mistake you made there: Being a conservative does not mean agreeing with the guy you voted for. Likewise, being a liberal does not mean agreeing with the guy you voted for.

Conservatives tend to believe in small government...what is "small government" about the war on terror? What is "small government" about Terry Schivao?

So, stop blaming elected officials for the opinions of their voters - that's not fair to anyone.

Again we go back to "My plan is to give to the people I love, your plan is to force me to give to everyone." Why do you do that? What gives you the right to spend my money on people I don't care about?

You also make another fairly glaring error - you're equating being conservative with having enough money to send your kids to private school. So, there's no wealthy liberals? Of course there are, and they send their children to private schools too, because public schools are for "other people".

Of course I get to be judge and jury on who gets charity - it's MY MONEY!!! I decide who I uplift, and how far. I decide how to give, and to whom, because I am a fair arbiter of such things, since it's MY MONEY!

It's not that it "costs too much to care." It's that I find giving to people who are not going to improve to be wasteful. It's that I think nothing in the world motivates a man more than the hunger of his children. It's that I want to live in a nation where responsibility and pragmaticism rule. It's that I think public charity for all leads to "employment" options that are despicable (waiting for a check in the mail, for work you didn't do, is NOT working.)

Bantering with single wingers is a waste of energy - My time is more profoundly and usefully spent on those who need the - energy, the cash, the simple smile - --- You as well as I - get what we give. I would duck if I were you -

Proving you don't know what you're talking about is a good use of my energy, and if you decide to come back, running your mouth, I'll be here to remind you that you still don't know what you are talking about.

As for getting what I give, I'm 30 years old Rosemarie, that isn't news to me. I've been getting what I deserve for some time now...and I have a good job, a LOVING and awesome wife, and a great little kid.

But, I guess you probably find it easier to think of everyone who has a conservative thought as being old, wealthy, and evil. It's a simple world your mind has created, Rosemarie. Simple in the extreme.

I can see that you've already heard this several times, but your review of this book is incredibly self-righteous and misguided.

Hi Renee,

I agree with much of what you say about this book.

I disagree with the idea that poor people shouldn't be allowed to have kids because they can't personally fund them. We have Medicaid for those people, just like we have public, government-funded schooling for those who can't afford to personally fund their kids' education. It's interesting to hear people's thoughts on this matter, though; thanks for bringing it up.

Rob wrote: "I don't think it's that simple at all. Conservatives are often very generous with their time, their taxes and their family. To make a blanket statement about all conservatives, and their motives, a..."

A couple of things here. First of all, education is definitely high on the liberal agenda. And having 100% employment is a great common goal to have. However, the people we're talking about aren't unemployed, and in fact they often work way more than 40 hours a week, so they hardly qualify as lazy, greedy or necessarily ignorant.

Now, let's talk about the "education will save the day" fallacy. The fact is, education or no, poor people often feel like professional jobs are not for them and with good reason. Aside from knowledge, fitting in and having a good job also requires connections, social skills and a knowledge of how the professional world works. Poor people, even those who have attempted or finished college, haven't had an "office politics" class that helps them understand the bullshit they will have to navigate in their professional job. They come from a place where respect and communication are earned and done in very different ways. This is going to greatly inhibit their success in a professional world.

Furthermore, our education system sucks. Frankly, I think that having poor education leads to easily manipulated zombie workers that are inter-changable and therefore dispensable and cheap, so it's not in the best interest of our corporate culture to improve education. As long as this is true, I don't see anyone trying to make an improvement. We NEED our cheap workforce.

One last thing. About the poor people not having kids they can't take care of. The fact is, given our current economic state, very few people can be certain that they will be able to always have enough to adequately care for their young without help. There are people who had good paying jobs, houses and cars, and retirement and other investments there specifically to plan for the future, just in case. And in minutes, it was gone. Some had family to help. Others didn't. Our money is sort of imaginary. It's not based on anything real. The value changes all of the time (Dick Cheney has over a million dollars invested as Euro because of this). Stocks become worthless overnight. Medical bills that an insurance company decides they won't cover can wipe someone out. None of us should really feel so confident in our financial security to suggest that it will always be there. That being said, yes people sometimes take advantage of the generous system we are so lucky to have in our wealthy country. I often ask why that is, since in many other countries that offer citizens aid, you don't see this nearly as often. Perhaps it's because people have pride? But I digress. I do think having time-limits on aid and aid that is more than just cash up front is a good idea. I know the idea of helping people may seem like being forced to pay part of your hard-earned money for nothing. But, it has been scientifically studied and documented that high rates of poverty has lead to the evolution of disease, such as drug-resistant staph and other infections, as well as higher rates of disease, such as tuberculosis, which spread out of poor communities. Crime can also be expected to increase when people are not able to meet their needs (not justified, just expected), which will also increase the need for cops and jails. All of this also would come out of our pockets eventually as well. Helping out the poor is actually a cheaper solution for many public health and safety issues. Not to say that it's ideal, just that it's reality. But I agree that real help, not just handouts, is what they will need. And a good education is a good place to start.

Sorry for all of the rambling. I think it's past my bed time.

"The biggest problem with her experiment is that it is just an experiment – she can return to her comfy upper middle class life, while demanding that the government do something about the minimum wage and poverty."

At one point in the book, she took a vacation from her "experiment." I totally agree with you. She knew she could get out, and therefore never really captured the image of true lower class.

Besides, did anybody not miss the beginning, where she begged not to be put on this assignment? There is nothing compassionate about this book. I found it to be condescending...

I haven't read Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America yet but someone already proposed a plan for taking care of all of those children of people who can't afford them. Maybe you have read it before, if not you can read it for free here:

http://www.art-bin.com/art/omodest.html

I felt similarly to you about the number of children poor people have when I was younger, but I feel that as I have grown as a person and had more life experience I was quite wrong in feeling that way. I do not consider myself, in any way, a “bleeding heart liberal”. On the contrary, I have very few liberal views. I agree very much with Tippy on this point:

“The fact is, given our current economic state, very few people can be certain that they will be able to always have enough to adequately care for their young without help. There are people who had good paying jobs, houses and cars, and retirement and other investments there specifically to plan for the future, just in case. And in minutes, it was gone.”

I have worked a myriad of minimum wage, and not much better jobs, in working toward a college degree (that I was told would train me for a job where there was a high need for motivated and qualified professionals). Currently, I am on the job hunt, living on my husband’s non-professional earnings, and as ever living pay check to pay check.

I don’t have any children, but I don’t think that everyone in my same set of circumstances should be denied that basic human right, having a family, because someone doesn’t want to pay the price of the system they, also, enjoy. I pay taxes, I have jumped through all the hoops that have been required to become a professional, I work hard and excel in my endeavors, and I am still looking for employment. I don’t receive government assistance, I don’t have rich parents. Despite it all, I don’t begrudge those who do benefit from the social programs I help pay for. It is important in this instance to really look at the bigger picture and not just the stereotype. If you are not independently wealthy, and then some times even if you are, it could easily be you in the same position.

From what I can tell, I don't particularly agree with your personal views, Renee, but I appreciate your review and I think that I might enjoy reading this book. And as a rule, I don't usually like to read these types of agenda driven books. Thumbs up for the honest review and glimpse into what to expect from this book.

(Note: A Modest Proposal is a work of satire. Don't eat your young. Jonathan Swift (1667-1745), author and satirist, famous for Gulliver's Travels (1726) and A Modest Proposal (1729). This proposal is one of his most drastic pieces. He devoted much of his writing to the struggle for Ireland against the English hegemony.)

Wow. What an odiously intolerant person you must be. A book review is definitely not the place to spout off your views about people being "para...moreWow. What an odiously intolerant person you must be. A book review is definitely not the place to spout off your views about people being "parasites" because they find themselves in a single parent situation. I guess you're one of those that think that every poor person somehow "deserves" to be poor, too? Think about where YOU'D be if you hadn't had a mentor/familial support/good advice/a chance at a decent education (take your pick of one or all).
The POINT of the book is that anyone who is willing to work 40 hours a week should be able to go home to a decent apartment or house in a decent neighborhood and should be able to at least pay minimum bills (gas, electricity, transportation, telephone), and SHOULD be able to have decent healthcare, and SHOULD be able to go home to something other than an empty refrigerator.
There will ALWAYS be a need for so-called "unskilled" workers - the maids in your hotels, the cashiers at your local retail stores, the janitors and housecleaning staff for your offices, the servers and hosts/hostesses at your favorite eating establishment - these jobs exist because they are necessary, and the people filling those jobs deserve a decent wage that will allow them a decent standard of living.

That may be the point but it's a patently false point and challenging it is a moral good.

You can't guarantee that all jobs will pay a living wage. If you could, then you would not have any jobs below a certain wage, and then those jobs just wouldn't get done. We wouldn't have maids. Period. There's no way to pay them a living wage in this society, if "a living wage" means living alone and paying bills alone.

You're not supposed to be a maid, and live on your own, because it doesn't pay enough money. So, your options are to not be a maid, be unemployed, or live like you're supposed to - with someone else! This book is one a long-winded way of saying "I deserve everything I want and you if you don't give it to me you're bad!" and that's just stupid. If the author had lived like the poor ACTUALLY live (ya know, developing relationships, leaning on charity and churches) then she would have found life much easier.

But that doesn't rub you liberals in your good spot, so you wouldn't buy her book, so she wrote it the way she did because she wanted to sell more copy.

The poor shouldn't try to live like the rich, because they can't afford it.

DUH!

This woman took her liberal lower-upper class mentality into the lower-lower class and was shocked to find that her old ways didn't work anymore?!

Did we really need a book to figure out that conclusion?

The word socialist smacks of hardcore right wing fascist conservatism. The book is obviously beyond your intellectual capacity. Hope you die a slow free-market death in your old age. May your hedge fund be ransacked by greedy, unprincipled, (but capitalist) managers.

The word socialist smacks of hardcore right wing fascist conservatism. The book is obviously beyond your intellectual capacity. Hope you die a slow free-market death in your old age. May your hedge fund be ransacked by greedy, unprincipled, (but capitalist) managers.

The word socialist smacks of hardcore right wing fascist conservatism. The book is obviously beyond your intellectual capacity. Hope you die a slow free-market death in your old age. May your hedge fund be ransacked by greedy, unprincipled, (but capitalist) managers.

The word socialist smacks of hardcore right wing fascist conservatism. The book is obviously beyond your intellectual capacity. Hope you die a slow free-market death in your old age. May your hedge fund be ransacked by greedy, unprincipled, (but capitalist) managers.

You'll forgive us if no one pays any attention to the woman who can't even figure out how to post replies to the internet.

Stop clicking the "Post" button, fool!!!

Nevermind the fact that your oft-repeated rant smacks of insults. What's it called when you wish ill on people who think differently from you? I mean, aside from pathetic - that much is obvious.