I found listening to the book on CD was a good way to get through it. The version I have has Edward Herman reading.

One of these days I'll write a critique of the book. The gist is this: I agree with Rand's conclusions, but I think some (not all) of her premises are weak and/or wrong. I was particularly disappointed in her trying to use economic freedom as a justification for her own infidelity. I do think her portrayal of the cause of "the problem" is accurate, particularly the cycle of some politicians thinking they know how to fix things, then the unintended consequences of their actions making things worse, which lead to more fixes, which cause even more severe problems. The idea that some people in government create problems solely for the purpose of being able to "fix" them is spot on, as is the trading of favors that results.

My wife and I were friends with another couple on welfare. Over time we drifted apart.

The husband had been a laborer at the local Firestone plant, which makes tires for Caterpillar and other heavy-duty off-road equipment. He'd injured his back and been told he was done in that line of work. After worker's comp and/or unemployment had run out (not sure what all he was eligible for) he still hadn't found a job to his liking and did not work. His wife worked with my wife. The wife got fired from her job for missing too much work. (Which was bull$h!t in my opinion, she was pregnant and the time she was missing was for doctor's appointments. Still they did not pursue anything against her former employer.) As she was fired for cause, she was not eligible for unemployment. They did not elect to pay for COBRA. They went on welfare. They found a section 8 apartment. They went on Medicaid. They have three other children.

They had what I would call a nice three-bedroom apartment. They had two cars, cable television, and X-Box live service. The husband and son were able to get the latest video games.

The wife was actively looking for work (at first), but couldn't find anything. She has a high school diploma, the husband lacks one. He finally did get a job as the night manager at the local Target, but quit after he realized that his family's standard of living would actually go down if he had a job. He'd have to start paying taxes again and would lose all of the social services that would allow him to live a comfortable life. It was only worth it for him to work if he could make a lot of money, and he didn't have the skills to get the kind of job that would make working worthwhile. The same held true for the wife.

Eventually, he started doing odd jobs: roofing, working as a mover, etc.. (Didn't he have a back injury?) He worked for cash off the books, as he would get to keep 100% of the money and it wouldn't jeopardize his lifestyle. The wife stayed at home full-time to tend to their (now) four children.

I believe there are two components to his family's situation. First there is a system of social services that literally provide for his family's every need. Because of the eligibility requirements, having a job could actually make things worse for his family. Second is someone who is willing to game the system to extract the maximum benefit for himself and his family. And it's not like this was hard to learn, the gatekeepers and the various agencies that doled out money often gave him advice on how to maximize his "benefits" and what would cause him to lose them. Because the stigma has been removed from receiving these services, he saw no shame in taking advantage of them.

I'd like to say that his family's situation unique, but I'd be lying. I think their situation if fairly representative of what we call "lower class". In this country we have set up a system that literally pays people not to work, and punishes them for being gainfully employed. A generation ago, their lifestyle would have placed them as squarely middle class. Today, they are considered below the poverty line because they have no reported income.

I know a lot of people like them.

Wayne, I did not read any of the responses yet, just your post. Here's a take on this, and it comes from someone that knows. When I was a kid I asked a very good black friend of mine, (much older that I), why black people alwyas seem to have a nice big Cadillac. His response was that because blacks in the ghetto or low income really had nothing else they would purchase a nice car. Something to have pride in. I thought that was a reasonable response and a good one. It may be the same thing with the TV. Since the people have nothing else to do, no money for a hobby like a Porsche or money for a nice vacation they decided on spending money on a nice TV. Think about it. It's their entertainment.

we have 2 horses, 2 cats ,2 turtles (and a partridge in a pare tree, couldnt resist) and all the neighbors dogs, i could not have said it better.

show me in the Bible where God wants us to take care of cats and dogs, but i can show you where he wants us to take care of people in need.

Tell the local Regional Center that you want to adopt a needy family next year -- not one that owns a big screen home theatre.

wayne,
we have a place called fostering hope here. it is a place where foster parents , like ourselves can go get items for foster kids. perhaps this may be a place to donate some of you unused items. i know it is a big help for us.

why wait until the holidays to do something for the needy. this is what puts me in a bad mood at christmas, that this is the only or main time of year people help. sure a nice dinner at thanksgiving is nice, but what about eating the rest of the year.

deserving?
there was an article in the paper here about teens living in campgrounds or hopping from freinds house to house because they have no place to live. these kids are trying to better themselves by going to school, which is usually the only place they get to eat.
the paper said they are too old for DSS to get involved and it is illeagal to take them in.
think about these kids next time you think working at an animal shelter is doing something good.

wayne
what is this truck deal?

Closest I can find is is genesis 26
4 Then God said: "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. Let him have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and the cattle, and over all the wild animals and all the creatures that crawl on the ground."

he bible talks about killing animals for sacrifices constantly. So, I'd have to say that PITA is not represented in the bible at all. Humans are, but not PITA.
According to the bible, man is supposed to dominate animals. Not throw pig's blood on celebrities. Bob Barker is a clown BTW.

Noah's Ark. Better brush up on your bible skills

noahs ark? thats the best you got? do i really need to explain that one to ya?

next flood i will take in my share, oh wait, 2 horses, 2 cats 2 turtles, and all the neighbors dogs, ive already got a head start, problem is, cats are males, turtles are gay, dogs and cats are neutered, and the male horse is cut and i dont have a boat.

dont get me wrong, i dont hate animals. i just think there are WAY too many cats and dogs out there and pepople are more important. plus, all these so called "animal lovers" that have to have a pet keep dumping their pets out here by me because THEY are tired of them.

i wonder if PITA believes in or supports the Bible?

I can't imagine PITA having much to say on the issue.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1233597760.jpg

P eople
E ating
T asty
A nimals


'E', not 'I'.


Now be careful lest this thread be tossed into the pits of Gehenna (aka PARF).

- you are misinterpreting "dominion" -- it is often read in the sense that a pastoralist or farmer would give it. The passage you quoted is addressed to exactly those types of people (tribes). i.e. kill for sacrifice and food, but manage the living things of the Earth.

but we are detracting from Wayne's issue here...

james ch 1

27Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.

thanks, i have been wanting to look this up again.

JAMES 2

14What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? 15Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. 16If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? 17In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

show me in the Bible where God wants us to take care of cats and dogs, but i can show you where he wants us to take care of people in need.T77911S
Let's keep in mind that the text Christians subscribe to consist of two parts. And as I recall, in the first section their god said something like, "God created the animals and saw that it was good." And from looking at the story around Noah's Ark, it should be pointed out that tons of widows and orphanes were bypassed with the only creatures their god considered good, the animals.
And for what it's worth, the text beyond the first section suggests helping those that need help the most and it would seem to me this is the point being missed here. Wayne and his family wanted to help a family with a special needs child. A computer was the help this family needed? Go figure.
This is why I support the Special Olympics...the emphasis isn't on things but some very special people. Wayne and a few others here know what I mean.