AnyBook4Less.com	Find the Best Price on the Web Order from a Major Online Bookstore
Home  |  Store List  |  FAQ  |  Contact Us  |
Ultimate Book Price Comparison Engine Save Your Time And Money Keyword AuthorISBN

Title: The War on the Poor: A Defense Manual by Nancy Folbre, Center for Popular Economics, Center for Popular Economics (U.S.), Randy Pearl Albelda, The Center for Popular Economics ISBN: 1-56584-262-6 Publisher: New Press Pub. Date: May, 1996 Format: Paperback Volumes: 1 List Price(USD): $12.95

Your Country USA Canada United Kingdom Australia Austria Belgium France Germany Italy Netherlands Switzerland Currency AutoUSD CAD GBP EUR AUD CHF Delivery Only cheapest delivery All delivery options Include Used Books Are you a club member of: Barnes and Noble Books A Million Chapters.Indigo.ca

Average Customer Rating: 3.17 (6 reviews)

Rating: 3
Summary: Interesting Subject, Poor Analysis
Comment: The War on the Poor is an interesting subject and somewhat provides evidence against certain myths about the poor, welfare, health care, children, teen mothers, balancing the budget, the minimum wage, etc. It is set up in a Myth/Reality format where two pages are dedicated to each myth and then the reality of the issue is argued with statistics. Unfortunatley, frequently the statistics have nothing to do with the myth or faulty conclusions are reached from the information given. In someplaces, the book seems to even contradict itself. It has tons of picture but little text, so if you are looking for something REALLY short to read, this is it. It is very readable, easy to skim, and probably can be completely read in about an hour or so.

Even with its many faults, it is still a thought provoking book, and a good starting point into the more liberal economic issues. However the book is now somewhat out of date, so it would not make a great reference book.

Be warned: The authors seem to be incredibly biased in their feelings toward the poor, where in their attempts to get across the idea that we should not blame the poor and be sympathetic to the poor, they go really far in the other direction, making it seem like it is entirely societies' fault and being poor cannot be helped at all (and they really scrape for statistics to back up this extreme view).

Rating: 4
Summary: Objectives met by authors
Comment: The objective of this book seems to have been to provide a bullet presentation regarding the issue of poverty, those on welfare and alternatives. Despite the fact that the reader may disagree with it's assertions and conclusions, one cannot argue that the authors did a good job in meeting their objectives. The book is written in such a way that the lay person can clearly understand points being made. Although there is always some compromising of the "facts" when presented in a simplistic way, it nevertheless meets its objectives. The best part of this book is how it attacks the myths surrounding the issues of poverty and welfare. It seems that those who did not like this book would not like ANY book that expressed the idea that poverty is primarily caused by societal forces not individual indolence. But of course, it makes them feel a lot safer thinking the latter, because if only indolent people become poor, than they can't possibly ever be poor.

Rating: 2
Summary: not terribly insightful
Comment: The difficulty of any book of this sort is the same that plagues any attempt to hold up statistical inequalities of one form or another and draw certain conclusions from them. What's more bothersome about this book, however, is it's tone. Page after page we are treated to notion that the reason there is suffering in the world is because those who don't agree with the ideology of the authors are cruel, uncaring, unfeeling, or just plain stupid. The assertion incessantly implied is that their ideological adversaries are "not merely in error, but in sin." It makes all their arguments difficult to take seriously.

Charles Murray takes much of the same foundations underlying this book to draw opposite conclusions, and manages to do it in a way that is more analytical and unemotional - and certainly more persuasive. Perhaps the intentions of the authors wasn't to persuade, but to solidify and inspire those already in their camp. But if their intentions were the former, they failed miserably in writing a "polemic" that seems more childish than thought-provoking.