Bests & Worsts Reviews from Amazon

Although the authors can bring out a few good points (like what to watch for when buying a mortgage), I think they focus too much on "victimization" of the consumer/worker and not enough on personal responsibility. There is no trap here. It's people buying into some idea that they HAVE TO live near a good school district, or have all that entertainment, or buy name brands - yes, I said it. People get buffaloed into thinking if it costs more, it must be better. Frankly, if something costs too much, I'm afraid if could break (and they all do folks), it can't be replaced so easily so I won't use it or enjoy it. Everything is made cheaply so nothing lasts like it used to. I still own things from the 80's that work better than the new ones. As for school vouchers....from my experience, all public schooling stinks, so what's the rush to buy into a mortgage you can't live with in a neighborhood for the schools? Vouchers? Let's watch more government regulation with that one. Hey, there's always homeschooling. And the best part is that you don't have to buy name brand clothes for your kids, no lunches at a higher cost, no rushing in traffic, less gas and wear and tear on your car, and free help with the chores, AND the kids get a private education. What we need are tax breaks for those people. Do we have to go to preschool and end up at an Ivy league school to become educated? What happened to FREE library access? Or clepping out of college courses, or going to the local Junior college for the first 2 years. Why are the authors blaming the problem on credit companies, interest rates, and regulations? Know your income and what you can afford, say NO and hang up the phone. Do the numbers for yourself. Watch how the market goes up and down. Grab that mortgage when the rates are down and don't get in over your head....simply common sense. I had a real problem with some of the numbers these authors came up with. For instance she said that the middle class wasn't getting name brand items, yet the sales are up, malls are crowded and thriving, and I see kids walking around in name brand items - a lot! Friends I know are buying new furniture on credit when waiting for the savings will do them better, or when buying at 0% interest for one year and plan it out will do better? Or how the people I know who took out a 3rd mortgage on their home for the equity to "consolidate" credit cards? They would have been better off not shopping for clothes they can't fit in any closets anymore, or buying the 4 TVs, 5 VCR's, 2 PS2's, gameboys and a host of other "high quality" high dollar items, and plunking that money into their debts above the minimum payments. They knew the strategy, but wanted the stuff. I also see too many people in the 2 income bracket buying new cars, when a year old lease for sale could serve just as well for $10K less. People DO spend much more on entertainment today than we used to. Why not? There IS more. The sad part is people feel they won't be happy, or are "deprived" unless they have the toys, when taking walks, playing games, inviting over friends, etc. would do just as well. The authors' stance on how 2 income families aren't spending much on groceries compared to the 70's is weak. Of course not! They aren't cooking and opting to spend it at fast food or restaurants. Why would they NEED to buy more at the grocery store? The food cost alone could be cut in half with less "treats" and more quick home cooking (and less incident of food poisoning or doctor visits). The authors also make a statement to the effect that home entertainment for the average family with cable is a mere $170 a year. Have they looked into cable for entertainment lately? Most people I know who get cable buy the minimum package at $50-$70 a month! (not including taxes) That's at least $600/yr. Don't forget the DVD's they have to buy. I doubt that most people are using just basic cable to get channels and forgoing all entertainment to keep their costs under $200 a year. (Get me the name of that cable company. I want to see this for myself!) Of course people are filing for bankruptcy. They don't have the money. It's called a wake-up call to reality and basic math. But I do agree not everyone falls into this category, SOME have had truly unfortunate experiences. Likewise, I would think people would go to a consumer credit counseling service before hitting the costly bankruptcy courts, which offers similar benefits as bankruptcy and yet keeps your credit intact (at a fraction of the cost). Additionally, we all know that divorce causes financial disaster for most of us, not just the mom, but many times the dad as well. If people could get past the "no fault" divorce of "he said/she said" and work it out, they could fare better financially. But everyone's a victim and it's someone else's fault. They want a government to change the rules so they can play better because they don't know how to dive inside and make the best of it, or come up with a different idea...for anything. The authors do point out the thinking of 2 income families. 2 incomes means more money, a house, more stuff, etc. (and less time building relationships to avert the stress factor - my input). No one made them do it. It was a free choice. Creditors are simply opportunists for those that don't want to think for themselves. I agree with the authors on this: The cost of things has certainly gone up, and income hasn't kept up with inflation. If creditors can find a loop-hole for keeping up rates and prices, they will. But likewise, I can move around them and find my own loopholes to keep them out of my pocketbook. It's not a privalege to qualify for a loan. It's a privaledge to have my freedom and my responsibility from someone else's regulations and obligations. This book looked more like propaganda for more government regulations and less responsibility for those who make the choices. I think I'll go read "Affluenza".