Rating: 
Summary: Ill-researched drivel
Review: This guy just plain gets his facts wrong. Consider this post from Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR):
Stossel(1/27/01): "America now spends about $40,000 a year on every family of four below the poverty line.... You could just cut them a check for that and they'd be out of poverty." -- This figure seems to derive from the work of Heritage Foundation welfare analyst Robert Rector, whom Stossel had cited in previous specials. In a 1995 book, Rector calculated that the government spent $324 billion on "welfare." When that number was divided by the number of families then below the poverty line, the result was roughly $40,000. The problem? Rector's number for total "welfare" spending includes programs that go to millions of non-poor families--including spending on Medicare and Medicaid, two of the most expensive government programs. Rector takes this total amount, and then divides this by the number of poor people alone. Such a figure tells you nothing about what benefits to poor people alone actually cost.Better stay away.
Rating: 
Summary: Simple common sense and concrete explanations
Review: Give me a Break often made me think of the plain spoken wisdom of Mark Twain or Will Rogers. I am not surprised by the negative non-specific reviews. The principles in this book are a poison pill to the status quo of the last 70 years.
Rating:
Summary: A Standard in Economics
Review: For years Stossel's work has been standard fair in economics classrooms around the country. His lightning rod investigation and clear exposition make him accessible to everyone, yet his depth makes his arguments credible. Unlike simple yellow journalism, Mr. Stossel can, and does, carefully substantiate every claim with easily understood facts. Huzzah!, for a man who is willing to be honest even if it makes him unpopular. P.S. If you don't agree with his work, by all means do us a favor and discredit it. Be careful, however; if you're honest with yourself, you may just have to re-think your own thinking.
Rating:
Summary: Give ME a break!
Review: This is one of the most horribly researched books I've read! Great premise and entertaining writing style - just really - get the facts straight please! Too much misinformation for my taste.
Rating:
Summary: Libertarian truths
Review: John Stossel has been giving the world exactly what it needs: a shot of classical liberalism in the strict Austrian sense of the word. Leftists hate the book because it encourages free markets, and neoconservatives hate it because it spells out the obvious: Republicans have outspent Democrats for the last 75 years! Neoconservatives like more spending in their government pork than any other demographic, bar none. I expect that the book will ultimately be rated 4 stars, as the extreme left and rights will give this book a cursory glance and not the full attention it deserves. True intellectuals have no choice but to give it 5 stars. The facts are there people! Read the book! He has empirical data that is backed up not only by the "evil corporations" but also by the U.S. government. I would also like to add that Stossel has never pledged allegiance to any political party, but Libertarians know a great Jeffersonian when they see one. God bless you John. God bless you!
Rating: 
Summary: of course liberals attack impircal data
Review: Why is that a liberal demands "scientific evidence", but when it doesnt fit their mantra, its a lie, or its pro Bush. Which reduces their credibity more. This is a good book for anyone who isnt lead by their television, and can create an opinion other then one mention on the liberal media
Rating:
Summary: Finally, someone tells it how it is
Review: Thank you, John. At least a few people in the media have the guts to stand up and tell it like it is.
Rating:
Summary: give US a break
Review: I found this book left on an empty bus seat, and though it cost me nothing [other than the bus fare + transfer] I STILL feel I got ripped off. Now it is no longer a wonder to me that such a recent release would be left abandoned on public transit. Pure dreck written in a smug, insulting style.
Rating: 
Summary: Stossel has become the huckster he despises
Review: While John Stossel was, at one time, a legitimate reporter who served the public interest, he long ago abandoned that in favor of making a few bucks.
The stories of Stossel's exploits as a reporter are sometimes interesting and sometimes nostalgic, but he seems to have taken a cue from so many others and decided that the best way to get a sure-fire best-seller is to blame everything on liberals.
Unfortunately for Stossel, the book never really proves that he is the 'Scourge of the Liberal Media.'
It was when he was exposed as a scam artist and corporate huckster that the media became 'liberal' and he became their 'scourge.'
Stossel was incensed when his journalistic integrity was questioned because it was learned he was skewing stories, twisting quotes and presenting false or misleading information to viewers. All the while he was accepting (in a somewhat shady and roundabout manner) enormous sums of cash from the same corporations to go on the speaking circuit. The story never made more than a ripple in the so-called liberal media. Stossel has admitted that he 'liked the idea of making real money' as justification for becoming a pro-corporate mouthpiece. As such, anything he says must be taken with a very, very large grain of salt. He has risen from reporter to multimillionaire commentator, but he can no longer be considered a legitimate journalist. He is as much a legitimate journalist as Michael Moore. The difference between the two is that Moore makes his liberal leanings more than obvious. Stossel prefers to cloak his conservative views, presenting them as hard-hitting, fact-filled news. Unfortunately, nothing could be further from the truth.
Rating:
Summary: Really, now!
Review: After years of muckraking the author seems to have discovered for the first time in his life that government institutions can be corrupt as well as businesses. That liberal institutions like universities are not always consistent in their defense of free speech. And that there is an ideology claiming that unfettered capitalism is uncorruptable,always self-correcting, and can ultimately only benefit everyone concerned. He seems a little too old and experienced to buy into this. It simply doesn't seem possible that he hasn't heard these specious arguments before now. Arianna Huffington used to be naive enough to believe that, but she has come to realize that business as well as government is vulnerable to corruption, and that it is not automatically self-correcting every time. I give her a great deal of credit for recognizing it. And if philanthropist Ted Turner wants to give some of his money to charities instead of putting ALL of it into the stock market, what business is that of John Stossel? No one is forcing HIM to give to charity if he really believes if fosters dependence. (Besides, wasn't the Gingrich idea to leave charity to private donors instead of taxpayers, rather than eliminate it altogether?) To read John Stossel, you would think liberals believe that government is as incorruptible as he believes the "free" market is. But I have never heard anyone argue that point. If, in fact, there are liberals who thoughtlessly respond to his points with knee-jerk retorts, that suddenly means that all conservatives are independent thinkers and great conversationalists? He is still a liberatarian, however. He doesn't support laws against flag-burning or the war on drugs. But I hope he doesn't plan on voting for George W. Bush in the upcoming election. Because if he finds himself in trouble, he may, like Rush Limbaugh did with the ACLU, find out who his REAL friends are.
| 
