Free pizza, free coffee, and other goodies just by showing up? Why not. This is the reasoning on the minds of college students when they are approached by credit card marketers that promise these freebies for nothing. But there is a catch. When you arrive at the restaurant to booth to claim the free stuff, you’ll be asked to sign up for the credit card to get free food.

It is no wonder that the average college student has an outstanding debt of $4,100 in 2008 against the $2,900 figure back in 2004. Fortunately, measures are being undertaken to stop these tactics. Come February 22, 2010, college students will no longer be tempted by goodies offered by these credit card companies. This is the time when marketing restrictions on credit cards will take effect. It is expected that this will result to less debt for consumers below the age of 21.

Oftentimes, companies expect college students or those falling under the same age bracket to stay loyal to the first credit card they have. That’s the reason why they specifically target this segment with endless marketing ploys; sometimes going to the extent of getting this information from colleges itself for a fee. Students end up getting cards with high fees and high interest rates that can easily accumulate debt.

The amount of credit cards available to college students today has become worrisome. In fact, a significant number of younger consumers have four or more credit cards at their disposal. And only 17 percent of them said they always pay off debts in full every month.

Despite the less-than-stellar facts surrounding credit card usage, it has its good points. Some students use their cards to pay for necessities like textbooks. Another big change underway requires Americans under the age of 21 to get a co-signer if they cannot provide a proof of income. In essence, the co-signer (parent or older friend) is taking responsibility for the action of the college student.  Credit cards can also be beneficial for those under banked consumers who are continually charged huge debit card fees by their banks.

In the past year, large amounts of wealth were lost and a significant portion of this money came from the retirement funds of baby boomers. It is estimated that trillions of dollars vanished into thin air as a result of the financial meltdown. This is undeniably the worst economic catastrophe to hit the United States since the Great Depression. Aside from the people who lost their homes, no one feels this more than the individuals on the verge of retirement.

If your retirement fund has been affected by the economic crisis, then the blogs below can definitely help you. We have compiled a list of tips, advice, and a few nuggets of thought that will help you rise up from the crisis.

Selena@ Motley Fool wrote a thoughtful post entitled “Wildly Different Retirements”. She compared deaths of two noteworthy individuals and took notice of their age. One died at the age of 73 while another died at age 104. The point is, no one can predict how long they’ll live. She provided tips that will help you get debt relief and save more effectively to build your nest egg.

JD @ Get Rich Slowly posted another great article, “How Much Should You Save for Retirement?” It answers most of the questions we want to ask. JD discussed the percentage of your monthly income you should set aside. There might be conflicting advice on this one but he urges everyone to save as much money as possible.

The True Tips and Facts blog has an interesting blog post for this week, “Retirement Investing – Tips and Advises”. The fact is, investing for your retirement years is very important. The earlier you start the better. In some cases, people might be tempted to dip into their retirement investments to solve their short-term problems today. However, this may not be a good idea because your later years may not be as comfortable as you want it to be.

Banking institutions and credit unions have long promoted debit cards as a convenient alternative to credit cards. However, consumers are finding out that debit cards are not really as friendly as banks want people to believe. Peter Means, for example, used his debit card as a fallback. He thought it will help him spend his money more prudently.

Turns out that using debit cards did him more harm than good. The bank charged him seven separate $34 fees to cover his purchases when there was not enough money in his account. So even if Mr. Means did comparison shopping and selected the best deals, he still ends up on the losing end. In essence, he paid $6.75 at Lowe’s to get screws and was charged a $34 overdraft fee for it… he paid $4.14 for coffee at Starbucks and was charged another $34 and so on. In total, he spent $238 in overdraft charges for just one day’s worth of transactions.

The $34 fee stated above is marketed as an overdraft protection. But the fees it generates have become a significant source of income for banks especially at a time when consumers are using their credit cards less and are generally cutting back on spending. For this year alone, financial institutions are projected to derive as much as $27 billion because of overdraft fees on checking accounts (usually on checks and debit card purchases that exceed the balance).

It is a fact that banks are now making more money covering overdraft than they do from credit card penalty fees. The reason can be traced to several sources. For one, Americans use debit cards more often. And secondly, some banks manipulate a client’s transactions in a way that will let them incur more overdraft charges. The cascade of fees, as can be seen in the $34 example, can be very quick especially among consumers who can least afford it.

With the financial overhaul surrounding credit cards, banks have found a new way to generate their lost revenue. Debit has become a stealth type of credit. Three quarters of the country’s largest banks with the exception of ING Direct and Citigroup automatically cover ATM and debit overdraft.

A year ago this weekend, the Lehman Brothers announced their collapse. With hopeful signs being seen in the economy today, many experts reflect, “What was the impact of the Lehman Brother bankruptcy in the global financial industry?” What if the government bailed-out Lehman Brothers the same way it bailed out Bank of America, Citibank, and a host of other institutions?

We all know the events that preceded the announcement of Lehman Brothers on September 15, 2008. Not surprisingly, the stock market tanked that same day, dropping more than 500 points. The American International Group nearly gave and it had to be bailed out with an $85 billion loan from the US government. European banks were tethering on the edge and there were rumors that Morgan Stanley will be next to go. In general, panic is in the air all over the Western banking industries.

Because of these catastrophic results, the Treasury’s and the Fed’s decision not to help the ailing investment bank was seen as many as the single biggest mistake the government committed in the crisis. Looking back now though, many economic experts are suggesting that the Lehman Brother collapse might have been necessary to prevent other big banks from falling.

A visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute suggested that “If the Lehman Brothers’ failure had not triggered the panic phase of the cycle, some other institutional failure would have done so.” Indeed, the weakness of the financial industry was revealed immediately following this event.

However, for people who experienced the Lehman Brothers collapse first hand though, any explanations cannot take away their bitterness. Richard Fuld, the former chief executive of the investment bank, noted that Lehman committed the exact same mistake that other firms did – too much leverage, underestimating the risk of over-relying on real estate, and playing down the risks. Yet, other banks in its position were bailed out; Lehman Brothers was the only one to fall.