America- Cut the Luxuries!

It's amazing what type of sacrifices Americans are not willing to make no matter how things get. While some people would not think twice about pulling back on certain luxuries to weather the uncertain economic times ahead Americans are probably the least likely to want to skimp.

Except for those in the deep pits of poverty most Americans only suffer from relative poverty. I have a difficult time understanding how someone with the luxury of a television and cable Internet and morbidly obese from over eating is in any real "poverty". It is necessary to eat, drink, bathe, be sheltered from the elements and have a way to have good hygiene. Things like having one bedroom for every member of the family, cable TV and Internet, new clothes each year are not necessary and lacking them does not mean you are in poverty.

The New York Times came out with an article that began with a story about a mother, Kristen Hunt, who had to forego her designer jeans for the sake of her child's play kitchen and Elmo doll this Christmas. Poor mother. Wah, wah, wah. In spite of the whining over largely worthless hundred dollar pants who's only value is attached to the tag, I'll actually praise Kristen Hunt for doing the right thing. She's cutting out the unnecessary luxuries for more important priorities.

In the grander scheme of things, there are foreclosures and a banking system in crisis because mortgages were pushed people who could not afford them. People were foolish and took rates they could not afford. Now times are tough and people are abandoning their homes or giving up an arm and a leg to keep paying the minimum on their debts. I'll completely gloss over the basic concept of not borrowing money you cannot pay back and lending money to people who can never pay you back and assume that it's a given so I can head straight to the question "When did that become a right and not a luxury?" At what point did actually owning your home become a necessity? Having a place to live is important, but homeownership is not. Many people rent for several years before they dive into buying their own home.

Nowadays it seems as though making a bad financial decision en masse means that the US government should come to your rescue. The last time I checked, wracking up too much debt, making bad financial decisions and then suffering the consequences was part of liberty. You get to rise and fall based on your decisions. So why should fiscally responsible Americans be responsible for bailing out those that didn't make good decisions?

Even more ridiculous is the idea of bailing out big companies, like the American Auto Industry, who made terrible business decisions. They didn't get on the bandwagon for more fuel-efficient cars and allowed themselves to be thwarted by more advanced foreign technologies when gas prices rose. Now let's talk about their money and how they're handling it. Are they cutting out the luxuries? No. They got hit with a media firestorm when three CEO's flew to Washington DC in their private jets to try and convince congress that they were financially struggling and needed a government hand out. Sorry CEO's, but you've just made a fool out of yourself. I have a novel idea to help them fix their business! They should cut the private jets and learn to drive. Better yet, let's cut some of their benefits. They don't need it. If they really must fly, they can be in coach with the rest of us. I'm sure it'll lessen that dent in their wallet maybe they wouldn't have to lay off so many of their employees right before Christmas.

The basics of personal finances are simple and finite - if your expenses are going up you either spend less or make more, or both. We're in a recession so making more doesn't seem like a viable option, so why don't we try the alternative and spend less? I know it's not the American dream, it's just good old fashioned common sense.