All John Edwards is doing is acting like any good loyal Democrat from 1932 to 1980 would and should act. That is why I'm for him and not the DLC's Republican lite picks. The last head of the DLC before Ford actually was an author of Bush's addition to the disasterious tax cuts on the few and uber rich. Do we want people who are DC centered Republican enablers to hand pick and feed to the media pundits our presidential candidates? I think not…I think those 250-300 people have already dug the hole the party is in deep enough and are completely out of touch with the Democrats who actually cast 99.99% of the votes...if they have a candidate they feel like comming out to support!

These ideas are ok, but they are secondary solutions. They do not address the primary causes of credit card indenture-hood.

As a survivor of the system, let me lay it out for you.

The first step is capping interest rates. Pure and simple. It's the one step that will solve every other problem. How?

Not only does it make it more possible for people to pay back their debt, it makes the credit card industry itself less desirable as a source of obscene profits.

Interest rate caps = fewer credit card issuers = fewer credit cards = less credit card debt.

Obscene interest rates of 24+% are the primary cause of interest rate debt.

Of course, I realize that it isn't just the credit card industries who will suffer. Our entire retail economy would crash without credit cards, and presidential candidates know it. What would Wal-Mart do if its customers couldn't charge their groceries to Visa?

Indeed, what would their customers do? Why, they might have to demand higher wages - or starve. Now industry suffers, because suddenly workers are getting organized just to put food on the table. This is what presidential candidates really face, and why you never hear anyone, even noble men like John Edwards, address the root causes of credit card debt. They always go for the "acceptable" measures, while ignoring the ravenous beast that destroys families and lives - usurous interest rates.1

I was lucky enough to be able to transition to a cash-only lifestyle a few years ago. I still have debts (mortgage, car payment), but for everyday needs, I pay cash or use a debit card. I lived under a soul-crushing credit card debt for 12 years and probably paid back four times what I actually spent - not living large, just paying for groceries, books for school, etc., while not earning enough to meet basic requirements.

Telling me the real cost of making minimum payments would not have affected my choice to make minimum payments, because I had no choice. I could not afford to pay more. Grace periods are meaningless - they only delay the inevitable, when you don't have the money to pay in the first place.

The only way I got out from under this debt was by going with a credit counselling agency and getting my INTEREST RATE REDUCED to 8-9%. Once that happened, I was finally able to pay off my debt. NOTHING else, not even the steps advocated by John Edwards, would have helped - because I didn't earn enough money to pay my credit card debts, because my interest rates were 19-26%.

it seems to me that universal default is consumer friendly

This is the most ridiculous statement I've seen up here.  Surely you didn't mean what I think you said. 

Jim Anderson

The Truth About Credit

Facebook Profile

...first, require credit-card companies to disclose the true cost of making only minimum payments, as many consumers do. Second, I would restore a 10-day grace period before imposing late fees and penalty rates. Third, apply interest-rate increases to future balances only. And fourth, end the practice of universal default, where a creditor can change a borrower's terms based on their debt payments to other creditors.

#'s 3 and 4 are only drops in a big bucket. Bigger drops than #'s 1 and 2, to be sure. But still, these seem like giving cough drops to a pneumonia patient and patting yourself on the back for being a caregiver.

Until usurous interest rates are addressed and remedied, everything else is just going to prolongue the inevitable. Sooner or later the bills have to be paid.

I don't think capping predatory interest rates is going to be a hard sell to the American people, not if you sell it Republican-style - as a tax cut. But as you say, getting it through a beholden Congress won't be easy. Damn near impossible in the current Congress. But still worth a try.

So maybe Mr. Edward's proposals are a good first step, to be followed up by more aggressive measures. But before I can support them, I have to know that more aggressive measures will actually follow.

Re: What would Wal-Mart do if its customers couldn't charge their groceries to Visa?

The customers would use cash or a debit card.
There are good reasons to have credit cards (the fraud and error protection is excellent, for example), but the industry definitely needs to be reined in.
One other step not mentioned here (and not by Edwards either as far as I can tell): repeal the 2005 Bankruptcy act.

if interest rates were capped, credit card companies would probably just increase spending limits! ;-)

To boldly go...

It wasn't that long ago that there were strong usury laws. The economy hummed along just fine. There is no reason they couldn't be restored.

Walmart has just started marketing a new cash card. This is like a debit card, but the money is placed in this account specifically. They charge you for having the card, adding to it and various other services. In other words they charge you for spending your own money. Elizabeth Warren wanted to know what's next - this is it.

Just like the mortgage market is being forced to re-evaluate the credit worthiness of borrowers, so should credit cards. The total amount of credit available should be limited by some formula tied to income and other obligations. This would eliminate the use of multiple cards to extend one's debt.

The bottom line is that the working classes have gotten poorer over the last two decades and have resisted scaling back their lifestyle by going into debt. This can't continue.

--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape

I think disclosure in the consumer area is largely a waste. People use their credit card at the point of sale. They don't carry the disclosure around with them to those points of sale and who really reads those inserts in the monthly statement anyway. Plus, as we move more toward electronic bill payment, delivery of the disclosure becomes less likely anyway.

By coincidence, I note that the July/August edition of the American Bankruptcy Institute Journal contains an article describing a "field experiment" involving the effect of enhanced disclosure on consumer debtors' use of credit cards. Having read it only once, I won't purport to evaluate it in depth but I note that one of the enhanced disclosures was in relation to the the true cost of making minimum payments - just what Edwards is calling for - and the authors state "our attempts at enhancing minimum-payment disclosure information had only a small effect on the likelihood to buy." The authors appear, from a quick read and in my words, to posit that thinking more about cost tends to reduce purchases that are not especially desired, but, for items that the consumer feels a strong impulse to buy, considerations of financing cost tend to be overridden. This sounds kind of obvious but yet it is good to conduct experiments that investigate even the obvious.

I agree with all of Edwards' other points (which is unusual because I think he is a big hypocrite on many of his populist stances, which are totally at odds with his private career and retained wealth) and I agree a usury law would be beneficial. The way it is now, people who pay their debts back over time are subsidizing thru those high rates the default losses that credit card companies incur with their ridiculously liberal credit policies. By capping rates, we would cap the subsidy and force credit card issuers to adopt sounder credit policies. That would reduce consumer bankruptcies in turn.

Sadly there are huge political obstacles to such relief.

repeal the 2005 Bankruptcy act.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I agree.
Another suggestion is to stop CC co's from sending offers to the newly bankrupt.All these offers are dreadful and some say a person only needs an income as low as 12 thousand a year to qualify. That is asking for disaster! Some are just too weak to refuse these offers, possibly addicted to the CC lifestyle, or desperate.Some just don't realize what they are getting into.
All these dreadful offers come with seductive messages about how you can rebuild your credit, how you "deserve" a break! It's sickening!!!

There ought to be NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND when it comes to teaching about finances in school. And
I mean real teaching... not some plan by Citibank to educate . That's as bad as letting Joe the neighborhood loan shark teach.
Maybe someone like Mr. Money who appears in
Maxed Out and In Debt We trust could be the kind of teacher that would make an impact!

Bonnie
http://pupart.1hwy.com/

of course, if you're in the habit of carrying balances on many credit cards, then "universal default" is painful but people should come to understand that "living below their means" and staying away from "revolving debt" makes the problem go away. i.e. change in behavior makes the problem go away w/o legislation.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

All well and good, but it's not doing anyone any good if they are caught in the trap.
Do you really think it is fair if someone's fridge broke and they went out and bought a new one planning to have it paid off at a certain interest rate in 12 montrhs, only to be hit with a higher interest rate because a credit card co
decieded they were a high risk because they were late paying their telephone bill???
Everyone knows or should know that Universal Default is a DIRTY TRICK !
Even Citibank said to a Senate commitee they were eliminating that policy. But I have a feeling Citibank hasn't actually eliminated it. Probably just found a new new name for thier dirty trick!

Bonnie
http://pupart.1hwy.com/

. . . his populist stances, which are totally at odds with his private career and retained wealth . . . .

Sorta like FDR, right?

Wealthy people seeking political power act no differently than less wealthy people seeking political power do. Both will act in favor of their constituents and supporters. If their supporters are society's less wealthy, then, the interests of those supporters are the interests they'll seek to advance.

There is no reason why a billionaire can't be a populist.

However, now after the public has been educated, people still don't understand, and are like sheep being led to slaughter.

And this is sad! The problem is that predatory profits probably fuel the operations of Ms. Warren's University and other fiefdoms so I just don't see the will of the people in power to act justly.

It's really unfortunate that people (victims) have to cut their bad habits in order to survive.

This has nothing in common with drunk driving

drunks can't stop drinking, smokers can stop smoking, homeowners aren't happy with 1000 sq feet any more.

credit card debt, IMO, is often fueled by affluenza. instead, people need to save for a rainy day just like they need to stop smoking, drinking, watching TV, etc...

Howard Dean said: "you have the power!" I've got to believe that!

drunks can't stop drinking, smokers can stop smoking, homeowners aren't happy with 1000 sq feet any more.

and people can't stop getting cancer, or having heart attacks.  The problem is not irresponsible spending, as the banks would have us think.  The research has shown that 50% of bankruptcies are due to medical bills, which get put on credit cards to buy time.  No matter how much in emergency funds you have saved, a catastrophic medical problem could still cause a bankruptcy - if you can afford to pay for it.  Alcoholism is self inflicted, and there are those who abuse credit cards too, but that is really a side issue.  It makes no sense to punish people who have no control over their circumstances. 

Jim Anderson

The Truth About Credit

Facebook Profile

thanks for the comic relief... ;-)

To boldly go...

Hey, this person COULD afford the new fridge and
believed they could buy it in 12 months at the interest rate interest they agreed to at the time of sale. . Unfortunatley, they were late paying a phone bill and the CC co played their dirty trick called UNIVERSAL DEFAULT and
raised the interest rate, thereby making the fridge more expensive simply because the person was not able to pay the balance!
Fairness and honesty COULD solve the problem.

I'm assuming Citi felt guilty? Oh, that is truely funny! I don't think Citi feels anything.
People are all just $ numbers $ to them.

Bonnie
http://pupart.1hwy.com/

I'm not sure there is a clear answer. I argued in the past that using cash really isn't cheap; however, if you are a "mom and pop" shop you might perfer cash if you can take it "under the table."

but convience stores who collect a lot of cash have to worry about employees stealing it or being robbed; with credit cards, that problem goes away. purchases can also be more expensive because it's hard to carry a bundle of cash around; it's hard to keep enough cash in your pocket; and checks bounce.

the interest, of course, is a major source of income. places like Home Depot and Sears have huge credit operations and when I visited K-Mart a few days ago, I seem to recall a sign that said "pay with your Sears card and pay just $15 a month" [for a $600 piece of jewelry that cost us $10].

besides that, the Fed can probably watch economic performance in real time since credit card processing centers can easily tabulate sector totals; airlines now use them as etickets; you can ring up your own groceries; and, as you noted, get "cash back" from stores as an enticement to buy.

I think it must work or why would the market segment keep growing?

To boldly go...

To add insult to injury, the Mayo Clinic there is trying to build up an endowment similar to the one which pays Ms. Warren's salary and pension. Their goal is a billion dollar endowment and if that endowment is making a $100 million a year, why would the Mayo Clinic be motivated to serve poorer clients since they could pick and choose who they cared for? I remember the newspaper suggesting that Mayo Clinic only had to stabilize the health of an uninsured patient; after that, the hospital would send the patient someplace else.

At last, there is something else for us to tilt about.  Be warned that Mayo Clinic is high on my to-be-praised list.  It saved my brother from blindness at the age of 7 by diagnosing a rare parasite infection, toxic histoplasmosis which he inherited from my mother.  In her, and in 90% of the carriers, the disease shows no symptoms.  In his case, there were retinal scars, first diagnosed as birth defects at hospitals in Minneapolis and only later diagnosed and treated successfully seven years later at Mayo.  He was charged on an ability to pay basis.  My grandparents were immigrants and blue collar, so that's not much.

If the newspaper suggested that, the newspaper was dead wrong.  Here's the appropriate part of the 2006 annual financial report.  All figures in millions of dollars.

Cost of benefit provided to those in need: 

Charity care

$ 63.9

Unpaid portions of Medicaid and other indigent care programs

150.3Total quantifiable benefit to those in need$ 214.2

Cost of benefit provided to the boarder community:

 Non-billed and cash and in-kind donations
8.6

Education and research **

315.0Total quantifiable benefit to the broader community$ 323.6Total estimated cost of quantifiable community benefit $ 537.8Unpaid portions of Medicare and other senior programs$ 485.3* The estimated cost of benefits to those in need and the broader community were calculated in accordance with the guidelines set forth by CHA/VHA.

The function of the endowment, (which is over a billion now, with a campaign to build to 2 billion) is to fund programs to allow Mayo to provide broadened service to the community, including the community of indigents it already serves. Notice the unreimbursed portions of bills and charity care, not to mention educational services, and you'll see where the endowment goes.  Note, too, that the source of the endowment are gifts from individuals and foundations.  How anyone can conclude this activity is either insult or injury is beyond me.

The Mayo clinics are specialty hospitals, which is why Mrs. Edwards went there. 

aMike

sorry for the formatting problems on the citation...TPM doesn't allow tables, and it is too difficult to clean up the html by hand for a person of my lack of training.  Click the link and see the table in original format.

Actually, given your do-it-yourself approach to life generally, I would have thought you'd love Mayo.  Lots of Free Interactive tools there.  You can boldly go and be your own diagnostician, though I think they'd frown on you taking out your own appendix.  <grin></grin>

in my book, if you can't pay cash, you can't afford it. in the situation you describe, the person can "only afford it" by borrowing someone elses money and, if you do that, buyer beware.

my suggestion was to buy a much cheaper refridgerator and simply go shopping more often. then, after you save enough for the bigger refridgerator, and have cash in hand, then buy it.

i.e. lets say a refriderator costs $500, that's $100 of interest at 20%. so, you but the $39 fridge, save $500 and then buy the bigger refridgerator. all-in-all, you save $61 dollars and now have a backup refridgerator! on the otherhand, if something else happens, you're not leveraged and can change financial priorities.

To boldly go...

Since I lived in Rochester for a while, I heard both good and bad things about the Mayo Clinic. A friend had hernia surgury there and had quite a few complications, enough that she isn't going to have two more hernias fixed.

Recently, Mayo almost went bankrupt and they made a lot of changes. I'm only speculating that, in the future, when the boomers are retiring and falling apart, that the law might be different than what your brother experienced. I don't personally hold a grudge against Mayo but I see the writing on the wall that they're aiming to give the best care to the elite.

I don't have time to dig up the articles, but I seem to remember that Mayo was patient dumping and the article noted that hospitals could do this since they only have to stabilize and then release.

My worry is, if Mayo gets their billion dollar endowment, what reason do they have to be responsive to the general public?

I won't speculate about the numbers you posted because I don't have the time to dig through them and speculate. i.e. what does "unpaid porition" mean? does it mean that Mayo wants $2000.00 to change your pillow and medicare pays $200.00?

To boldly go...

people need to save for a rainy day just like they need to stop smoking, drinking, watching TV, etc...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Of course they should and damn it if they don't then make sure they pay like hell!
Put them in debtors prison and make damn sure they don't get out out until they have paid every last dime of loan shark interest and outrageous penalty fees.
These are horrible crimials worse than some of the most violent people that ever walked the earth!!!

Bonnie
http://pupart.1hwy.com/

Whether they could have bought a $39.00 fridge or waited later makes no difference.

it's called "delayed gratification." save your money and then buy what you can't afford now.

I said "buy a $39.00 fridge now" because, most likely, you'll have cash for it. If you don't, you're poor and using a credit card only makes you poorer since even good interest rates take away 15% of your purchasing power.

People who leverage themselves and buy the refrigerator with the ice maker and stainless steel cladding now-- on credit, help ensure that the next financial bump is more fatal.

I know people who took equity out of their houses-- to pay off their credit card bills; Then, after just one billing cycle, they're back to their "minimum payments."

At least in their cases, they're the ones making the financial ground they're on shakey.

To boldly go...

what does "unpaid porition" mean? does it mean that Mayo wants $2000.00 to change your pillow and medicare pays $200.00?

Sorta, kinda, but not really.  It means the same thing, more or less that the statements of payment one receives after procedures paid for by private insurance.  I've got blue cross/blue shield/delta dental insurance courtesy my employer.  I have a procedure done.  The health care professional (say the dentist or the physician) has made a prior agreement with the insurer to accept x amount for that procedure.  Depending on the bargaining power (clout) of the insurance provider, that may be considerably lower than the market rate for the same procedure.  The agreement includes a proviso not to bill the patient for the amount not reimbursed by the insurer.  So if it costs 80 dollars for a cleaning and my insurance pays 50, the dentist gets 50 and that's it.  Thirty dollars are not reimbursed.  The Dentist (or doctor) can choose not to honor the insurance at all, if he/she wishes. 

The same is the case for bills paid by Medicare.  Doctors don't have to accept it.  If they do they agree to payment by the Medicare formula, and not to bill the patient beyond (except for co-payments agreed upon in the contract itself).  This co-payment policy is also the case with private insurance, or so I understand.

What goes for Doctors goes for the institutions with which they affiliate.  The procedures are set by the medical staff, not the administrative staff, and billing for services directly provided by the hospital, as opposed to the medical procedures ordered by the doctor, are also governed by contract.

hmm... time spent in Minnesota.  No wonder we agree on so much.  <grin></grin> I grew up there and my mother still lives there, waiting for Godot or her 100th birthday in December.  Thanks, in passing, for Medicare/Medicaid/Minnesota cares.  We'd have been pauperized with out a real sense of the Common Good in that state.

My remark about specialized hospitals was meant in part to respond to the dumping idea, and I probably should have made that clearer.  Mayo isn't a single institution, but a bunch of them.  Many of them are highly specialized in what they do--one clinic by be only involved in-treatment of kidney related problems, for example.  All of them may have (or may not have) emergency care.  In some cases even the very specialized hospitals do (for example, if the hospital specializes in brain trauma it will have emergency services and units for long term recovery from brain trauma).  Generally, emergency rooms, staffed 24 hrs a day, will take any trauma patient (in disasters, these may be portioned out between several hospitals via a triage process).  But, returning to the example of brain trauma, if the hospital receives an accident victim with a broken hip or a person with heart symptoms, it may stabilize the patient and then move the patient on to a more appropriate medical setting. But this would be the case whether the person was wealthy or not, insured or not.

aMike

You get what you pay for.

right. but if you can't pay cash for a $1000.00 fridge, you're getting something that you didn't pay for.

This subject is about universal default. But I don't think you get it.

I understand "universal default" and that's why I live below my means! Too many people I know spend more money than they have to because they want a "status symbol" that their friends will drool over.

Refrigeration isn't really that important. You can buy powered milk to have with cereal and fruit in the morning. Or you could have waffles or pancakes that come complete with everything-- just add tap water!

I'll admit, I just looked at the Walmart website and the cheapest one they had, a 1.7 sq foot model, was $70.00.

But, if you don't have the money for a $1000 model, I still think it's reasonable to go with the $70.00 model until you save up enough money.

On a $1000 fridge you could wind up paying at least $200 interest a year, at 20%, so any refrigerator under $200 will save you money. For $164, you can get a 5 sq foot fridge/freezer that should be adequate for a family and you'd be $36 ahead if you saved your money before getting the $1000 fridge! if it took you a year to save the $1000, you'd also benefit from the interest that the bank paid you!

To boldly go...

Maybe I've misunderstood, but I took the commission idea to be more forward-looking. That is, I assume (ass out of you and me and all) that the point would be to have a standing committee that would examine all the new ways that these lenders will try to gouge their customers in the future, and deal with them as they come up.

BTW, Refridgeration is important.
I have only used powdered milk for over 40 years . It is better when it is cold. I would hate to think of mixing it with tap water and
drinking it that way.

Universal default and living below your means have nothing to do with each other!
I still don't believe you understand it.
It's a dirty trick that CC co's have played on people. Even people like a little old lady who had to buy a fridge and was living on a fixed income, but in good faith entered into an agreement to pay the fridge off in 12 months.
Because you have friends who buy status symbols, you seem to assume this is what everyone does.
That is not true!
I think you are unable to look at the dirty tricks some credit card co's are playing on people and can only focus and blame the consumer who you apparently want to be just like you.
Consumers have a right to enter into agreements and not get cheated! Period!

Bonnie
http://pupart.1hwy.com/

Re: Refrigeration isn't really that important.

Oh good grief this is fast becoming asinine! what next: we dont need no indoor plumbing? Refrigeration is important. Ever hear the phrase "penny wise and pound (or dollar) foolish". That's what you're preaching. Without a refrigerator you're going to end up spending a lot more money: running to the store every day (gas is $$$ these days you know), throwing out spoiled stuff, not being able to buy in bulk during sales, maybe buying a daily load of ice, maybe even incurring healthcare costs from consuming stuff that has gone quietly bad. In short, you'll pay mo over the long haul then you would if you just bought the damn refrigerator on credit and paid it off over a year's time or so. Sometimes you have to spend money to make or save money. Have some common sense

As far as being fair, no one is forced to use credit cards at the rates that are charged. If people are aware of the true rates and of the conditions there seems to be nothing unfair here.

If people are mislead about the rates and conditions that is another case. Also some of the provisions, such as universal default are clerly unfair. And especially the fact that the card companies can raise interest on money they have already lent retroactively. That is outrageous.

I would have to decline the invitation if you asked me to dinner. LOL!

Bonnie
http://pupart.1hwy.com/

Oh good grief this is fast becoming asinine!

no, it's just that you have a predefined notion of what's cheap!

in order to run those refrigerators, techniques like "mountaintop coal removal" are being used to turn coal into electricity.

as an environmentalist, I live in a high density housing area that's near at least 3 major grocery stores and I have a trailer on my bicycle that can haul food for several families.

what I think is asinine is that BabyBel wants me to feel guilty about those people who decide that it's not important to work towards a "low cost" life.

You might want to listen to From Cold War to Class War: Interview with financial economist and historian, Dr. Michael Hudson. Luckily, I'm one of those who instinctively believes that I don't have to have things to be happy.... and find ways to live cheaply.

I believe that Dr. Michael Hudson is associated with the "Dennis Kucinich For President" campaign and, as you may know, Dennis' family lived in a car as he was growing up.

And I think that, if the statistic is still true, most of the world lives on $2 a day! So every american should feel like a king!

To boldly go...

And especially the fact that the card companies can raise interest on money they have already lent retroactively. That is outrageous.

isn't this what happens in the bond market? if a company starts getting into financial trouble, their bond ratings fall and the bond holders have trouble reselling their bonds because of "preceived increased risk?"

as far as I can tell, standard debt pricing schemes, that were around in the bond market, are simply starting to show up in the consumer market.

maybe things would be better if the credit card companies would formalize the notion that your interest rate is linked to your preceived ability to pay back the debt, the same pricing scheme used in the bond market.

To boldly go...

Stop and think: America's "wealth" is actually driven by materialism. The evils of the money lending industry are evidence of the fact that it is not a gift, it's a burden, and will never be eradicated without our willingness to be honest with ourselves.

All the things Elizabeth talks about in this blog are absolutely important, and we should be demanding answers from ALL our politicians about how they are going to ease these burdens on Americans. However, pulling the top off a weed doesn't kill it--we need to get to the root of the problem. Americans need to reassess our spending habits, and consider---EEE GADS!!--lowering their standard of living. If we all decided that for the next year, we wouldn't buy anything we couldn't afford out of our paychecks, we could begin to starve the beast that is not only killing our middle class, but destroying our characters. IN ORDER TO PUT THESE FOLKS OUT OF BUSINESS, WE MUST LOWER OUR STANDARD OF LIVING!!!!

Awhile back, it dawned on me that the economic stars have been aligned so that for people like us who live on a true middle class income (72K/yr, family of six), it is almost impossible to have a modestly decent standard of living that includes even reasonably limited purchases such as furniture, appliances, home improvements without going into unwise forms of debt in some way.

My husband and I have spent many years struggling to pay off our cards. During times our income was a little higher, we would try to simply not use them and pay down the balances, or have even gotten consolidation loans that have a guaranteed interest rate and a realistic payoff dates as a way to get rid of these monsters. But as we had more kids, and the cost of groceries, daycare, clothing, utilities and gas went through the roof over the past few years, we had to use credit cards just to survive even with two incomes.

After I lost my job a few years ago, we pretty much destroyed our credit rating and ended up finding ways to settle our debts. The silver lining of it was two-fold: We can no longer get easy credit, and I decided that I needed to work in a field that paid me enough to live comfortable. So I started retraining in nursing. With less household income, we HAD TO just quit buying anything we couldn't afford on a cash basis. It sucks, believe me. We literally live paycheck to paycheck, and often have about 20 dollars in the bank three days before payday, and no milk in the fridge. The kids get the minimum in clothing and extras. We camp in the national forest once a summer for vacations. We have yard sales for extra cash. Our house is a true "shit pit", not a showcase home, and is falling down around our ears. Our furniture is nasty, and we need to do some serious home improvements, but screw it. Our lives are plenty full with our kids, their activities and friends, school, and work responsibilitites. If someday I make enough extra money to buy "the stuff", we'll buy "the stuff", but for now, this episode of our lives has been an excellent education in how little people need to survive.

We have created a society where we are in debt, cradle to grave, and everyone just accepts it as the way things are, and thereby continues the tradition. Why is that? What if we all had to do something else with our time than work and shop?

IN ORDER TO PUT THESE FOLKS OUT OF BUSINESS, WE MUST LOWER OUR STANDARD OF LIVING!!!!

You're right, but it might be less painful to think about changing how we measure our standard of living rather than think about lowering it.  The materialist/anti-materialist chains of American thought have been fighting it out for a couple of hundred years by now.  On the one hand you have Henry Thoreau with Walden and Emerson writing "Things are in the Saddle and the Ride Mankind". 

Ralph Lundin put it: "Things are in the saddle and ride mankind," complained Ralph Waldo Emerson a century and a half ago. Like his disciple and Concord neighbor Henry David Thoreau, Emerson was vexed by the ironies of modern history. Technologies of the kind that had ushered in the industrial revolution were intended to free the men and women of the modern world-from poverty, from bondage to servile labor, and from subjection to the vagaries of nature. But instead, Emerson, Thoreau, and others feared, technology had brought bondage of a new kind.

On the other side, one has Dwight Eisenhower urging Americans to buy their way out of the depression of 1968.  You auto buy now, was the slogan.  Buying stuff is patriotic and it fights communism!  Or terrorism, for that matter, if you remember a certain Mayor of New York who urged everyone to return to the city shop a little and spend money as the way to bounce back from 9/11

On the one hand we have globalization and more and more stuff, and on the other,  the E. F. Schumacher Society, urging us to think and act locally, remember that "small is beautiful" and reinvent community.  The idea is not to live less rich, but to live more well.

Mea culpa.  I'm not all that good at practicing what I preach.  I have a fine shiny library card, and I run out and buy books at the drop of a hat.

aMike