This just in: I'm a selfish, miserable miser who is ruining the economy!

Well, maybe it's a little less dramatic than that.

Awhile ago, I wrote a piece about how we could not afford as much as people seem to think that we can. My husband earns a decent income, and at the time I wrote it, I was earning some serious extra money as a contract worker. People who are close to us could guess that we were in a decent income bracket, and we sometimes got "why are you not doing/buying X? You can afford it!"

I was reminded of that attitude on Wednesday, when I heard this commentary by Will Wilkinson on NPR as I got ready in the morning. Did you hear that?

I understand the basic we have to buy stuff to keep the economy rolling concept of hour our economy works. But to hear that I was part of the problem by daring to save my money and have a moderate Christmas? I alarmed my husband and our roommate by yelling "Are you SERIOUS!?!?" to the radio.

The attitude that frugality=misery and hard times is alive and well. Mr. Wilkinson states:

For those who've lost a job, are dealing with reduced hours or wages, or face a real risk of economic pain, it's plain sense to do what it takes to make ends meet in lean times. Cancel Showtime, pile on the sweaters, go unto the checkout armed with coupons. When you have to do it, belt-tightening's no joke.

But, gladly, most Americans don't have to -- not even in this economy.

It's true that, in theory, I don't have to use coupons, could crank up the heat, and get cable. But it was my understanding that spending more means you have less in savings. Because we don't have these things, we'll be in a much better position that we would have been if my husband does lose his job. He already went on reduced hours with little warning, so it's not entirely out of the realm of possibility.

While we pray for the best, we always have a plan B in case the worst happens. Because we always use coupons and live frugally all the time, cutting back won't be a punishment if the worst happens. For the most part, we will continue living exactly as we do now, minus a few extras that we do enjoy. It will be a minor lifestyle bump, not a major lifestyle makeover during a stressful and uncertain time.

I suppose what gets me about this whole commentary is the underlying assumption that scaling back is bad, that frugality is a last ditch measure, that saving your money and not engaging in reckless consumerism is a recipe for misery for all involved. States Mr. Wilkinson:

But if you're blessed with good fortune in these hard times, you're not helping anyone if you let frugality chic stop you and yours from having a very Merry Christmas indeed.

Yes, because the only way to have happiness at Christmas time is to spend money, and frugality is just a fad that we should not really be following unless we have to.

If living below your means and be prudent with your spending is wrong, then I don't want to be right.

Why not? You can afford it!

This post at MoneySavingMom had me nodding my head. A quick recap- Crystal's husband Jesse is an attorney. They are saving very aggressively for some impressive goals. They've been having car troubles and rather than replacing it or continuing to fix it, it looks like they may end up being a one vehicle family again.

This has gotten her some snarky responses asking her why, if her husband is in the lucrative field of law and she earns money at home from her websites, they just don't go buy a new car.

I'll let you go to Crystal's post to read her reasons. I have different issues, but we are experiencing the same reactions.

My husband is an engineer in the aerospace industry. He does earn a lovely wage. We're not rich or anything, but we've come a long way from the year when we earned 17,000 with our combined incomes. And then I got a contract job in a field that pays pretty well. Ever since he got that job, and especially since I got my job on top of his, I've heard the following phrase more than I can count-

"I don't know why you don't (buy new clothes/go on vacation more/buy a better TV/spend more money). You can afford it! Your husband is an engineer/you have two good incomes!"

Yes, some of these things are true. My husband is an engineer. We do have two incomes. But we can't afford it.

You never really know what is going on with other people's money.

Our reasons for not being able to afford it have nothing to do with how much we earn. Our goals are what keep us from affording new clothes and the latest trinkets. As I've said here, we want to pay off everything- including our home- by 2012. So although our current income would be considered on the higher end, we don't live on much more than we were during the 'po grad school days.

Instead, we are aggressively paying off our debts and saving.

• We pretend that we any money I earn does not exist and we send almost all of my paycheck to our debts. (We send the rest of it to my Roth IRA.)
• My husband contributes as much as his company will match to his 401K. That's a nice chunk of his paycheck.
• We save a good chuck of his income as well. We want at least 1 year's worth of living expenses without having to sell our stock. We're getting closer, but we're not there yet.
• We send as much of his income as we can towards our debts.

We live on what is left.

That's not to say we live a miserly, unjoyful life. We're having a great time. We decide what we want to do with our money. We evaluate what we have to have. We also know that we can still live on very little. We're not letting the amount we earn ratchet up our lifestyle very much, we're using it to pay off the house and the student debt.

We decide and chose to do this. We don't let anybody else's expectation of what a double income no kids family should look like. We don't let anybody tell us that "we can afford it." We just smile, continue enjoying our life as we are choosing to live it now, and move on. As Dave Ramsey says, we're living like like no one else so that later, we can live like no one else.

Must Haves

I overheard somebody say that they did not have cable until their kids became teenagers, and then they "had to have cable." Apparently, teenagers will actually die without cable. Who knew?

I hear the "have to" line a lot. Somebody wants to cut their expenses, they want to save for college or a home or their retirement, or prepare for a downturn in the economy, but there are so many things they have to have. I know there are a lot of things that make life more entertaining, or easier, but when you get down to it, there are very few things that people have to have.

If you're in dire straits or are paying off massive debts, or saving for something bigger, I challenge you to reexamine your "have to haves." Life may be easier or more fun with those items, but they're hardly required to live. A lot of times, giving up the "have to haves" for now can lead to a much more financially secure future.

You have to rent a house with a fenced yard instead of an apartment, because your kid "has to have" a yard. You "have to have" cable because that is your only possible entertainment. You "have to have" books new from the bookstore. You "have to have" a lot of meat because people in your family refuse to eat vegetables. You "have to" eat lunch out.

I once worked with a person who frequently worried about money, but bought three Nintendo Wii's because her kids "had to have" their own. They would not share, so instead of getting rid of them like my momma would have done, she just got each of her children their own Wii.

People "have to have" certain foods, and will not consider substituting other foods for that "have to have" item. You need calcium, for sure, but there are many ways of getting it other than than drinking five gallons of milk a week. Or you can drink five gallons of powdered milk.

People "have to" order takeout because both parents work and they are wiped out at the end of the day. I understand this one for sure, but there are many quick meal cookbooks and make ahead and freeze it books out there. I personally think our food bill would triple if it were not for my handy secret weapon.

One of my "have to haves" is internet. We had dial up while we were grad students, and did our things that required high speed at the University library. But we never really talked about cutting it. I do so much on the internet that it is not even funny. I would get rid of a lot of other things before I gave up my internet. But do I really have to have it? Of course not.

Even if you're not struggling, it's never a bad idea to look at what you have and see if there are alternatives. Can you get movies free from the library instead of from Netflix? Can you watch less TV instead of having cable? If you can't give up your favorite cable shows, would it be cheaper to just buy the used DVD seasons when they come out? Can you eat more kale and less cheese? Would cloth diapers be a savings to you? Can you use the internet at the library?

Many, if not most, of people's "have to" have an alternative solution, we just get caught up in the "I can't, because I have to have this exact thing." I challenge you to think critically about your choices. There is nothing inherently wrong with cable TV or a house with a yard or six gallons of organic milk in glass bottles a week. You may choose to keep those items in your life, but at least it is a conscious choice and not a non examined, "Well, I have to. There is no other solution." Don't let yourself get trapped in the "have to!" mentality. We have more choices than we realize.

What have to haves do you really not have to have? What would be the hardest thing to give up? Have you given up a "have to" and had it not be as difficult as you anticipated? Share in the comments!