[cardinal43]

I saw the same show and it breaks your heart to hear the children say they think it is their fault that the parents lost their jobs and homes. 11 year old child thinking it is her fault. Unbelievable!!

[mikemike]

If your net worth is greater than zero, you are wealthier than the least wealthy ~30% of americans combined.

If you find yourself in that statistic, please consider yourself an evil oligarch.

[shooz]

Not true, if you can't buy at least a mayor.
Which do you own?

[jeffkrol]

If your net worth is greater than zero, you are wealthier than the least wealthy ~30% of americans combined.

If you find yourself in that statistic, please consider yourself an evil oligarch.

Defend the gluttonous b@stards to the end ehhh.......

Lust and Greed

How do lust and greed relate to gluttony? Basically, lust is an intense longing or excessive craving for something—anything—and greed is excessive or insatiable desire to accumulate things. Lust and greed are never satisfied, as James 4:1-2 says: "Where do wars and fights come from among you? Do they not come from your desires for pleasure that war in your members? You lust and do not have. You murder and covet and cannot obtain." Too much of even a good thing can be bad. Among other afflictions, too much eating can cause obesity and gout, and too much drinking, cirrhosis of the liver and depression.

In Numbers 11, the Israelites in the wilderness, inclined to be excessive, let lust and greed rule them. Their gluttony exposes other sins hidden below the surface: ingratitude, wastefulness, lust, greed, covetousness and licentiousness.

Read more: Gluttony: Sin of Lust and Greed (Part One)

[B Grace]

Disgusting isn't it.......

So what is the desired outcome? Would everything be on the level if a full 10,000 Americans had more wealth than all other Americans combined? How about 100,000 vs 3.49 million?

What about the money itself, the wealth accumluated by the super rich? What is it doing for our economy by just sitting there in investments which provide funding to corporations that are trying to grow their businesses? Don't forget that the only means for saving money which doesn't result in a positive impact on our economy is the simple bank savings account, and that is worthless for someone having more than $100k to invest.

Every American deserves a chance to be successful so I hope the desired outcome here isn't that we're all poor.

[Wheatfield]

Every American deserves a chance to be successful so I hope the desired outcome here isn't that we're all poor.

The desired outcome is for 99% to be poor.
Which is effectively the same thing.
It's funny, the USA fought a war of independence against overlords who were sucking the wealth out of the country for the express intent of making themselves comvortable.
Here you are, a mere couple of centuries later and you've traded one set of overlords sucking the wealth out of your country with the express intent of keeping the masses downtrodden and easily manipulated for another set of overlords.
You can't even fall back on the "At least we have democracy" mantra, since your "democratically elected government" has been bought and sold several times over by the new set of overlords.
The only difference between then and now is that the new guys don't wear crowns.

[GeneV]

More wealth in fewer hands means money chasing a home. The homes it has found, have not been productive, but bubble-inducing.

This is not an economy that lacks free cash for investment. It lacks demand, and the concentration of wealth is part of that problem. Investment is not always good for the economy, and the ills of the economy are not always as they were in 1980.

[Nesster]

Except for a very few (and IMHO undesirable) cases, the captains of industry (and other high paid people) are not motivated by money alone - they are in it for the power and the perks and whatever excessive need for security and validation that comes from being in these positions: the Republican formulation that we must subsidize and cultivate these kinds of people for the good of the country is a real over simplification.

The definition of 'creativitity' seems to have been combined with the idea of 'large monetary rewards in the market' - for someone to be 'creative' for society it follows that such are also very wealthy - and that the wealthy (by a fallacious logic) therefore are the 'creative' component of society.

Would Oprah still be Oprah if she were taxed more? Would Bill Gates and Warren Buffet and the Social Network dude? Tiger Woods? Payton Manning? Jamie Dimon? Glenn Beck? Johnny Depp? Ben Stiller? Stephen King?

These folks I think are driven by more than just money, and a tax policy that assumes the only thing that matters is a lower rate for them shows very little understanding of human nature. The tax policy does not ensure 'creativity' nor a democracy of opportunity, nor a sense of proportion. Furthermore, many would be just fine if some of their common-good and give-back-to-society needs were automatically met by the government. Running charities and getting dressed for charity balls can get to be such hard work

[GeneV]

Would Oprah still be Oprah if she were taxed more? Would Bill Gates and Warren Buffet and the Social Network dude? Tiger Woods? Payton Manning? Jamie Dimon? Glenn Beck? Johnny Depp? Ben Stiller? Stephen King?

Since we had some of our most vibrant economic development in times when the tax rates on the wealthy could reasonably be called confiscatory, I'd have to say, yes, Oprah would be the same.

[mikemike]

Defend the gluttonous b@stards to the end ehhh.......

I am merely pointing out how flawed your argument is. The only universal financial advice that I think everyone regardless of income or wealth should be able to heed is to "live within your means." If you followed that simple platitude and have either avoided debt or kept enough assets to cover your debts you have done better than ~23% of americans who are in debt, the cumulative debt of that group covers the cumulative assets of the first 7% who live within their means.

If you look at statistics on wealth in america you will find that members of all strata of income have managed to save simply by living within their means. You will also find that members of all strata of income live paycheck-to-paycheck.

Who would you say is more gluttonous, a person who makes (after taxes) $1MM/yr and spends $1.1MM/yr or someone who makes $1MM/yr and spends $60K/yr?

At the end of the day, by the standard of wealth inequality the modest person is a gluttonous b@stard while the person who is blowing through every dime and then some is noble.

Which person do you think makes the rest of america feel bad about themselves because they couldn't dream of keeping up with them?

Read more: Gluttony: Sin of Lust and Greed (Part One)

First of all, your talking to an atheist so you can take your sins and shove em... Second of all, it is Lundi Gras and tomorrow is Mardi Gras so that means all of the catholics in my city are busy racking up as much sin as they can before Ash Wednesday when they think the holy zombie, Jesus Christ, will dust their foreheads with some magic dust that forgives their gluttony, lust, and greed.

[GeneV]

Mike I think you underestimate the strata of these 400. They don't have a paycheck and don't live from paycheck to paycheck. You also overestimate what minimum wage will get you. The bottom 30-50% has little choice but to live paycheck to paycheck.

[shooz]

"live within your means."

And if you lack the means to live? Just die?
The most useless platitude yet.
If your wages or hours are cut, that's not a valid option.

Sounds like King George stuff.

[Nesster]

Mike I think you underestimate the strata of these 400. They don't have a paycheck and don't live from paycheck to paycheck. You also overestimate what minimum wage will get you. The bottom 30-50% has little choice but to live paycheck to paycheck.

Of course, who says Americans are entitled to any sort of luxury? If you don't have the means, don't have cable TV or any TV, pack 20 to a tenement apartment or live like the Unabomber... walk to work, eat rice and beans, wear 1 set of clothing, freeze in winter... what was good for us in the 1800s is good for us now

[shooz]

Wasn't it Mike who once said no one starves to death in America?

No one starved, but many are malnourished. Fat cats are getting fatter, at their expense.

[Nesster]

Million-dollar homes sales rise nearly 20% - Mar. 7, 2011

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- The rich are different from you and me: They're buying real estate.

After four straight years of declines, sales of million-dollar homes and condos rose last year in all 20 major metro areas, according to DataQuick Information Systems. On average, these cities saw an 18.6% jump in high-end home sales.

...

The real estate industry may take some solace from the mini boom in high-end sales, but it does not necessarily mean good times are ahead for the rest of the market. In fact, the rest of the market is facing a potential 25% drop in prices and stalling sales.

"There are not a lot of million-dollar home buyers even in the best of times," said Bishop. "It's always nice to see any segment come back, but it's the middle of the market we would like to see set the pace."