Oh Baby!

I'll bet the libs are scrambling to converse with their masters whether they should praise or pan this story. One one hand, they are supposed to hate the rich. OTOH, the fact they are increasing must mean an improvement in the economy (which undoubtedly their masters want them to embrace)

It'll be fun to see through the usual partisan suspects what the party line is on this one.

So is the number of poor.

It will be interesting to see how they tie in the high unemployment with the increase in millionaires.

Good for them. It does't affect my situation. Either does the number of poor, Ray.

I'd say that we are returning too an economy similar to what was going on before this recession, which is a return to the wealthy becoming wealthier while the average wage earner stagnates or falls backwards. That's certainly not an endorsement of the economy I believe is to come.

The new union boss millionaires will now force the country clubs become unionized.

#5 | Posted by andyuhenet | Flag: Lives On A Different Solar Rock

Too bad we couldn't go back to the fat cats pumping money into the stock market.

As I recall the Clinton years saw a similar rise in millionaires and he left a surplus behind. Interesting statistic to say the least.

Your bailout dollars working for them.

HA HA HA, you've been scammed.

Millionaires really are good for the economy, good for working class folks. Working for most millionaires is great, they earned their money, they know what it was like working for a living. I respect them and their accomplishments. Trust fund babies are a different story.

Millionaires really are good for the economy, good for working class folks.

#12 | Posted by danni at 2010-03-11 08:24 PM

To bad there ain't no pubbies in that count. Let me wipe the tear from my eye.

As I recall the Clinton years saw a similar rise in millionaires and he left a surplus behind. Interesting statistic to say the least.

#10 | Posted by danni at 2010-03-11 08:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

Danni, please stop with the Clinton surplus bullshit.

The national debt shot up under Clinton. So sure, he ALMOST had a budget surplus, but only because he was also borrowing so much.

You could have a household surplus every month if you bought all your groceries, utilities and gasoline on a credit card -- but only made minimum payments.

The national debt shot up under Clinton.

CLINTON: $600 BILLION in 8 years.

I'd call nearly $8 TRILLION "shooting up". Still 'Shooting Up' with the unfunded liabilities and tax cuts left behind that continue to add hundreds upon hundreds of dollars a year to the national debt, and will for years to come.

It "Shot Up" MANY, MANY times under Bush what it did under Clinton.

If the GOP had listened to Clinton we wouldn't HAVE a national debt as of LAST YEAR.

... that continue to add hundreds upon hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars a year to the national debt, and will for years to come.

Don't particularly give a flying fuck how many people in the US are millionaires.

Do care about how many people have fallen below the poverty line.

How many people there are, including children, who go to bed hungry every night.

When you judge any society you do not look into the homes of the rich and powerful. In order to truly judge a society you must look inside the prisons and the homes of the poor.

Be Well.

"It "Shot Up" MANY, MANY times under Bush what it did under Clinton."

AU

Tsk tsk. AU's mindless Bush-hating as usual.

How immature. 16-year-old.

What's immature is your daily trolling, troll.

As to debt and deficits, it can never be said enough to idiots. You've all lost your memories. I'm here to help. Bush broke the bank. We're having to deal with it and pay for it.

Deal with it, troll.

This gets so tiresome but here it is AGAIN.....

"During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?
A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.
This chart, based on historical figures from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, shows the total deficit or surplus for each fiscal year from 1990 through 2006. Keep in mind that fiscal years begin Oct. 1, so the first year that can be counted as a Clinton year is fiscal 1994. The appropriations bills for fiscal years 1990 through 1993 were signed by Bill Clinton's predecessor, George H.W. Bush. Fiscal 2002 is the first for which President George W. Bush signed the appropriations bills, and the first to show the effect of his tax cuts."

It'll be fun to see through the usual partisan suspects what the party line is on this one.

#2 | Posted by goatman at 2010-03-10 08:54 PM | Reply

You have already made it so.

which is a return to the wealthy becoming wealthier while the average wage earner stagnates or falls backwards.

Well then any recovery will be short lived.

#21 | Posted by danni at 2010-03-12 08:01 AM | Reply | Flag: CONFIRMS #16 POST BY VERNON

#16 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2010-03-12 04:58 AM | Reply | Flag: ONLY KNOWS ONE SONG

"CONFIRMS #16 POST BY VERNON"

Only for those incapable of reading.

During the Clinton years, they actually followed Pay-Go rules, passed under elder Bush.

As I recall the Clinton years saw a similar rise in millionaires and he left a surplus behind. Interesting statistic to say the least.

#10 | POSTED BY DANNI AT 2010-03-11 08:13 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

Danni who was in charge of both houses of Congress during the entire time of Clinton's success with the economy and budget surplus? its ok you can say it. Everybody knows it including you. It wasn't the Democrats.

One more thing, wasn't it during the Clinton Administration that Enron was holding California hostage with rolling blackouts?

If they allowed polygamy, more household incomes could exceed a million.

...hope to make it next year...

"As I recall the Clinton years saw a similar rise in millionaires and he left a surplus behind. Interesting statistic to say the least."

The Clinton administration represented true fiscal conservatism.

"Do care about how many people have fallen below the poverty line."

Do you care about why they have fallen below the poverty line? being poor is easy. All you have to do is nothing. It would be very easy for me to not make another dollar by simply not doing anything someone would be willing to pay me for. It would be equally easy for me to make less money by doing a job consumers see as less valuable.

Poverty is mostly a function of choice. There are some exceptions, and I would gladly debate those. But they are the exception.

Furthermore, how much of your own money have you shelled out to improve the financial position of the poor. If you make more than about $18k a year, I guaruntee you that you have excess income that you could use for their benefit.

"Trust fund babies are a different story."

"Trust fund babies," or those people that inherited a significant portion of thier wealth constitute between 10%-20% of american millionaires (2000). The New Yorker did a piece a few years ago, and the average trust fund income in New York was around $61k per year.

I had someone tell me you are not a millionaire unless you earn 1 million a year....in 1973.

we should celebrate, that is what America is all about. Work hard, save, and you too can reach this goal. Are we trying to make people feel guilty that they saved? I know people given nothing, never earned more then 35K a year, dying with more then a million.

Poverty is mostly a function of choice. There are some exceptions, and I would gladly debate those. But they are the exception.

For the most part I could agree with that however as the working class gets squeezed by inflation rising medical cost and falling home values plenty of people have fallen from working class to poor, myself included. My wages were frozen for 2 years due to the company trying to survive. Before that I got 5% a year in raises while inflation on gas and food ran around 10% and medical 12% then 2 years of frozen wages but inflation marched on. Now raises have been aproved but only up to 3% so I am still falling farther behind each year.

In my case it is partialy choice as we have chosen for my wife to remain a stay at home mom to actualy raise our children rather than dump them in day care. If she were to start working again we would cease to be poor, however should a family that 5 years ago could live a comfortable life on one income have to make that choice?

Saying poverty is mostly choice is one thing but when reality comes knocking the choices one has to make to not be poor are not always good nor are they choices that should have to be made. My father was able to support our family on just his income and it was actualy lower than mine (not adjusted for inflation).

Us peons do not have the choice to inflate the dollar and loose ground even while we seem to be gaining ground. Inflation is not a choice that most people can make.

I know people given nothing, never earned more then 35K a year, dying with more then a million.

Sure Dave if they were making 35k a year 20 years ago it would have been easy to save. Especialy with no children. Try and save supporting a family of 5 on 35k a year now. It can not be done. Trust me on this that is about my income and there is no money to save, you can try and tell me it's because I don't know how to manage money but the truth is if I didn't know how to manage money I couldn't even survive let alone save.

Comparing my parents generation to this one is insane.

Oh and I have nothing against millionaires without them my income would be even lower I used to make about 5k a year doing construction on millionaires homes. Now I am doing well to make 2k a year maintaining their homes.

Also Tao, that number is rearward slanted. Earning 35000 in 1980 had more purchasing power then 2010 that's for sure. Just an example. I know I sacrificed a lot to give my kids good educations, and to me that's worth more then money in a bank account.

My parents grew up in the depression, and savings and thrift were to be admired. That has never gone out of favor, but you must admit the bling-bling generation seem to favor scoring a mint dealing drugs...then working hard for decades to get ahead.

If you save 166 dollars a month and grow it for 40 yrs at 10% (the long term S+P average) you'd have 750,000.

you'd have 750,000.

#35 | Posted by DavetheWave

And what's $750,000 going to be worth in today's dollars, 40 years from now?

A million doesn't go as far as most would think now.

Dave,

Sure I value my kids education more than a bank ballance. Thats why my wife is a stay at home mom who can help with homework, teach the kids the alphabet before they even start school and fight the school board to get them in the best schools. The down side of that is we don't get bus service so we have to drive them which runs 15 bucks a day in gas so 75 bucks a month that could go to retierment. My kids better get good jobs so they can support me :)

Whatsleft has a point that with inflation most folks my age will need about 5 mil in the bank minimum to retire, and thats assuming that Ray's hyperinflation doesn't happen.

75 bucks a month = 75 bucks a week

"Millionaires really are good for the economy, good for working class folks."
#12 | Posted by danni at 2010-03-11 08:24 PM

Can anyone of any political affiliation imagine this particular poster saying this exact same statement if there was a Republican holding the highest office in the land?

Number of Millionaires in US Rebounds

Must be that "carbon credits" scam....