The problem is also the distribution of wealth. As you correctly identified it, you being able to buy a TV is worth jack (for the economy) if you have no need for one because yours is already top of the line. But there's others who would want one but can't afford it.
To pull a blunt example, if you have 100 bucks and so do I, we can both go and buy a DVD player for 80. If you have 180 and I only have 20, you can buy one, but it's rather unlikely that you'll buy two.
Now, of course someone will butt in and say "but he'll buy something else for the 100 he has left". Ok. Then multiply the whole spiel by 100 and have the first person furnish his mansion while the second can't even buy a couch for his one room apartment. The point is that the first person will have money left over after he has everything he can sensibly buy (in both, goods and services, you don't need two haircuts, do you?) while the second person WOULD buy more stuff if he just COULD.
What is currently needed is a way to sensibly and fairly distribute the wealth we have. I'm all for someone who works better/harder to get more/better goods and services, but for the sake of the economy we have to enable more people to spend and become a part of the demand side.