I'll drink to that LouisJ

Within all of the hilarity they get straight to the point like Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, and Keith Olbermann.

The funny thing is some people get their news source from Comedy Central.

I'm glad to see our VP has a great since of humility and humor.

..

Finally, someone who can take a joke, laugh at himself and whose first reaction was not to sic his lawyers on 'em. Mr Vice-President, my respect for you just went up.

I'll have to check out the videos they're talking about when I get home. I totally forgot about The Onion. That site is hilarious.

I remember Cheney laughing about the skit someone did of him shooting the Easter Bunny at the White House easter egg hunt. That one was hilarious too.

VP Biden, is whats known as a Man!

Secure in himself, Respectful of other's & most importantly, Can laugh about Humor!

Some of you Whiner's on here(all the Doom & gloomer's) should try laughing sometime!

Supposedly it makes for a Longer Lifespan.

Don't encourage doom and gloomers to have a longer life span. Let them die off from the own gloom.
LL :>)

biden the ole crybaby ,,wheres that spoof?

witzzz...that's already been done by John Boehner...too bad it wasn't a spoof.

hey, LouisJ- may we assume the ladies 'approve your message'? (the 2nd line, not the first)

DAMN! My ears perked up! lmao! *voted*

Biden is a ray of sunshine compared to the last VP who was the Lord of Darkness!

You know how MUCH I appreciate a sense of humor! ;o)

HAHA, you caught that double meaning.

:^X

HAHA, you caught that double meaning.

;0P

Good for VP Biden, he's right, the Onion is funny. I like Biden, always have because even his "gaffs" are spoken from the heart. Can't remember what the topic was but not long ago didn't some conservative quote The Onion as proof of some crazy theory.

Friday has people's thoughts wandering off politics :)

The proof of any pudding is always in the eating, gentlemen. ;-)

Is there a blush button around here.

Is there a blush button around here.

If you locate it... will you let me know! ;o)

FRR, in another post today and a previous post about Uncle Thomas are you in the process of writing a tell all book? I also had another question of a more serious nature. Do you remember the person that use to post here all about New Orleans after Katrina. I was trying to remenber her name.

Is there a blush button around here.

If you locate it... will you let me know! ;o)

Feisty you BLUSH? Who knew! :-)

are you in the process of writing a tell all book?

You'll get an advanced copy! ;o)

I remember who you're talking about, was it Cindi in Louisiana? God that seems like such a long time ago!

Feisty you BLUSH? Who knew! :-)

Shhh! It's our little secret k?

FRR

I was thinking it was Olivia in IL or Indy.

I was thinking it was Olivia in IL or Indy.

Hmmm... I don't remember her, but I do remember Cindi's great insight into what was transpiring down there.

Have a great weekend!

have a nice laugh biden ,we do not find you amusing

Witzzz, perhaps that "we" in your post should be changed to "I". It's clear that majority of the posters on here do find VP Biden amusing, and appreciate his sense of humor. We do find VP Biden amusing!

The VP is not smart enough to know that everyone is making fun of him

Not to mention when a comedian takes a jab at your words and they become the narrative, you just might have a gravitas problem!

"I can see Russia From My House"

That candidate is still blaming everyone else for her woes. You'd think by now, someone would point out that you reap what you sow.

Knew someone was going to start Biden Bashing and Jody from Iowa gets the prize! If we reaped what we sowed then these CEO who are making millions of dollars while their company went into the worst downturn since the great depression then they would be feeling our pain, YET THEY AREN'T. Explain that one, please.

"I can see Russia From My House"

Actually, she never said that. It came from the SNL skit. But, isn't it funny how easily things can get misconstrued over such a short period of time.

True, but during an interview with ABC's Charlie Gibson it went like this:

As Gibson and Palin discussed the conflict between Russia and Georgia, Gibson had asked last year, "What insight into Russian actions particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of this state give you?"

Palin responded: "They're our next door neighbors. And you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska."

Read more: #ixzz1COA7NJry

Yes, it is funny how things can get misconstrued, but this woman has said some things that weren't misconstrued at all and very very stupid. But she gets brownie points for dragging folks like you, DJ to her rescue when the rest of us point out how very silly she is.

WTF are you talking about????

Cue the Biden-bashing from the right in 3......2....1......

LOL

They're still snarling, growling & thrashing about under the First Thoughts thread - but it shouldn't be too long! ;o)

Why would the right feel a need to bash Biden. He does a good enough job all by himself.

Fear Not Steeler Fan, they are busy trying to mine the Onion site for "facts" to attack the Veep with..;-)

Heeeerrrrre's Rocco, right on time--you were funny but nice.

Biden bashing? That would mean he had a real job, not just the tie-breaker.

Vegas has the Packers -2.5 against the Steelers.

Feisty...they don't usually have a second thought, so maybe they won't make it.

Absolutely...and '67 Vette doesn't hurt either does it?

Yeah, Joey is just so cool.

Here, check out this story where Joe tells the unemployed to "Just hang in there!".

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theticket/20110128/ts_yblog_theticket/vice-president-says-unemployed-should-hang-in-there

The man is truly an inspiration.

Yahoo? Man I just got a good chuckle. Thanks for ushering in my weekend on a good note.

LouisJ: Yahoo?

Yes, Joe is a yahoo.

"The man is truly an inspiration". That's right, VP Biden is--his parents weren't rich, they worked hard to give him every opportunity and he succeeded, he made them proud. Then there are those regular conservative posters who simply work hard every day to "ugly themselves to death."

Jody, Iowa: That's right, VP Biden is--his parents weren't rich, they worked hard to give him every opportunity and he succeeded

So unemployed people need to be inspired to get some unrich parents that will work hard to give them every opportunity to succeed?

And when they do, Joe can tell them "This is a big f****** deal"

Joey B. What'a guy. And that's why Obama picked him because no matter how bad of a screwup you are, you'll always look good standing next to Joe.

Geez Jody, kind of like what Boehner did eh or he doesn't count? Just a thought.........

"The man is truly an inspiration". That's right, VP Biden is--his parents weren't rich, they worked hard to give him every opportunity and he succeeded, he made them proud.

JoAnna ~

Here, check out this story where Joe tells the unemployed to "Just hang in there!".

It's Friday afternoon, and I should know better than to engage, but I have to ask -- what else SHOULD they do, JoAnna? Jump?

And what would YOU tell them? That the private sector has plenty of cash but just doesn't think it's the "right time" to hire? At least in THIS country. That WOULD be the truth, after all.

JoAnna,

Give it a rest. We all know that Joe is not a Dick... Cheney that is. Joe is a decent human being unlike your neocon hero Dick.

AM: And what would YOU tell them?

I'd guess I'd tell them that their government will spend hundreds of billions of deficit busting dollars on "shovel ready" jobs, only to find out the money was spent on holding government union jobs for a year and it stimulated nothing, and, funny thing, there weren't really any "shovel ready" jobs to begin with. I guess I'd tell them for every month of disappointing job numbers that "We've turned the corner" and "We're seeing the "green shoots of job creation", only to find out that wasn't true. I guess I'd tell them that we'd soon be creating 400,000 jobs a month and we'll be having a "Recovery Summer" to celebrate the new age of job creation, only to find out that too wasn't true. After that I'd tell them unemployment benefits were the "best kind of stimulus", but yet the results of job creation attempts would continue to be stagnant, and costly. And when all that doesn't work, I guess I'd just make unemployment benefits a permanent entitlement for all the people that can't find jobs. And of course, at the end of all that, I'd tell people to "Hang in there".

Two more years. Two more years of this crap.

And please, do tell, and with specifics, tell us what private sector companies have all this cash just lying around. Or is that just something someone "told you"?

Two more years. Two more years of this crap.

Make that six more years have you taken a good look at the GOP Presidential hopefuls? Yeah they got two chances going for them yep you guessed it that would be slim and none.

Smile, JoAnna we survived GW and Dick. I bet that you neocons will survive Barack and Joe.

Ah, the Puritans ride again! JoAnna and Rocco - you guys might want to get together and have a nice Friday night of spin-the-Ayn-Rand. The rest of us are gonna go do something fun.

As the economic recovery remains tepid, companies continue to sit on piles of cash, shifting it around internally rather than spending it.

The hoard totals about $1 trillion for U.S. companies, Reuters reports, citing data from Moody's. For non-financial companies, the total is about $943 billion as of the middle of 2010, compared to $775 billion at the end of 2008, Moody's said.

Even though revenue decreased in the second quarter, corporate profits in the S&P 500 were up 38 percent from the same period last year, the Wall Street Journal reported earlier this month. Thanks to massive cost-cutting strategies, such as firing employees, it was corporate America's sixth highest quarterly profit ever.

Sorry - couldn't resist. Here's to you, JoAnnaSmith!

That's spot on JoAnna. Joe, who certainly is no Dick C. needs to man up and tell them that all that money went to temporarily employ governmental workers, and that all the crap about "shovel-ready" was a big fat lie.

Ok Anna M. when do you decree is the "right" time to hire? You hired anyone lately? Has your firm or employer? He and obama need to own up to the simple fact that all levels of government are flat broke and it's going to get a whole lot worse for the government and that they better start fending for themselves.

It'd also help if they'd owned up tho the fact that the green shoots thing is a giant puss hole of lost and non-existant jobs.

So how about it Anna M? What are you and/or your employer employer doing with all that cash sitting around? Cause I can say should demand pich up here, I'll be the first on to hire. That's just the way it works.

RAF: Sorry - couldn't resist. Here's to you, JoAnnaSmith

Obviously you didn't understand the question. Again, what companies have the cash on hand to invest in new employees? And if there is not the demand for capital/employee expansion, why should they perform that expansion?

You don't seem to understand how business works. Businesses first obligation is to its owners/stockholders/bondholders. If they're not making a profit, the business will lose it's investors, and if they lose their investors, that business is out of business. So any profits go to the owners of the business, that's why they are in business.

So, you want to try again RAF, or is this subject just a little bit over your head?

RAF: The rest of us are gonna go do something fun.

Like get blitzed out of your mind at the Dew Drop In? Be sure to have a Designated Driver. And go light on that bar tab, your unemployment check doesn't show up until next week.

For JoAnna, who said -

And please, do tell, and with specifics, tell us what private sector companies have all this cash just lying around. Or is that just something someone "told you"?

One such "someone" was the Wall Street Journal, via HuffPo. If you have something to the contrary, I'd love to see it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/04/corporate-profits_n_748889.html

Corporate America finished the second quarter with "near-historic" profits, largely by cutting costs, laying off employees and streamlining operations, the Wall Street Journal reports.

Profits for companies in the S&P 500 soared 38 percent from the same period last year, hitting $189 billion, the WSJ says, the sixth-highest quarterly total ever. S&P analysts expect the trend to have continued in the third quarter.

Since 2008, corporate profits increased 10 percent -- but revenue was down 6 percent, the WSJ says. To achieve the impressive quarterly results, companies have had, as the WSJ puts it, to "streamline" their operations. This means firing workers, outsourcing labor and shuttering unprofitable (or less profitable) divisions.

The robust state of corporate profits presents a paradox: companies won't spend their money until the economy improves, but the economy won't improve until they spend their money. An increase in hiring, for example, would help drive a recovery. The New York Times reports this "chicken-and-egg" phenomenon, noting that near-zero interest rates have encouraged companies to borrow money and simply hoard it because, as the NYT puts it, "they can." Combined, companies have $1.6 trillion in cash, the paper notes. In the first quarter of this year, their cash reserves represented the highest percentage of assets since 1964.

No prize, this time, JoAnna, but please try again.

And thanks, RealAmericansFirst, for the corroboration. She wouldn't have believed ME, anyway.

But this whole exchange does beg a really big question, JoAnna -- what DO you read, anyway?

Or, no, wait. I suspect I don't need to ask because you follow the inspiration of your heroine, Sarah Palin, and read ... oh, I don't know ... everything.

That's MUST BE why a little thing like this didn't stick.

AM, your just spewing the same thing RAF did.

Profit doesn't mean expansion of either capital improvments or employees. Profit goes to the owners of the business. That's why they are in business. If the owners believe they can achieve more profit by expansion of capital/employees, which requires additional demand for their products/services, they will do so. Obviously they don't believe that demand to be true. What part of that is unclear to you?

Again, and for the final time, name a company that is sitting on a huge pile of money and are just leaving it sit there, something for the CEO to count in his/her spare time. And if you find this mythical company, you should go work for it, because you obviously know how to run it better than they do.

AM: But this whole exchange does beg a really big question, JoAnna -- what DO you read, anyway?

Washington Post, Washington Times, WSJ, CNN News, Boston Herald, LA Times, Denver Post, Real Clear Politics, Chicago Trib, The Economist, Politico, The Hill, Weekly Standard, NY Times, NY Post, Washington Examiner, Roll Call, Dallas Morning News, Atlanta Constitution, USA Today, just to name a few.

And no, I do not watch Fox News or listen to Limbaugh.

From your writings I would expect to see you reading Mediamatters, DailyKos, and TMZ? And you're really broken up about this "Keith" thing, correct?

Like get blitzed out of your mind at the Dew Drop In?

You really should try to have a drink once in awhile JoAnna!

All that 'tea' toling is doing absolutely nothing for your 'sunny' disposition!

You really should try to have a drink once in awhile JoAnna!

And you should try to stop, if only for a day.

And you should try to stop, if only for a day.

In case I didn't tell you before, you're about as clever as a cockroach and not nearly as cute & cuddly!

See post #1.6

Bitter party of 1 your table is now ready! lol

Did I miss where Anna M. told us about all the hiring at her firm/employer? How about it Anna M.? What going on?

And let's leave Fiesty and Co. to their cocktails, they need something to get through.

JoAnna ~ Did you even bother to read what I posted? If corporate cash reserves are at the highest level since 1964, then some corporation somewhere, even if it's only one, is sitting on a mountain of cash.

But since you asked ...

This article says that corporate cash has been piling up since 1982 and names the top 20 companies.

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/07/corporate-cash-top-20-firms-635-billion/

This article says that corporations have been using their huge cash reserves to finance mergers and overseas job growth --

http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/12/28/corporations-using-cash-reserves-for-mergers-overseas-job-growth/

And another one ....

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/07/15/politics/washingtonpost/main6680641.shtml

And another one ....

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/hoarding-hiring-corporations-stockpile-mountain-cash/story?id=10250559

And finally this one, directly from the Wall Street Journal, which is more up-to-date than my HuffPo cite. You must have missed the Journal on both those dates. Sigh.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703766704576009501161973480.html

Rather than pouring their money into building plants or hiring workers, nonfinancial companies in the U.S. were sitting on $1.93 trillion in cash and other liquid assets at the end of September, up from $1.8 trillion at the end of June, the Federal Reserve said Thursday. Cash accounted for 7.4% of the companies' total assets—the largest share since 1959.

The WSJ article in particular names several specific companies. Do take a peek. So that's what I'm being "told" and by whom. But don't believe the evidence of your lying eyes, JoAnna. Believe what Rush and Beck and Hannity and Palin and Bachmann and the rest of the conservative "brain" trust tell YOU.

Not being a Kool Kid, I won't be attending the party at Dew Drop, JoAnna. But "dew" try to have a nice weekend, thinking positive thoughts for a change.

@ Spanky -- I work for a small firm. We just brought on a new associate, a new paralegal, and a new legal assistant. In our LIBERAL neck of the woods, things are looking up. Any other questions? You have a nice weekend, too.

Oh, and about Keith: Since you asked, JoAnna, the answer is no. I'll get by. So far, so good.

But without him to kick around, will you?

From JoAnnaSmith: "Again, and for the final time, name a company that is sitting on a huge pile of money and are just leaving it sit there, something for the CEO to count in his/her spare time. And if you find this mythical company, you should go work for it, because you obviously know how to run it better than they do."

:"A majority of companies in the Standard & Poor’s 500 stock index increased cash to a combined $1.18 trillion while simultaneously reducing spending, keeping a jobs recovery on hold. ... Caterpillar Inc., Eaton Corp., Walgreen Co. and General Electric Co. are among 256 companies that ended last quarter with $518 billion more cash than a year earlier after cutting capital spending by 43 percent."

Alas, that data is old -- early last year. The current numbers are HIGHER. Here's a more recent one, from Sept.: "Cisco was sitting on $4.6bn in cash and $35.3bn in short-term investments in the quarter ended in July. That cash hoard has more than doubled in the past five years as Cisco has boosted revenues by 40.6 per cent, to $40bn, and had wiggly profits that average around $7bn a year and that are trending slightly upwards. That's a lot of cash to have sitting around considering the revenue stream size."

So we'd all love to "go work for it", only they aren't hiring. Have a nice weekend!

Anna M. only one associate? Only one paralegal? Come on, the government is counting on you - tell your managing partner to stop sitting on all that cash. Come on, take some risks and become a BIG firm. The fact that yours are liberal woods mean you all really need to step it up.

I will have anice weekend, thanks. But man I'll tell you I do miss Keith. Larry is just too serious and Ed, Ed just will not make it under the big lights.

We like it small, Spanky. In fact, we don't have another office to give right now, even though we just moved into a larger space. But small suits me. We're doing what we can. How about you?

As for Keith, he'll land on his feet, and you'll see him again. No one should feel too sorry for him.

We are running lean and mean, but that's not the point.

Your posts and others here assert that it is the evil businesses that are sitting on all that cash when they could be hiring. Are they not allowed to "like it small?" Let's face it - your firm could expand, it chooses not too. Think of the possibilities - more employees and you'd have to move so you hire an agent and movers and IT guys. You'll need more computers and desks. Damn Anna M. you really are being selfish if you think about it.

But I do like that you are still billing away at this late hour. Me, it's 4:41 pm and I'm heading to Happy Hour. And I really do miss Keith. It's all entertainment to me, and he was really good at it. Larry O just too serious. Trying too hard.

Phone User ~ You make good points. The NYT cite in my first post talks about the catch 22 that is set up when corporations sit on their cash. Sitting on cash creates no jobs. Demand can't pick up when people don't have jobs, so no jobs are created. Ironically, however, the Firedoglake article talks about how companies are going overseas with their cash because that's where the demand is -- and the demand is there because we've been busy creating jobs over there, and because they have the interest on all our money to spread around. The WSJ article, which is very recent, sums it all up. What it adds up to is that the free market has created conditions where corporations can make plenty of money regardless of domestic demand, then expand overseas, and without creating any jobs here in America, take out those big profits that JoAnna talks about.

The so-called jobless recovery that republicans like to talk about. And don't ask me which ones, JoAnna. Go look it up.

Where JoAnna misses the boat, of course, is that the whole republican idea of job creation is supposedly that business owners will be willing to reinvest their money if only we give them tax breaks. That whole theory is therefore revealed as being a fraud, merely by observing by what business owners are doing when they do have big piles of money to spend. They don't create jobs.

It's all a house built on sand. Only the corporations moved to the off-shore island and left the workers with the house.

Spanky ~ Of course, companies are entitled to run lean and mean, but that's not what republicans promise us that they'll do, and that's not how they tell us that jobs will be created.

So, it's all a fraud and you just admitted it.

Have a nice weekend. Be happy.

Spanky ~ Of course, companies are entitled to run lean and mean,

Thats so kind of you. And that money they're "sitting on", well guess what, it's invested, maybe not in what you want, but in things that promise a higher yield and/or lower risk. So know that Obama is running the show, that means in countries other than the United States. Nobody sits on their cash AM, they make it work for them, just like they are supposed to do.

Like I said though, seeing you're a genius at what these companies should do with their money, you should send in your application. I'm sure they'll be happy to have you explain it to them at the interview. Be sure to watch the looks on the their faces as you explain it to'em.

What admission was that now? What promise do the republicans make?

Come on Anna Molly, why you gotta be using terms like fraud? And be happy? How much fun is this board. The happiness I get out of just Fiesty and Bev alone is fantastic, and that doesn't even count my little buddy Drive By, who admits to posting at work. What do you think, is Drive By commiting fraud - getting paid while posting?

Can you do me a memo on that? What's your billable rate?

I don't need a job, JoAnna.

And you're wrong, wrong, wrong about the cash-sitting. At least if one considers the facts. Read the WSJ link in my post, and then try to say that again. Many companies are most decidedly sitting on their cash. One reason for that is that they can make money without hiring new workers, which, although it is their right, bodes quite badly for the recovery under YOUR view of the only way that the recovery can take place.

Another view, of course, is that they're doing it deliberately to keep unemployment artificially high, thereby ensuring that President Obama will be defeated in 2012. Big companies can do things like that, and it looks suspiciously like they are. Or else, some combination of the above, which merely amounts to the same thing.

As for your claim that companies are fully invested, please go back and read again. They're not. They're just sitting on cash, probably at the same low returns everyone else gets, and some of it actually borrowed, although also at extremely low rates. I'm talking about CASH, not investments. That's what the articles talk about, too. Let me repeat it once again, JoAnna. Cash.

And actually, as to Spanky's point that we should expand for the sake of expansion, that seems to cut contrary to YOUR point. By the way, Spanks, which one is it, lean and mean, or big and bloated? Ironically, or perhaps not, the firms around here that are doing the worst are the big ones that are leveraged the way Spanky suggests we should do. We're not big (by deliberate choice, by the way), but we haven't had to lay anyone off, either, nor does anyone seem to think that laying off people is a good way to save money for the shareholders, like a lot of other companies do. Just read the articles. I guess someone around our offices, although obviously not me, knows what they're doing. I just watch and try to learn.

As for being kind, it's a funny thing. I'm no genius, JoAnna, but seldom does anyone around here accuse me of being UNkind. I'll settle for that. Have a nice weekend.

Too low for you, Spanky. I'm just a pushy, dumb lawyer. You obviously need someone much smarter and more compliant.

The fraud is that republicans promise that if you just give them tax breaks, they'll create jobs. We'll they've had the tax breaks, and those didn't work. And now they've got lots of cash piled up, and that's not working, either. The fraud is getting people to trust them to create jobs, when jobs are not their main goal. As JoAnna admits, their main goal is profit. They've figured out how to do that without creating jobs, and they obviously have no intention of changing that.

I know you don't agree with me, but please, just keep asking me about it because if I repeat it often enough, it will become true. Just like Beck, Hannity, and Limbaugh. And also the birthers.

But I thought you were going out to drink. Don't let me keep you. Nighty night, Spanky.

JoAnnaSmith1,

Regarding "shovel-ready projects", they did exist. But just like Congress could get blocked by a minority, many of these projects became local political footballs. Some had been on the books for so long that their engineering and environmental studies had become out-dated. Others were held up because they were in the wrong legislative district, or might use the "wrong" contractors. Releasing any major construction contract, especially governmental, requires time to prepare and submit bids, accept bids, approve bidders, and award contracts. Then materials must be acquired, equipment brought to site, and workers brought in or hired. For even a relatively small job, this can take 6 months for something that would otherwise be considered "shovel-ready".

Regarding the "cash hoarde" of US companies, Anna Molly makes many good points. In the case of Caterpillar for example, the chief domestic markets are in construction and mining, with secondary markets in marine (boats and ships) propulsion and auxiliary power and in stand-by power gen-sets. The domestic market, except mining, has been hit across the board. Meanwhile China is in a frenetic building boom. So Caterpillar builds some components here and ships them to China to be incorporated into the Chinese-built equipment. Result, some jobs remain in the US, but substantially fewer than if Cat simply shipped the complete bull-dozer. Reason: China wants to build its industry. To sell in China, you must make in China. You will do business the Chinese way. The government will set hours, set wages, provide the facility, management and engineers and even the equipment. You provide the plans and specifications and upfront cash, part of which will go to bribes.

When Chinese labor becomes too expensive and the Chinese market starts to saturate, These companies will move to another country, like India, Thailand or Mianmar. They are not evil, they are just chasing markets and low operating costs. The only market that doesn't appeal to them right now is the US. Oddly without their participation, the US market cannot change.

One other note about the US labor market, the effects of automation and "consumers doing the providers job".

Automation is a wonderful thing. It can garauntee consistant products with MINIMUM human labor involvement. It is not new; I remember reading about a new Italian water valve plant in the 1980's built with only aisle lighting as the entire plant was operated by automatic machines and robotic load/unload stations. TWO employees "made" 2.5million valves a year. One supervisor and one maintenance technician. Automation has claimed more US jobs than job exports. Even in China you see automated production in fields like electronics due to high precision and repeatability.

Oddly, we also are called upon do to the work once considered part of the product or service we received. Utility billing is a good example. My family has been forced into on-line payment of our telephone, gas and electrical bills. Email/website bills, not a mailed paper bill. No local offices, Third party payors require $2-3 service fee per payment. Customer service is a central "call-center" located God knows where. Other examples, products shipped unassembled in cartons large enough to hold the assembled product. Example: electric can opener required assembly of the can lid magnet to the cutter lever, and assembly of the cutter lever to the base unit; fully assembled, it fit exactly the same way in the box. I'm sure that this eliminated one position on an assembly line somewhere.

Anna Molloy - - Blew your cover. You are a lawyer. Shot in the dark you voted democratic.

It is also far more sensible than telling the unemployed they are lazy, drug addicts, no good stray animals not to be fed and as Paul Ryan suggested Tuesday night, they prefer the hammock to working.

Seriously Jody – What fine upstanding Christians they are!

The sticking point for Heller is the extension of those benefits to 24 months. Heller said, “I believe there should be a federal safety net,” but asked, “Is the government now creating hobos?”

http://www.examiner.com/democrat-in-las-vegas/rep-dean-heller-r-nv-unemployment-benefits-will-create-hobos

But in the Senate, the measure was blocked by Kentucky’s Jim Bunning. Politico reported that late into Thursday night, Bunning held out against repeated Democratic attempts to pass the extension by unanimous consent. In response to entreaties from colleagues across the aisle, other Republican senators rose to defend Bunning's right to obstruct the vote, and Bunning himself was heard to utter, “Tough @!$%#.”

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/02/gop-unemployed-drop-dead-you-bums

Paul Ryan said this? Post the link...............or is this a Jody translation?

"It is also far more sensible than telling the unemployed they are lazy, drug addicts, no good stray animals not to be fed and as Paul Ryan suggested Tuesday night,"

Sorry but I am not going to join in the Biden adoration and worship going on here. He is OK.... but can be crass and rude as all get out. His so-called sense of humor is only when it serves him.

LoL Feisty -- see my comment above. Great minds .... ;-)

Paul - Florida

Paul Ryan said this? Post the link...............or is this a Jody translation?

Maybe not those EXACT words, but words to that effect. I heard them, too. Ryan's from my state. I wasn't surprised. You will find out why as we go.

Here are his exact words, taken from a transcript.

We are at a moment, where if government's growth is left unchecked and unchallenged, America's best century will be considered our past century. This is a future in which we will transform our social safety net into a hammock, which lulls able-bodied people into lives of complacency and dependency.

http://www.npr.org/2011/01/26/133227396/transcript-gop-response-from-rep-paul-ryan

Having been unemployed 3 years ago when my company was bought out I will tell you unequivocally there are people who abuse the system. I worked for a major company that over 2000 people lost their jobs and I know several who are still riding out those extensions. They go to the unemployment office for their monthly check in and apply for jobs here and there. I personally couldn't stand being unemployed.

His so-called sense of humor is only when it serves him.

Yes and that is a common trait in most everyone. So your point is?

Anna,

Well, yeah, I totally agree with that post of yours on what Ryan said. Maybe you're social net is different than mine. Let it play out and we will see.

I lived in Wisconsin for a few years. My daughter was born in LaCrosse................

My daughter was born in LaCrosse................

I LOVE La Crosse - I used to spend summers on my grandfathers farm up in the 'Bad Ax Valley'!

It really is God's country!

Is this something we agree on Freisty? I lived in the area from '92-96. It's is God's country, even in the winter time too.

KSW, yes there are people who abuse the system, anywhere there is some sort of assistance or charity, there will always be a self-serving few who will look to try and take advantage of that assistance in any way possible, to the detriment of those who truly need the help. What they(Fiesty, Jody, Anna) are talking about is the fact that in the Republican response to the State of the Union speech, Paul Ryan was basically making it seem that all the system was being filled, and was creating people who are going to do nothing but stay on public assistance. During the course of my work day, I talk to many, many people who are unemployed, and most of the time they are on unemployment(with a select few whos benefits have run out, 99% of the time these are in areas with unemployment 2-2.5 times higher than the national average), and they hate it, they can't stand it, like KSW, but you tend to figure out who truly wants to get the job, and who does not, I can tell you most want to get off of unemployment, and Paul Ryan's assessment of the situation is grossly misconstrued. Maybe he should spend time talking to the people in these situations rather than observe from on high.

Is this something we agree on Freisty?

By golly Paul - we could be onto something! lol

Winters were brutal, but I LOVED riding in the new fallen snow! I don't think there is anything more peaceful!

PS: I 'll trust the mispelling of 'Feisty' was accidental and you're not hitting the bottle already! ;o) Hope the foot healed nicely!

Come to think of it - if happy hour has started already... I'll have what your having!

LaCrosse is a great town, Paul ... a wonderful drive to get there from where I live.

Speaking of "social nets," do you ever get a chance to talk to unemployed people, Paul? What do they tell you? That they like trying to live on $300 a week? You should try it for a while, and tell me just how "hammocky" you feel.

You'd feel like dirt. And if you didn't get a job pretty soon, you'd probably start acting like it.

Well, it's not so easy to get those jobs this time around, is it?

Anna,

Yeah, I did live on $300 a week and I even qualified for food stamps while in the military. I sure do know unemployed people, my relatives live in the Detroit area, which a few are unemployed. I also know people taking full advantage of the system too. What is a social saftey net to you? Unemployment bennies for 99 weeks? 127 Weeks? When does it stop? It can't go on for ever or people will lose motivation. Do you know in that time, you can go back to school or learn a different trade? Will it be tough? You bet, it's better than setting around and hoping.

The whole part is that you think Ryan said one thing and I think it mean another thing.

Paul - can you point to a trade that 14.5 million Americans can go train for and then be sure to get a job before their unemployment benefits run out? Because if you can, you can get rich selling that information right now.

If not, you need to face the reality that there is no short-term solution for most of the unemployed, and we're going to have to keep feeding them until there is.

It doesn't have a damn thing to do with hammocks.

Ummm.no I don't want to keep feeding them. This is why I mentioned school. Yup you're correct it has nothing to do with hammocks, but it sure does has to do with education. It's not a big secret, get an education and then it opens more doors for a good job. Can't spin that!!!!

The unemployment rate for high school graduates is 9.8 percent, slightly higher than the 9.4 percent national average.

But the unemployment rate for college graduates is significantly lower, at 4.8 percent, close to normal levels.

Even Americans with an associate's degree have an easier time finding work than high school grads, with an 8.1 percent unemployment rate.

High school dropouts have the hardest time, with unemployment hovering around 15 percent.

Read more: #ixzz1CNmfNtLB

"If not, you need to face the reality that there is no short-term solution for most of the unemployed, and we're going to have to keep feeding them until there is."

Paul,

There should be other statistics out there. 99 weekers no longer fit into the unemployment counts, nor do 27 weekers in states like North Dakota. The official unemployed are only those who file for and qualify for UI benefits, either regular or extended in the states qualifying. The unemployed today are not like most previous recessions. We are no longer talking about the 20-30 yo age group, but mostly the 40-65 yo age group. Unemployed workers are more likely to be tied to a house they can't sell. They are at a disadvantage in the work-force because they are seen rigid, short-timers, and potential health-care cash hogs. A big worry for many of us is: How will this affect our SSI? I know several locally who have taken benefits at 62 and work part-time for grocery and prescription money, with no health insurance.

Re-education seems like joke to the 55+ yo crowd. Spend 1-2 years retraining, and thousands of dollars to get a $10-12/hr job for 4-10 years? While we're already spending our retirement savings to live now? By the way, both my wife and I have gone back to school to get college degrees. I am unemployed, and my wife's Masters earns her about $33k in a state job.

Also unreported are those working part-time, about the only jobs available in my area, earning minimum wage, less than what their unemployment benefits would be. Even those jobs are being cut locally. People in this category are frequently referred to as under-employed, working but earning less than the poverty level.

I am currently on unemployment, at age 60. I was earning $62k. Now, my only contribution to the local economy is to pay my mortgage and taxes, to keep cars fixed so I can go to interviews, and to buy food. Very few luxuries and no unneccesary consumer goods like clothing, appliances or music. My computer was bought over five years ago, "remanufactured" (office lease trade-in). Gas furnace controls are malfunctioning, so we heat the house to around 50 by electric space heaters. Monthly bill is still cheaper than a service call. Most job opportunities in my career field are 50+ miles away, so I plan on spending a good amount of my earnings on gasoline. And don't tell me to replace my paid-off, cheap to insure vehicles with a new car with "great" mpg, but high monthly payments and insurance premiums.

How do you know?

I can't believe Obama sticks with him.

Geez, Linda maybe you should ask the custard shop owner who jokingly told Biden his custard was on the house if he would lower taxes and Biden called him a smart a$$. Sounds real Vice Presidential to me. (and before you get all twisted up I am not a republican)...

Linda, Forget trying to placate JoAnna and for that matter paul-florida, Spanky, Steve, ITM, bob or njnb it is a total waste of time. They wore thier rose colored shades through the Bush years.

ksw, Sounds to me like Joe got it right if that is how the conversation transpired.

LOL, ok devie, you got me..............................yeah Linda look at my comments above, I'm sooooooo angry at Anna........

Now I do like this statement, I have a feeling this might came back and bite you and your friends on here. This is now in my top five. This is a keeper.......

"Can't Conservatives ever say ANYTHING nice?"

Devie you obviously missed the point. Biden's comment was recorded by a camera crew(he didn't realized he was caught on tape) and was not meant to be funny. He was being a jerk in response to someone trying to make a joke. In all this let's be civil to one another PC , my point is that he isn't.

Biden has plenty of chances to laugh at himself and so does the country.

They have all been outsourced which contributes to the bottom line earnings of these companies by reduced payroll expenses, etc...

AnnaMolly, those numbers are good- in an economy NOT trying to climb out of a recession, even a mild one.

In order to get back to full employment numbers after this last recession, we need at least three quarters of growth of between seven and eight per cent.

3.2% is treading water.

Up is a heck of a lot better than down, no joe. Read my response to JoAnna above about the corporate hoarding of cash and the deliberate strategy of not hiring. Even if we assume that this is not a conspiracy to drive President Obama out of office, it still represents a significant PRIVATE SECTOR block to getting people back to work, and thus further delays the ultimate recovery, which will not occur until people get back to work and start SPENDING MONEY.

Or, if you don't like my explanation, and that of The New York Times, then how do YOU explain those facts, no joe?

AM: Up is a heck of a lot better than down, no joe. Read my response to JoAnna above about the corporate hoarding of cash and the deliberate strategy of not hiring.

Wow, that is quite the accusation AM. You have proof of this?

So, like I also said in an above post, AM, the first person you should convince one of these "corporate hoarders" as you call them to hire is YOU! Because you obviously know better than they do on how they should spend all of their money. They'll be so happy, and lucky, to have you aboard!!

AM Even if we assume that this is not a conspiracy to drive President Obama out of office.

Ahh, you're a Truther! That explains things. Many, many, things. Pick all this stuff up on the short-wave do'ya?

AnnaMolly- there are about 150,000 entering the workforce every month. The growth rate last quarter can accommodate that many. It cannot absorb the excess.

When the economy finally turned around after the stagflAtion of the late seventies - early eighties in quarter one 1983, the rates were-

Quarter one, 2.6%- Quarter 2, 10.90% - quarter 3, 6.5% - quarter 4, 7.0%. 1984, quarter 1, 7.4%, - quarter 2, 5.0%, before stabilizing to four quarters of growth from two to three per cent

Five quarters of growth above four per cent. That is what it takes to get back to full employment after a recession this deep.

As to the increased profits- they are as a result of efficiencies put in place by businesses as a result of the recession. There will be no job growth while those efficiencies are still, well, efficient.

You do not hire another paralegal because your clients paid you more this year- you do so because your work load increases so much that your staff cannot handle the load without another worker.

Businesses are not in business to give you a job- they exist for one reason- to make a profit. They will hire when the workload exceeds the efficiency of their current staffing levels, thus costing them profits. Not before.

The deliberate strategy of not hiring is directly related to the deliberate fact that there is no demand. I am not aware of any employer that has a strategy of hiring someone to do nothing. But your right, up is better than down if your strictly talking about the ecomomy:)

No changes are fully true until the UE get quality jobs. The foreclosure mess has been properly cleaned up. The Bankers, Brokers and Corp pay back all the borrowed funds. The regulations are in place to stop those leaches from creating this mess again.

There are way to many people without incomes or way under employed that have fallen of the radar. If they were bankers, brokers, corp CEO's, they got their bail out to fully put them back on their feet. Where is the needed funds for UE. Obummer you are a joke. You talk about the little guy then you shove him under the rug and you support the big PACs and Corp special interests. Obummer you should apologise to the USA for your hypocritical actions.

3.2% growth following a deep recession requires little more than turning a few machines back on. Workers were probably already there on maintenance or reduced schedules. Example, a company on reduced production moves from 32 hr/wk to 40hr, and increases output 25%, or where it was two years ago. no real growth.

Automation allows more production value, with less labor input. GDP goes up, not employment.

Changing product mix also changes GDP. Making $30k cars rather than $20k cars is a 50% increase. But does not mean 50% more labor.

To really recover from this recession, and return to 5-6% unemployment, is going to require five years of 7+% growth. Of course, we could use the old definition, "The recession over when I get a job."

Biden knows how to take a joke

And Palin is a JOKE!

If this was Palin she would blame the "lamestream media"

Yes she would on the that downstream media outlet known as Fox News.

General question?? why is the left so afraid of Palin?? She is a non entity./ MSNBC bashes her daily. Maybe if they would have worried about everyone else instead of her they wouldn't have got their Azz kicked in November. I for one believe we need a Dem pres and a Rep congress. Last time this government worked was with Clinton and a Rep congress.

How true How true

i have been reading the exchange concerning profits and employment and growth and i just have to wonder, the facts are that there is a large amount of cash sitting on the sidelines - and there is no demand from consumers, because they don't feel they can spend without jobs, or possible future earnings. (sort of the same thing the businesses are saying) so why do the republicans feel that government spending is not the answer or how cutting taxes for the rich would spur an economic upswing (especially since it doesn't spur demand at the consumer level.) Cutting spending on things not needed is good but it won't solve the problem because no matter how much you cut, it won't be enough (discretionary spending is on;y 12% of the budget, some military spending has to be cut, (sounds like a withdrawal from one of the wars (all out)

on a lighter note, VP Joe is one of my favorites, I would love to have a long conversation and a drink with him.

Without profit there is no place for a business. Jobs may not be #1 but if they are successful they will add jobs. If not they will lay people off. Lets hope they are successful.

Your first impression is right on. He is a left drum pounder. Nothing there for Guts thou. What ever the PACs tell him the left wants he is for. No back bone their....