In this thread, we talk about the State of the Union Address

[KSUViolet06]

Discuss!

[Kappamd]

My fiance is FLIPPING OUT about the comment that we ship away foreign graduates. He is in one of the top 10 graduate programs in his area of study, and is one of the only American students. He says that EVERY SINGLE foreign student came here to study with ZERO intention of staying here to work. And I believe it; it's a pretty sweet deal.

[IrishLake]

I took a shower and am watching Discovery Channel. :p

[Kappamd]

I'm also surprised that healthcare got nothing but a cursory mention.

[KSUViolet06]

I'm just now tuning in, but I'm hearing rumblings of repealing No Child Left Behind?

[Kappamd]

TWO THUMBS UP to reining in medical malpractice lawsuits.

And I didn't hear anything about that, although he did talk about education for a long time, and I may have missed it.

Ahhhhh, this:

"Race to the Top is the most meaningful reform of our public schools in a generation. For less than one percent of what we spend on education each year, it has led over 40 states to raise their standards for teaching and learning. These standards were developed, not by Washington, but by Republican and Democratic governors throughout the country. And Race to the Top should be the approach we follow this year as we replace No Child Left Behind with a law that is more flexible and focused on what’s best for our kids."

[aephi alum]

My fiance is FLIPPING OUT about the comment that we ship away foreign graduates. He is in one of the top 10 graduate programs in his area of study, and is one of the only American students. He says that EVERY SINGLE foreign student came here to study with ZERO intention of staying here to work. And I believe it; it's a pretty sweet deal.

Counter-argument: My mother came to this country from the UK in the early 1960s for her residency. She stayed and married an American co-resident. :p

[Kappamd]

I wasn't overly impressed with the speech as a whole. He had some good points (and others that I disagreed with), but there was nothing earth-shattering or inspiring about it.

[AGDee]

I loved the salmon analogy.

I hope that the spirit of cooperation continues because the direction he laid out tonight is the most moderate and reasonable stuff I've heard from our government in years and years.

In my day, living in the international dorm at my university, every foreign student was there in hopes of staying here and most did, whether legally or illegally. This is also my experience when we attempt to hire statisticians, particularly, in my department. My department is not willing to sponsor people and we toss most of the resumes we get because they are from students who are going to graduate soon and are looking for sponsorship so that they can stay. It may vary by type of degree or the country they are from.

ETA: Promised myself I'd be in bed early but I'm dying to hear the tea party response.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

My fiance is FLIPPING OUT about the comment that we ship away foreign graduates. He is in one of the top 10 graduate programs in his area of study, and is one of the only American students. He says that EVERY SINGLE foreign student came here to study with ZERO intention of staying here to work. And I believe it; it's a pretty sweet deal.

Because there aren't jobs for PhD's here in the US. At least in my program, I'd have made more staying in the workforce than going back to school, by a long-shot.

[Drolefille]

ETA: Promised myself I'd be in bed early but I'm dying to hear the tea party response.
If it was Michelle Bachmann's response it was pre-recorded so I wouldn't bother. Also it doesn't seem like much of a response that way. Unless they changed their mind about that.

My fiance is FLIPPING OUT about the comment that we ship away foreign graduates. He is in one of the top 10 graduate programs in his area of study, and is one of the only American students. He says that EVERY SINGLE foreign student came here to study with ZERO intention of staying here to work. And I believe it; it's a pretty sweet deal.
Wonder if this is a bit of a chicken or the egg thing. If the only realistic way to stay here is often to marry a citizen or be in a VERY specialized field (or get hired by an employer willing to jump a lot of hoops) then most people probably don't plan on staying in the first place so the people who do come aren't those who would like to stay. Perhaps.

Anecdotal evidence time: my big's husband stayed in the country following his graduation and has continued to work on his green card. So it clearly does happen both ways, I'd be curious about the numbers.

[AGDee]

Because there aren't jobs for PhD's here in the US. At least in my program, I'd have made more staying in the workforce than going back to school, by a long-shot.

My department is always looking for PhD's and has a hard time finding those who don't need sponsorship.


Tea Party response: Interesting comment about the price of gas skyrocketing. I found this timeline:

April 21, 2008—Gasoline prices jump to a record $3.50 a gallon in some parts of the U.S.

May 15, 2008— While many people were shocked at $3 a gallon, they were not prepared for what was about to happen as prices shot up to nearly $4 a gallon. Public hysteria sets in as consumers begin using Gas Buddy to find the lowest gas prices in town.

May 21, 2008—Oil price skyrockets to $130 a barrel. Holly cow!!!

June 9, 2008—Retail gas prices rise above $4 per gallon.

June 15, 2008—Speculators continue to push the price of crude oil. Consumers begin to literally run out of gas attempting to stretch their dollar. Hybrid vehicles are becoming a hot commodity. Stories of gas stations running out of gas begins to circulate, creating greater hysteria among the public.

July 7, 2008—Crude oil prices settled-in at a new record of $147 per barrel. The U.S. average price for regular gasoline climbs to an all-time high of $4.11 per gallon. Road trip style vacations are put on hold for many summer travelers.

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/01/2008-us-gas-prices-review.php

[DeltaBetaBaby]

My department is always looking for PhD's and has a hard time finding those who don't need sponsorship.


And doesn't that sort of explain why the foreign PhD's aren't sticking around?

What field are you in? I just read that, in engineering, 70% of the PhD's are awarded to non-citizens, and most leave the country afterwards.

[AGDee]

We're always looking for PhD Biostatisticians. I believe that was Obama's point though.. that we make it hard for them to stick around.

I find the differences between the Tea Party response and the Republican response to be interesting. It has me wondering whether the Tea Party will split the Republicans into two factions and make it impossible for them to win a Presidential election next time because they are split. This is sort of what Ross Perot did in '96.

[PeppyGPhiB]

I was inspired by the speech. I liked the whole "reinvent" theme. Ford has done it - other companies need to follow suit. But the thing is, they can't do it without the government's help. And by that I don't mean bailouts - I mean government policy that supports American jobs, manufacturing and exports. Companies aren't locating their operations, manufacturing, etc. in other countries because of their educated workforces - they're doing it because it's cheaper for them! So I'm tired of hearing from two presidents now that educating the American workforce will take care of the problem. It won't! I want to hear a president talk about how they are going to convince companies that an educated, higher-paid American worker is worth it, and then I want to see them put it into action!

[ggforever]

I found all the clapping and standing very disruptive. It was not as bad as last year when Nancy Pelosi clapped and stood every time the President took a breath, but I still felt made the speech disjointed.

The President is a wonderful speaker but I felt the speech was lacking.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

I was inspired by the speech. I liked the whole "reinvent" theme. Ford has done it - other companies need to follow suit. But the thing is, they can't do it without the government's help. And by that I don't mean bailouts - I mean government policy that supports American jobs, manufacturing and exports. Companies aren't locating their operations, manufacturing, etc. in other countries because of their educated workforces - they're doing it because it's cheaper for them! So I'm tired of hearing from two presidents now that educating the American workforce will take care of the problem. It won't! I want to hear a president talk about how they are going to convince companies that an educated, higher-paid American worker is worth it, and then I want to see them put it into action!

Government policy that makes it cheaper for companies to maintain a workforce in the United States? Single-payer healthcare.

[PeppyGPhiB]

What field are you in? I just read that, in engineering, 70% of the PhD's are awarded to non-citizens, and most leave the country afterwards.

Because foreign engineers from Russia, Romania, China, India, etc. who come here on worker visas will work for less. $50k is a fortune in Romania, but do you think an American engineer will be happy to make that?

We bring in so many foreign engineers in this country that the kids studying engineering in American universities can't get jobs. So a lot of kids aren't choosing engineering anymore. My husband, who is an aerospace engineer, says he would never advise a college student in the U.S. today to study engineering - our country's companies just don't want to hire American engineers anymore. Proof: it took more than 10 years for my husband to get an engineering job in aerospace, first at a government contractor, but finally at Boeing (after applying for various positions within the company over 14 years). He has engineering degrees from one of the best engineering schools (Michigan), a MBA, post-grad experience from a year study in Russia, and he's one of the smartest people I've ever met...he's seriously a genius. When he finally got to Boeing, he met all the foreign contractors he was competing with for jobs. Not only do they have less education than him, but they have no emotional investment in the company they're working for or the country they're working in. They're all here to make a tidy sum, then go back to their home countries where they can live rich and use the information and experience gained at America's largest exporter against us. It really infuriates him, and me. Same thing happens at all the technology companies.

[PeppyGPhiB]

Government policy that makes it cheaper for companies to maintain a workforce in the United States? Single-payer healthcare.

I don't think healthcare should be connected to employers at all.

[KSig RC]

I don't think healthcare should be connected to employers at all.

... which is how a single-payer system benefits employers.

[PeppyGPhiB]

... which is how a single-payer system benefits employers.

I wasn't disagreeing, just making a statement that I think it's stupid that this country still depends on employers to supply health care.

Eta: to be clear, I believe a universal, socialized system, when done right, could be a good thing for this country.

[PiKA2001]

Because foreign engineers from Russia, Romania, China, India, etc. who come here on worker visas will work for less. $50k is a fortune in Romania, but do you think an American engineer will be happy to make that?

We bring in so many foreign engineers in this country that the kids studying engineering in American universities can't get jobs. So a lot of kids aren't choosing engineering anymore. My husband, who is an aerospace engineer, says he would never advise a college student in the U.S. today to study engineering - our country's companies just don't want to hire American engineers anymore. Proof: it took more than 10 years for my husband to get an engineering job in aerospace, first at a government contractor, but finally at Boeing (after applying for various positions within the company over 14 years). He has engineering degrees from one of the best engineering schools (Michigan), a MBA, post-grad experience from a year study in Russia, and he's one of the smartest people I've ever met...he's seriously a genius. When he finally got to Boeing, he met all the foreign contractors he was competing with for jobs. Not only do they have less education than him, but they have no emotional investment in the company they're working for or the country they're working in. They're all here to make a tidy sum, then go back to their home countries where they can live rich and use the information and experience gained at America's largest exporter against us. It really infuriates him, and me. Same thing happens at all the technology companies.

Dey Turk yeeerr job! If you think it's bad now, just wait til immigration "reform" makes it easier for even more foreign labor to flood the market. ;)

[agzg]

I found all the clapping and standing very disruptive. It was not as bad as last year when Nancy Pelosi clapped and stood every time the President took a breath, but I still felt made the speech disjointed.

The President is a wonderful speaker but I felt the speech was lacking.

The standing and clapping was disruptive? Every SOTU from every president always has the standing and clapping. I don't see how it's more disruptive this or last year than it ever has been.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Dey Turk yeeerr job! If you think it's bad now, just wait til immigration "reform" makes it easier for even more foreign labor to flood the market. ;)

No, they are not taking our jobs, they are coming here to be educated and then going home, because the job opportunities for PhD's in other countries are better than those here.

[AGDee]

I don't think healthcare should be connected to employers at all.

I agree, but I don't think we should have a single payer system either. I think employers should give health insurance vouchers and allow us to shop for our own. This would increase competition among health insurance providers and make us their REAL customers while providing them incentives to keep costs down, because we could switch if we are unhappy. Currently, their customers are the employers. Why should our employer get to choose our insurer? I want options.

[ThetaDancer]

I wasn't particularly moved by the speech but I did like that the seating was mixed up and that everyone seemed a lot less angry than we've seen in a long time.

The standing and clapping was disruptive? Every SOTU from every president always has the standing and clapping. I don't see how it's more disruptive this or last year than it ever has been.

Agreed. I guess I missed the part where it was particularly disruptive.

And ggforever, Pelosi was far from the most disruptive person last year, but that's a different discussion.

[agzg]

I wasn't particularly moved by the speech but I did like that the seating was mixed up and that everyone seemed a lot less angry than we've seen in a long time.



Agreed. I guess I missed the part where it was particularly disruptive.

And ggforever, Pelosi was far from the most disruptive person last year, but that's a different discussion.

Agreed on your first point, although I missed most of the speech so maybe I would have been better moved if I had heard the whole thing.

And wasn't there a guy last year who screamed out "You're a liar!"?

[AlphaFrog]

I agree, but I don't think we should have a single payer system either. I think employers should give health insurance vouchers and allow us to shop for our own. This would increase competition among health insurance providers and make us their REAL customers while providing them incentives to keep costs down, because we could switch if we are unhappy. Currently, their customers are the employers. Why should our employer get to choose our insurer? I want options.

What would be the point of the vouchers? If they were going to give you a $200/month voucher, and you purchase your own health insurance, why would that be different from them just paying you $200 more than they would have?

[Ghostwriter]

Blah, blah, blah investments... blah, blah blah competition. ZZZZZZ

His jokes fell flat and made me feel sorry for him. Don't think that was the intent.

Time to forget all that blather and take an ax to the budget. Let's go back to 2001 (last year the budget was in balance or had a surplus) for the budget and then go with a 10% across the board cut in all budget items and programs.

Allow those who wish to opt out of SS to do so and raise the retirement age 3 years for those who wish to remain in the program. Privatize it for those who wish to invest their own funds. Others can remain in the program as is.

[Senusret I]

Agreed on your first point, although I missed most of the speech so maybe I would have been better moved if I had heard the whole thing.

And wasn't there a guy last year who screamed out "You're a liar!"?

http://i26.tinypic.com/2dhtbow.gif

[agzg]

Also, did any of you guys see the word cloud that NPR did? Basically, they asked their twitter followers to tweet them one word to describe the speech. Then they did a word cloud. This was the result.

http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2011/01/25/wordle_final_all_enl.jpg?t=1296014462&s=51

Link. (http://www.npr.org/2011/01/26/133211131/the-state-of-the-union-in-your-words)

[agzg]

http://i26.tinypic.com/2dhtbow.gif

Also, OMG, Joe Biden wore the same outfit this year! #fashionfauxpas

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Also, OMG, Joe Biden wore the same outfit this year! #fashionfauxpas

HAHAHAHAHAHA, great.

[Drolefille]

Because foreign engineers from Russia, Romania, China, India, etc. who come here on worker visas will work for less. $50k is a fortune in Romania, but do you think an American engineer will be happy to make that?

We bring in so many foreign engineers in this country that the kids studying engineering in American universities can't get jobs. So a lot of kids aren't choosing engineering anymore. My husband, who is an aerospace engineer, says he would never advise a college student in the U.S. today to study engineering - our country's companies just don't want to hire American engineers anymore. Proof: it took more than 10 years for my husband to get an engineering job in aerospace, first at a government contractor, but finally at Boeing (after applying for various positions within the company over 14 years). He has engineering degrees from one of the best engineering schools (Michigan), a MBA, post-grad experience from a year study in Russia, and he's one of the smartest people I've ever met...he's seriously a genius. When he finally got to Boeing, he met all the foreign contractors he was competing with for jobs. Not only do they have less education than him, but they have no emotional investment in the company they're working for or the country they're working in. They're all here to make a tidy sum, then go back to their home countries where they can live rich and use the information and experience gained at America's largest exporter against us. It really infuriates him, and me. Same thing happens at all the technology companies.
I don't think you can use an anecdotal experience and call it proof per se. My dad is an engineer turned manager/supervisor who has hiring power and he hires American engineers all the time. My sister's boyfriend is a nuclear engineer and once he started looking for a job (long story) he found one within about a year and he was handicapped by not having completed an internship during school. That's why the plural of anecdote isn't data.

That said, how do you solve the problem then? Either you make yourself more marketable or you work for a different industry or you work for that lower pay. Because if that is what the job skills are actually worth then that is what you're going to get paid, even if you're Engineery McAwesomesauce (which a company won't find out until they hire you, not really.)

We make it really hard to immigrate here, I'm not surprised that people from elsewhere aren't particularly invested in America. Why should they be?

I agree, but I don't think we should have a single payer system either. I think employers should give health insurance vouchers and allow us to shop for our own. This would increase competition among health insurance providers and make us their REAL customers while providing them incentives to keep costs down, because we could switch if we are unhappy. Currently, their customers are the employers. Why should our employer get to choose our insurer? I want options.
While that would give you options it still puts costs on the employer and in fact would increase costs because the only reason you pay as 'little' as you do for employee insurance is because the company has put you into a big pool with all of its employees. A voucher would, in anything resembling the current system, cost much more. Single payer healthcare takes the costs off of employers, spreads them out over the largest possible pool of people and eliminates the profit margin of insurance companies for the operating costs of Medicare (about 4% per the last reports the Dems were using).
Blah, blah, blah investments... blah, blah blah competition. ZZZZZZ

His jokes fell flat and made me feel sorry for him. Don't think that was the intent.

Time to forget all that blather and take an ax to the budget. Let's go back to 2001 (last year the budget was in balance or had a surplus) for the budget and then go with a 10% across the board cut in all budget items and programs.

Allow those who wish to opt out of SS to do so and raise the retirement age 3 years for those who wish to remain in the program. Privatize it for those who wish to invest their own funds. Others can remain in the program as is.
I'm sure Obama feels your pity from here.
That whole 10% across the board thing is silly.

And serious question, someone takes their money out of SS. They invest, they make every reasonable choice, they lose all of their money because the market crashes. Now what? Same question but this time they blew it all on lottery tickets, Now what?

Also, did any of you guys see the word cloud that NPR did? Basically, they asked their twitter followers to tweet them one word to describe the speech. Then they did a word cloud. This was the result.


Link. (http://www.npr.org/2011/01/26/133211131/the-state-of-the-union-in-your-words)
3 words, but yes I thought that was cool. I've always enjoyed the create-a-word-cloud websites.

[MysticCat]

Allow those who wish to opt out of SS to do so and raise the retirement age 3 years for those who wish to remain in the program. Privatize it for those who wish to invest their own funds. Others can remain in the program as is.Not if people are allowed to opt out, because there will be no more "as is" anymore. The "as is" will have changed drastically.

I think Social Security needs some serious overhaul and rethinking, but unless the plan is to phase SS out altogether (which I don't think is a good idea), I think allowing opt outs and allowing privatization will make things worse, not better.

(You know I have to disagree with you some, don't you? :D)

[33girl]

Not if people are allowed to opt out, because there will be no more "as is" anymore. The "as is" will have changed drastically.

I think Social Security needs some serious overhaul and rethinking, but unless the plan is to phase SS out altogether (which I don't think is a good idea), I think allowing opt outs and allowing privatization will make things worse, not better.

(You know I have to disagree with you some, don't you? :D)

If we just start putting up billboards everywhere that say "Bob Dylan never mattered" the Baby Boomers will start dropping over dead from shock at the rate of 41 a day and the Social Security problem will be solved.

[Indy1795]

The speech was well-written and eloquently delivered. The staging of the event was just pure genious. To mix up the parties like that was a great idea. It shows to all of us: yes, we might have different views, however, we must work together. I believe the Tuscon tragedy has forced everyone to stop and take another look at the way things are being handled.

"New laws will only pass with support from Democrats and Republicans. We will move forward together, or not at all — for the challenges we face are bigger than party, and bigger than politics." President Barack Obama, State of the Union Address, January 25, 2011

[Ghostwriter]

Not if people are allowed to opt out, because there will be no more "as is" anymore. The "as is" will have changed drastically.

There is no trust fund and all the IOU's are worthless. The money has gone into the general fund and the general fund is $1.5 trillion in debt for this year alone. None of this is sustainable. Common sense dictates this (not that you don't have common sense):D. We are in a real world of hurt and must get our finances under control or we will end up like Greece, Portugal, Spain, the U.K., France etc. Sorry, but SS is now simply a ponzi scheme because the money promised is gone and will not come back. Those on the top will get their money but those on the bottom will not. The only real option is to privatize as our government is incapable of putting the funds where they will not be touched.

For DF: a 10% across the board cut is the only real way to resolve this. Everyone and I mean everyone shares the pain. When the need is so immediate extreme measures must be taken. I have spent all my life working in the business world and it can be done and has been done several times by many multinational companies. It is not easy and it is not fun but it can be accomplished.

[KSig RC]

Sorry, but SS is now simply a ponzi scheme because the money promised is gone and will not come back.

It's only a "Ponzi scheme" under certain conditions:

1 - a "reverse-pyramid" of a tax base (which is incredibly rare, and only currently exists because of Boomers - but will revert)

2 - an ever-weakening dollar (let's not use 2 years as a total trend).

Etc. The system needs considerable work, but it isn't conceptually impossible or broken as theory.

The only real option is to privatize as our government is incapable of putting the funds where they will not be touched.

Right - the way to solve a cash-strapped system is to suddenly remove tons of money from it. I can't see this becoming anything but a run on the bank, and a huge boon to mutual funds and similar (which will dilute the market, meaning the actual investors make very little). Then what? You'll replace Social Security with social services, a much less efficient system. It'll cost more, not less.

The government sucks at money management, I'll agree there. Most people suck much worse, unless the millions of "Check Into Cash" places operate at a loss.

Additionally, aren't there some logical inconsistencies with what you're saying? If there's no money/"the IOUs are no good", then what is there to actually withdraw?

[MysticCat]

There is no trust fund and all the IOU's are worthless. The money has gone into the general fund and the general fund is $1.5 trillion in debt for this year alone. None of this is sustainable. Common sense dictates this (not that you don't have common sense):D. We are in a real world of hurt and must get our finances under control or we will end up like Greece, Portugal, Spain, the U.K., France etc. Sorry, but SS is now simply a ponzi scheme because the money promised is gone and will not come back.I agree that there is no trust fund, and I think this is a major flaw in how SS was set up. And I think it's an overstatement to simply say "our government is incapable of putting the funds where they will not be touched." It is capable of doing it -- many governments do do it. So far, neither side of the aisle has had the will to do it.

Otherwise, KSig Rc said pretty much what I would say.

[AGDee]

What would be the point of the vouchers? If they were going to give you a $200/month voucher, and you purchase your own health insurance, why would that be different from them just paying you $200 more than they would have?

The vouchers would be good only for health care (so irresponsible people can't go gamble them away, etc) and the difference is simply that I get to pick my own, which fosters competition among health care providers.

DF: For the question about insurance pools, that methodology is no longer being followed for the major health insurers in Michigan as they are going by personal health risks to determine current levels of coverage instead of "everybody who works for ABC gets their insurance for X$". I laid that all out in another thread here recently. It is now risk based, not pool based so the pool concept becomes a moot point. Pools can be communities, age groups, etc.. just like they are for every other type of insurance. If the "pool" is everybody in the county, for example, then, per the "risk pool" concept, it should be even cheaper because there are more people in the county than there are employees in your company.

[Ghostwriter]

Right - the way to solve a cash-strapped system is to suddenly remove tons of money from it. I can't see this becoming anything but a run on the bank, and a huge boon to mutual funds and similar (which will dilute the market, meaning the actual investors make very little). Then what? You'll replace Social Security with social services, a much less efficient system. It'll cost more, not less.

The government sucks at money management, I'll agree there. Most people suck much worse, unless the millions of "Check Into Cash" places operate at a loss.

Additionally, aren't there some logical inconsistencies with what you're saying? If there's no money/"the IOUs are no good", then what is there to actually withdraw?

1. If more people move into the market the price per share will increase. As long as a bubble is adverted there will not be a problem. Bubbles usually occur when the risk is concentrated. Remember that the shares of mutual funds have %'s (usually small) of varying companies and types of businesses/companies/industries. The risk is spread out.

2. Tough stuff if most people suck at money management. Put the money in the least aggressive fund and go from there. There is such a thing as risk versus reward and if someone does not know how to invest they can put it into MM funds or even CD's backed by the government (similar to FDIC). I really don't care. People must learn to take care of themselves.

3. No if there is no money it is time to chuck it and start all over again. Those who don't want to invest their own funds can invest through a government guaranteed program at a minimal % return. But my suspicion is that most persons under 50 will chose to invest their own funds as they see fit. It is time for all of us to grow up and take responsibility for our own care and retirement. SS has never been designed as a retirement plan but only a safety net. Over time it has ballooned into the monstrosity it is today.

[KSig RC]

2. Tough stuff if most people suck at money management. Put the money in the least aggressive fund and go from there. There is such a thing as risk versus reward and if someone does not know how to invest they can put it into MM funds or even CD's backed by the government (similar to FDIC). I really don't care. People must learn to take care of themselves.

I think this is where we're having the disconnect - I agree with this from a conceptual basis, and personal responsibility should really be emphasized as often as possible in government/citizen interactions.

However, the reality is that allowing dumb people to do dumb things with dumb money they've poured into a dumb system will likely cause a massive increase in the need for social services, welfare, government-sponsored senior housing, etc.

There's the distinct possibility that privatization creates more new expenses for the average taxpayer than they would gain through average investment. What do you do with those who lose their nut? What do you do in crappy markets?

The goal of any government interaction with the market should be to ebb swings, right? Doesn't privatization distinctly and strongly emphasize market swings by making the highs higher and the lows even lower (more money into social programs etc.)?

I don't want to make $40,000 in the market, but lose $1,200 in taxes every year for 50 years. This could well be a hidden net negative.

[AlphaFrog]

The speech was well-written and eloquently delivered. The staging of the event was just pure genious. To mix up the parties like that was a great idea. It shows to all of us: yes, we might have different views, however, we must work together. I believe the Tuscon tragedy has forced everyone to stop and take another look at the way things are being handled.

"New laws will only pass with support from Democrats and Republicans. We will move forward together, or not at all — for the challenges we face are bigger than party, and bigger than politics." President Barack Obama, State of the Union Address, January 25, 2011

The seating chart was no more than a Sadie Hawkins style political brownie point Kumbya showfest. It means nothing until it actually means something....and I'll believe that when I see it.

[Ghostwriter]

However, the reality is that allowing dumb people to do dumb things with dumb money they've poured into a dumb system will likely cause a massive increase in the need for social services, welfare, government-sponsored senior housing, etc.

Don't we allow people to gamble their hard owned $$$ away? Doesn't our various governments sanction this possible loss of income? I see no guarantees that gambling will result in a reward of more $$$. The lottery also is a sinkhole where many dumb people sink their hard earned earnings. At least with the mutual fund market you will not lose all your principal as what you are, in fact, buying are shares of a fund at a price certain. One will still own the shares and as the market rebounds the shares regain their value. It may not be as quickly as one would like but it has always happened. I don't see the libs out there bitching about gambling and the lottery. Maybe that is because it is the governments that are taking peoples $$$ and not private entities. There is a little bit of hypocrisy there.

[KSig RC]

Don't we allow people to gamble their hard owned $$$ away?

We do, and the reason why we heavily tax casinos is to help offset the social cost of the catastrophic losses suffered by morons, addicts and others.

Past that, I don't get why this is a "Libs" thing - I'm not a liberal under any definition, I want to keep as much of my money as possible. Other people going broke forces me to spend my money on them, too - like it or not, that's the way it is. So let's not change a bad system for a worse one that allows them to go broke faster and in more ways.

I'm not sure what it's like in your part of the country, but honestly quite a few "libs" I know hate the lottery system for being about the most regressive 'tax' in the world - and I've never met a "Repub" who got all up in arms because dumb poor folk were getting charged a 49% tax on their lottery EV without being told about it or where it was going. So like ...

[PiKA2001]

So if one was to opt out of SS what would happen to the money they already "invested" into it? I'm not a fan of it myself, but I don't see it going away... Ever.

[AGDee]

I wasn't opposed to SS being privatized initially, til I lost more than half of my retirement fund when the market crashed in 2008. I'm too old to be starting over from scratch, and I moved my money to a bond fund the day that Lehman went under so I didn't lose as much as most of my co-workers who don't pay attention.

In that same realm, my employer recently announced that they are ending our pension plan (what we have in there is staying and will earn interest) and instead putting the money they typically give us annually into our retirement savings plan. My initial thought was "Ok, I'll just make sure that money goes into one of the safer funds" and then found out it will be distributed among funds in the same percentages as regular retirement savings plan funds. I considered the pension plan the "safe" money and the retirement savings plan as the "risk" money. Now I have to figure out how to keep the right mix so I don't have all my eggs in one basket. It's giving me a headache.

[Drolefille]

^^ See that's my thing. I support SS being a safety net, and frankly I'd support people with a certain level of income to have some sort of opt-out thing, though I admit I don't know the details of how it works currently as I'm more familiar with SSI and SSDI than retirees.

However, that said, if you remove that safety net in favor of privitization you now have people with NO safety net. I find it interesting that Ghostwriter didn't have an answer to what you do when people DO end up without money - whether due to a market crash or being utterly irresponsible, it happens. So then what? We let people starve? We pay more in food stamps, TANF, Section 8, Medicare, Medicaid, nursing homes, and so on? We create a new safety net and then have the saem problems all over again?

[Ghostwriter]

We do, and the reason why we heavily tax casinos is to help offset the social cost of the catastrophic losses suffered by morons, addicts and others.

Past that, I don't get why this is a "Libs" thing - I'm not a liberal under any definition, I want to keep as much of my money as possible. Other people going broke forces me to spend my money on them, too - like it or not, that's the way it is. So let's not change a bad system for a worse one that allows them to go broke faster and in more ways.

I'm not sure what it's like in your part of the country, but honestly quite a few "libs" I know hate the lottery system for being about the most regressive 'tax' in the world - and I've never met a "Repub" who got all up in arms because dumb poor folk were getting charged a 49% tax on their lottery EV without being told about it or where it was going. So like ...

Um, so why have casinos if you have so many problems with addicts, morons, etc. (your words)? This is, of course, a redundant question. The answer is because we as a people have freewill to do dumb stuff. As such, I do not believe it is my responsibility to rescue people who do dumb stuff with their money. I do believe it is our responsibility as a society to help the truly helpless and indigent. But not the morons and addicts.

How do you know that changing the SS system by privatizing a portion of it would necessarily be bad? Is this what the talking heads have told you? If we haven't tried it how do we know it won't work? Instead you would have us we keep bailing it out and throwing good money after bad. If we do the same thing over and over again why should we expect a different outcome? That is just crazy.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/27/social-security-fund/#

I put my money into mutuals over the last 20 years and while the funds have gone up and down over this time frame I am well into the plus side. I am not a genius when it comes to investments but a (very) little common sense and one can build equity. One has to look at the long term results not the short term fluctuations.

What would one call someone who supports gambling or the lottery and then bemoans the fact that some people become addicted and lose all their money? Maybe I have misrepresented the "liberal" viewpoint but it is certainly not a conservative one. Perhaps it is just an insane viewpoint, instead. I am truly baffled.

I am in NC and can assure you that our state, which until this year has been run by "libs", in both chambers for the last 60 years , installed a lottery for "education" over the objections of those more conservative in beliefs. This lottery is a joke as the funds do not go directly to education and instead go into the general fund just like SS funds do at a national level. Education has not received extra due to lottery receipts and now we are laying off teachers. I am sick and tired of our "leaders" wasting our money and lying to us about their intentions.

SS is a sham and never was intended to be a retirement fund. It is a safety net and even at that a poor one. 15% of our money goes to prop this joke up and we are in the red this year.

[Ghostwriter]

[QUOTE=Drolefille;2024237Ghostwriter didn't have an answer to what you do when people DO end up without money - whether due to a market crash or being utterly irresponsible, it happens. [/QUOTE]

I don't care. The market will rebound it always does. One never loses everything unless you take all your money out.

Being irresponsible...I couldn't care less. They can figure it out themselves.

[AGDee]

SS is a sham and never was intended to be a retirement fund. It is a safety net and even at that a poor one. 15% of our money goes to prop this joke up and we are in the red this year.

From the Social Security Administration page itself:
http://www.ssa.gov/history/hfaq.html


Q4: Is it true that Social Security was originally just a retirement program?

A: Yes. Under the 1935 law, what we now think of as Social Security only paid retirement benefits to the primary worker. A 1939 change in the law added survivors benefits and benefits for the retiree's spouse and children. In 1956 disability benefits were added.

Keep in mind, however, that the Social Security Act itself was much broader than just the program which today we commonly describe as "Social Security." The original 1935 law contained the first national unemployment compensation program, aid to the states for various health and welfare programs, and the Aid to Dependent Children program. (Full text of the 1935 law.)

[Ghostwriter]

From the Social Security Administration page itself:
http://www.ssa.gov/history/hfaq.html


Q4: Is it true that Social Security was originally just a retirement program?

A: Yes. Under the 1935 law, what we now think of as Social Security only paid retirement benefits to the primary worker. A 1939 change in the law added survivors benefits and benefits for the retiree's spouse and children. In 1956 disability benefits were added.

Keep in mind, however, that the Social Security Act itself was much broader than just the program which today we commonly describe as "Social Security." The original 1935 law contained the first national unemployment compensation program, aid to the states for various health and welfare programs, and the Aid to Dependent Children program. (Full text of the 1935 law.)

Point taken. However this also indicates that it was never meant to be to sole or primary source of retirement funds.

"It is impossible under any social insurance system to provide ideal security for every individual. The practical objective is to pay benefits that provide a minimum degree of social security—as a basis upon which the worker, through his own efforts, will have a better chance to provide adequately for his individual security." -- From the Report of the Social Security Board recommending the changes which were embodied in the 1939 Amendments.

I should have parsed my words better and stated that it was not originally envisioned as the sole or primary source of retirement income. I still call it a sham as the return on investment is poor and the Trust Fund is not there. There is no money set aside by our Federal government.

[Drolefille]

I don't care. The market will rebound it always does. One never loses everything unless you take all your money out.

Being irresponsible...I couldn't care less. They can figure it out themselves.
So, if they can't afford to eat, it's cool to let them die. If they can't afford rent or their mortgage, they should be evicted.

Troll more. :rolleyes:

[AOII Angel]

So if one was to opt out of SS what would happen to the money they already "invested" into it? I'm not a fan of it myself, but I don't see it going away... Ever.

I have already opted out of SS once. I still had money invested in it, but for the years that I was opted out, I did not pay into the system. This was a part of Louisiana employees' retirement options. I only participated for part of my residency, but I was able to take $14,000 out of the system and rollover into a 401K. My husband took his out and paid a penalty to just keep the money. My 401K lost 45% of it's value the next year when the stock market tanked.:rolleyes:

[aggieAXO]

So, if they can't afford to eat, it's cool to let them die. If they can't afford rent or their mortgage, they should be evicted.

Troll more. :rolleyes:

And if abortion is not allowed and they are made to have children to hell with the kids-let them live on the streets as well.

[Drolefille]

And if abortion is not allowed and they are made to have children to hell with the kids-let them live on the streets as well.

If only they were responsible. Responsible people never need help! They should pull themselves up by their bootstraps!

BOOTSTRAPS!

[AOII Angel]

If only they were responsible. Responsible people never need help! They should pull themselves up by their bootstraps!

BOOTSTRAPS!

That must be it! No one issued them their bootstraps! Quick...get everyone some bootstraps, and all are problems are solved.

[PiKA2001]

I have already opted out of SS once. I still had money invested in it, but for the years that I was opted out, I did not pay into the system. This was a part of Louisiana employees' retirement options. I only participated for part of my residency, but I was able to take $14,000 out of the system and rollover into a 401K. My husband took his out and paid a penalty to just keep the money. My 401K lost 45% of it's value the next year when the stock market tanked.:rolleyes:

Risk or not I would love to be able to do that. The way it looks now, I'll never see the SS benefits anyway ( unless I get maimed or actually live past 80) so even if I lost 60% of my money it'd still be better than not getting anything. I'm still in my 20s and I've already paid about 34k in SS taxes; I'd probably be a millionaire by 50 if I was able to invest that money into 401k, Roth, or mutual funds ( in addition to my other investments).

[Drolefille]

That must be it! No one issued them their bootstraps! Quick...get everyone some bootstraps, and all are problems are solved.
THAT SOUNDS LIKE SOCIALISM!

[AnchorAlum]

If we just start putting up billboards everywhere that say "Bob Dylan never mattered" the Baby Boomers will start dropping over dead from shock at the rate of 41 a day and the Social Security problem will be solved.


I'm a fan of tongue in cheek commentary. I'm apt to use that approach myself.

Boomers cannot afford to drop dead at this point. Many of us are busy taking care of our aged parents who, due to the advent of so many wonder drugs, are staying alive, independent, grumpy, and uncooperative in unprecedented numbers. After we finish taking care of Mom and Dad at their fully paid for house, parking their fully paid for car in the garage and making sure all is well, we head home to find our 25 year old slob of a kid lying on the sofa texting their friends. It's okay, though. They can still be included on our health insurance at no small cost to us. So in case they should get stressed out about not being able to find a job paying them what they have been led to believe they're worth, they can go see a Doc about how stressed out they are.
FTR, my kids aren't like that. They're grown, married, and making a good deal of money. Of course, as the offspring of Boomers, they've been brought up in a semi-privileged world and understand the NEED to make money. LOL.

Just kidding. Well, sort of. I am a Boomer and I can only dream about retiring. Maybe I will just drop dead so that someone else can do what I'm doing. Hanging on to my job, paying my bills, desperately trying to save more money since my 401K got KILLED in '08, and staring down the 30 somethings who think they deserve my job.

Hell, from where I'm sitting, Bob Dylan really didn't matter. Ever. :(

[AnchorAlum]

So, if they can't afford to eat, it's cool to let them die. If they can't afford rent or their mortgage, they should be evicted.

Troll more. :rolleyes:

Because having been once burned, they're too unintelligent to learn from their mistakes?

There are all sorts of the old fashioned sayings about this; things your grandmother said but went in one ear and out the other:

1. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.
2. Once bitten, twice shy.
3. Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach him how to fish and he can feed himself forever.

And on and on.

Safety nets do wear out over time. Especially if they're over used.

[Drolefille]

Because having been once burned, they're too unintelligent to learn from their mistakes?

There are all sorts of the old fashioned sayings about this; things your grandmother said but went in one ear and out the other:

1. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.
2. Once bitten, twice shy.
3. Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach him how to fish and he can feed himself forever.

And on and on.

Safety nets do wear out over time. Especially if they're over used.

Indeed, but advocating the removal of the safety net means that people fall to the ground. Then what? As others have said, you then need more social services to provide for those who 'fall' if they're to get back up on their feet again. GW's just trolling.

Also, my grandmother never said those things, FWIW.

[aggieAXO]

I'm a fan of tongue in cheek commentary. I'm apt to use that approach myself.

Boomers cannot afford to drop dead at this point. Many of us are busy taking care of our aged parents who, due to the advent of so many wonder drugs, are staying alive, independent, grumpy, and uncooperative in unprecedented numbers. After we finish taking care of Mom and Dad at their fully paid for house, parking their fully paid for car in the garage and making sure all is well, we head home to find our 25 year old slob of a kid lying on the sofa texting their friends. It's okay, though. They can still be included on our health insurance at no small cost to us. So in case they should get stressed out about not being able to find a job paying them what they have been led to believe they're worth, they can go see a Doc about how stressed out they are.
FTR, my kids aren't like that. They're grown, married, and making a good deal of money. Of course, as the offspring of Boomers, they've been brought up in a semi-privileged world and understand the NEED to make money. LOL.

Just kidding. Well, sort of. I am a Boomer and I can only dream about retiring. Maybe I will just drop dead so that someone else can do what I'm doing. Hanging on to my job, paying my bills, desperately trying to save more money since my 401K got KILLED in '08, and staring down the 30 somethings who think they deserve my job.

Hell, from where I'm sitting, Bob Dylan really didn't matter. Ever. :(

I am already dealing with this at age 38 (except the 25 year old part-no kids of my own). My parents were older when I was born (I was the oops). Dad just passed away last year at 85, now mom is losing her mind:(

[AnchorAlum]

Indeed, but advocating the removal of the safety net means that people fall to the ground. Then what? As others have said, you then need more social services to provide for those who 'fall' if they're to get back up on their feet again. GW's just trolling.

Also, my grandmother never said those things, FWIW.

OK, SOME Grandmas said those things. :)

I agree that we should help those who are truly down on their luck in the event of a disaster or unforeseen circumstances, etc.

How many times do we help someone who refuses to take necessary steps to help themselves? At what point is it okay to expect that if able, they re-enter mainstream society and begin to contribute again so that others who come behind them and also undergo the the same sort of misfortune are able to have the same level of assistance?

Is it unreasonable to have an expectation of such? The bedrock core of those who are always the "contributors" or the "producers" is shrinking. It's not outside of the realm of possibility that at some point they can be expected to say enough?

I am a big softie, but dang, I'm just about out of being able to keep on keeping on.

[AGDee]

I think it's pretty telling that GW Bush talked about privatizing Social Security repeatedly while campaigning yet, once elected, even when he had a Republican Congress and Senate, it didn't happen. That makes me think they decided maybe it wasn't such a good idea.

[Drolefille]

OK, SOME Grandmas said those things. :)

I agree that we should help those who are truly down on their luck in the event of a disaster or unforeseen circumstances, etc.

How many times do we help someone who refuses to take necessary steps to help themselves? At what point is it okay to expect that if able, they re-enter mainstream society and begin to contribute again so that others who come behind them and also undergo the the same sort of misfortune are able to have the same level of assistance?

Is it unreasonable to have an expectation of such? The bedrock core of those who are always the "contributors" or the "producers" is shrinking. It's not outside of the realm of possibility that at some point they can be expected to say enough?

I am a big softie, but dang, I'm just about out of being able to keep on keeping on.
In this case we're discussing Social Security, which short of being disabled you receive after retirement and you receive based on what you pay into the system. So, we're talking about people who HAVE produced, have helped themselves all their lives. If you remove SS (or privitize it or whatever) most people will probably do ok, although they'll probably work longer. As much as we all work paycheck to paycheck these days I don't doubt that the cost of living would increase faster if we all had our SS money available to us rather than making it easier to save. But that's an aside. So most people do OK, but some people, whether because they've invested poorly, or just had bad luck, will end up needing some sort of safety net anyway. Perhaps they invest in a house and it is destroyed by flooding which wasn't covered by their insurance. Or they were invested in very reasonable mutual funds and following a market 'correction' they end up with very little in the way of principal left. So they have to withdraw to live and that just spirals downwards. But perhaps these are people who were never good at managing their money in the first place, they're irresponsible and had the SS never been taken out of their paychecks they would have spent every last dime. And now they can't work anymore, and no one will hire them to be anything more than a Walmart greeter which pays minimum plus a bit for 25 hours a week. So they need EBT/LINK or they need Section 8 because they can't afford to eat or live. But generally people who are pro-SSprivitisation are against those benefits as well.

I think it is society's job to provide the very basic needs, a place to sleep and something to eat for those who cannot do it for themselves. I don't really believe that there are more than a few outliers who simply choose not to take care of themselves, but that far more are a function of poor health and mental health care, and institutionalized poverty. As much as I mock the "bootstraps" type comment, the biggest problem with it is that it presumes that everyone was born with boots.