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...296014462&s=51

Link.

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

HAHAHAHAHAHA, great.

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?

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).
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?

3 words, but yes I thought that was cool. I've always enjoyed the create-a-word-cloud websites.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.