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

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.

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

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

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."

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...ces-review.php

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.

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.

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!

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.

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

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 healthcare should be connected to employers at all.

... 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.

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. ;)

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.

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.

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.

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!"?

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?

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.

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.