The problem is it has no basis in reality. What the professor is doing in class isn't socialism, it's pure communism. For it to be a valid analogy, President Obama would have to suggest that a corporate CEO, a doctor, a janitor, and a guy who sits on his couch picking his nose all day would get paid the same amount of money. He's never done any such thing. The story creates a straw man version of President Obama's ideas and then smugly knocks them down as if that proves something.
Another fatal flaw is that it implies success is based purely on merit. While that's true on a fair test, it's not true in life, especially at the high end of the salary scale. Did a corporate CEO, singer, or athlete making $10 Million / year really work 50 times harder to get where they are than a doctor making $200K? This is like a test where 20% of the grade is based on the question: "What number am I thinking of?" Smarter/harder working people will do better, but most people won't get an A in this scenario, no matter how hard they try or how smart they are. When faced with the scenario of taking a chance you can guess the number the professor is thinking or taking a guaranteed 19/20 on the problem, most people would opt for the latter.
Ideas are like elbows - everybody has a couple. His proposal would have at best done nothing to fix the problem (the SS fund is going bankrupt) and more likely would make the problem worse because the higher wage earners would be more likely to take the private option than the lower wage earners. The Vice President even admitted that in the short term it would have cost $758 Billion - more than the TARP money.
Holy inconsistent positions, Batman! You believe socialism is "slowly encroaching in this country", yet you want to raise taxes to fund a socialistic (it's right there in the name!) program? If you're so against socialism, why not just disband SS and disburse the remaining money proportional to what was contributed? Then you could get paid an extra 13% every month, invest it and cross your fingers you don't lose it all in the stock market or get it stolen by the likes of Bernie Madoff.
That would be great if they did that, I, for sure, would put that money in a savings account and save it for retirement. There is only two things wrong with that.
1. The government will NEVER do that, they want access to that money
2. Most people in this country would spend the money, then when they retire be whining to the government to support them. People do not live within their means, do you really think they are actually going to save? In a perfect world where people are responsible for themselves, maybe, but not in this country.
Sure, show me some real studies that have been done, or maybe examples from the world fact book and use logic to support your case. Posting some made-up story is worthless and, in fact, inflammatory because it presents a straw man argument as a real social experiment, when in fact it's no such thing.
Oh baloney, logic tell me it would go down EXACTLY like the experiment says. I know it, many know it, some won't admit it.
I know this doctor that did this study that concluded people who eat pork rinds and cheeseburgers and never exercise live longer than people who regularly exercise and eat healthy. Are you convinced, or would you prefer I actually link you to a scientific study that proves it?
Nice try, but not comparable, but nice try.
Nobody seems to have told the utilities this because they have dozens of applications for new NPP's pending. TVA, which supplies the power where I live, has 4 in the works. Unfortunately, the licensing process probably takes 4-5 years to go from design to turning over the first shovel even if everything goes perfectly, so there's going to be quite a lag. While President Obama is far from a big cheerleader from the nuclear industry, I'm not aware of any policies by his administration that are intended to stop them from being built.