As you say, most people work hard for their own future, but still are finding it difficult to enjoy their retirement years as they should be…without worry of poverty. As individuals, of course, we must look out for ourselves. As a society, we must look out for each other. And while personal gain may be the promary engine of of national growth, I don’t think that relieving the worry of retirement finances will encourage people to be less productive, only freer to find their best opportunity to work, produce, and find happiness.

My next post will describe the system I think we could move towards, but by design, neither you or I will ever receive its benefits. But I think that rather than increase bureaucracy, it is less obtuse than than current system. I hope you’ll give it a read.

MJ- Glad you dropped by. Your observations regarding the distance in economic realities between those who ultimately make the rules and those who are affected by them are poignant indeed. And while this type of inbalance will never cease to exist, with a national pension plan, we could at least assure that all have an minimum landing pad for their golden years.
Hope to hear from you again.

Props to GTL for pointing me in this direction.

The common conservative view of Social Security is that it is a crutch to the poor. And another common view is that people should be responsible for their own selves.

George W. Bush is greatly in debt to his families wealth. If anything the social security that his family provided all his life has nothing to do with his own responsiveness to his work or future. For him to tell me that people should be more responsible and own up to their future is a joke.

In essence, Social Security is a plan for the future. And according to the situation in Iraq, Bush knows nothing about planning.

I wonder if Bush would be willing to phase-out his family’s wealth. Or if his un-employed daughters would be willing to not partake in their families social security program.

We all aren’t a fortunate son.

Good post my man.

Your justification for an all-inclusive Nation Pension Plan reflects the thoughtfulness and depth always present in your posts but the topic leaves me less than enthused.

To my way of thinking, your statement about the “gratitude and indebtedness we owe to our predecessors” is a bit overstated — what it’s missing is the concept of personal responsibility and what it implies is an even larger bureaucracy to manage an even larger social welfare program.

Since this country began some people have been working their asses off to ensure *their own* futures and the futures of their immediate families; other people have been just doing enough to get by, without regard for the future; still others refuse to do even that much and live off the kindness (or more precisely the tax burden) of others. If anyone, other than my parents and my brother, was ever concerned about how I was to spend my “golden years” it was me.

I’m certainly grateful for this wonderful country we live in and for all the opportunities it affords each of us but I don’t delude myself into thinking it was built on any foundation more noble than personal gain and industry. On those bases it will continue to grow and prosper and create new opportunities.

Sorry for the negativity!

GTL- Thanks for the compliment. The next post will deal with my concept of a National Pension Plan.

Also, thanks for doing me the honor of directing visitors to your blog to this article. I look forward to reading some of the comments there too. (refers to second GTL comment.)

OKDemocrat- I’m glad to hear you like where I am headed with this. I only hope to keep your enthusiam when in my next post, I offer a suggestion for reform. Thanks for the support.

Jet- Thanks to you as well for the great compliment. It seems as if I’ve hit a chord here. While I don’t think that our current system will be able to meet its obligations, creating a viable system for future generations is a big piece of the puzzle, and patching up the system now, to last in perpetuity, is not using common sense. Once we create a plan for future generations, we can have a more realistic base from which to get the most out of this system for those who’ve bought in. Stop by again.

Windspike- I think that social security more appropriately describes programs that feed the hungry or house the homeless or provide assistance to the poor. A national pension plan would be for everyone, regardless of their temporary situation. All are important, but to clearly solve a problem, we must first clearly define what it is. Throwing all the food into the blender usually doesn’t make for a tasty drink, and the same could be inferred with regards to political legislation.

And while I did single out “moms,” I’m sure you know that by extension I am including all the folks you mention too.

Typo’s? Not a problem with me…we all make them.

God Bless America, God Save The Republic

Forgive me dear readers.

I love the idea of changing the name of the SS system to reach across the various programs that fit within the umbrella. That is, we do need to think of the separate pieces as individuals and then as the whole – seeing both the forest and the trees. So, when you call it a “National Pention Plan,” that is much better than calling for reform or establishment of a social security system.

On another thought, as a stay-at-home father, I would add those folks to your “worth-your-weight-in-gold” category. Yes, anyone who is a primary care provider for one or more human beings (disabled, elderly, youth) are deserving of some recognition in a national system that works to secure the financial future of said individuals.

Blog on brother.