• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Social Security Administration: Where Our Retiree's Monies Really Went

CaliNORML

Active member
Joined
Oct 15, 2005
Messages
250
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The United States Social Security Administration (SSA) manages the United States' social insurance program, consisting of retirement, disability, and survivors' benefits. To qualify for these benefits, most American workers pay Social Security taxes on their earnings; future benefits are based on the employees' contributions.

Yet today the diasability benifits paid out to our nations children and families affected by Autism among other frontal brain disorders are being paid more and more frequently. Each benifeciary of the SSA program receiving (Social Security Insurance) SSI having been stricken with disorders such as Autism are unable to contribute back into to the fund themselves. Unable to work due to lack of adequate child services available to these families, neither are their parents. Often "let go" from their employment missing too many days having to deal with behavioral issues at schools which are understaffed, funded, and lacking proper education about how to deal with such disorders are finding themselves at a loss. This creates a negative drain on the entire system, as two generations of contributors are left unable to do so.

Payments to diabled children on this massive scale was something America never imagined could happen, yet the current statistics prove that is now a shattered dream. Imagine if of the 1 out of the 250 families receiving a diagnosis of Autism for their child in 1993, thus qualifing for SSI benifits, 100 of those families daily applied for the SSI monies available to them. Usually receiving on average of four hundred dollars per month, four thousand dollars was awarded every day for the past 13 years; that equals 18,980,000.00.


Autism alone is not the only disorder that is now a qualifing diagnosis for SSI, like arsonists other frontal brain disorders are blazing through our society's youth, leaving only empty shells in their wake. ADD/ADHD, Tourette's, PANDAS, and other such diagnosis are followed closely by Autisms astounding 805% increase in the last 10 years alone. This means that 1 of 166 families now afflicted are able to secure SSI to help make ends meet.

How can America be expected to help fix a problem if they are not aware it exists? It seems more as if they are trying to seperate out retiree benifits from disability benifits without admitting to the problem at hand. The life long care these children will require, and just where that money will come from.
 

Old and wise

Active member
Joined
Aug 28, 2005
Messages
310
Reaction score
0
Location
New England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
We all know where the money went, THEY SPENT IT.:doh :doh :doh
 

CaliNORML

Active member
Joined
Oct 15, 2005
Messages
250
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Yes, but on what?
Payments to families of disabled children. Reread my argument and see how they do not want to admit that as a fact.
 

Iriemon

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
19,405
Reaction score
2,187
Location
Miami
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
$18.9 million over 13 years isn't even spit in the bucket for the SS program, A program with annual tax revenues over $700 billion and annual expenditures exceeding $500 billion.

The real question is -- where are the roughly $2 trillion in surplus SS tax payments that are supposed to be accumulating in a trust fund to cover the boomers' retirement?

Old and Wise had the answer.
 

CaliNORML

Active member
Joined
Oct 15, 2005
Messages
250
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
18 million is Autism alone.
Plus the others, and the factor of 2 generations not contributing to the capital of Social Security. In addition to the time the checks are collected by children far out reaches what a retired person would collect.
Social Security was like Vegas, most would die before collecting a check. One time survivor benifits were paid yet never the amount put into the fund, the maximum collection ranges about 20 years tops. These kids will collect 50 or 60 years and never contribute.
Plus the cost of Medicare, I do believe that they were holding meetings to cut this program to children just this wekek.
 

Iriemon

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
19,405
Reaction score
2,187
Location
Miami
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
CaliNORML said:
18 million is Autism alone.
Plus the others, and the factor of 2 generations not contributing to the capital of Social Security. In addition to the time the checks are collected by children far out reaches what a retired person would collect.
Social Security was like Vegas, most would die before collecting a check. One time survivor benifits were paid yet never the amount put into the fund, the maximum collection ranges about 20 years tops. These kids will collect 50 or 60 years and never contribute.
Plus the cost of Medicare, I do believe that they were holding meetings to cut this program to children just this wekek.
If what you are illustrating is that Social Security is more than just a pension system that is absolutely correct. In addition to providing disability benefits, it is also a life insurance program that provides certain death benefits.

Whether our social security system should be providing these kinds of benefits is one question.

However, I don't believe it is realistic to imply that monies are paid out for these non-pension benefits and that is where all the money goes. The truth is, SS is a money maker for the government. Every year SS taxes bring in more money than SS pays out -- to the tune of more than $150 billion each year. Where does all *that* extra money go? The politicians steal it to help finance their irresponsible deficits.
 

CaliNORML

Active member
Joined
Oct 15, 2005
Messages
250
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Yes people pay into the SSA.
Now if only contributors received benifits, then what comes in equally is spent back to the contributors.
SSI is like a joint account with those funds. When they write a check to a disabled person, no law is broken.
A husband and wife have a joint account. The wife goes shopping wild, taking out a large chunk and not reinvesting. The husband starts to write a check to contributors only to find less funds than were expected to be in the account. He calls the bank, and is told the transaction was legal, the money is gone. How now does he pay back the contibutors?
The monies they paid in taxes to receive as a retiree are spent upon a child. A child who was unable to contribute themselves, and to the parents who are also unable to work.
Payments such as these have eaten away the intrest gained and are fast running through the capitol of SSA.
 
Last edited:

CaliNORML

Active member
Joined
Oct 15, 2005
Messages
250
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Ok
Lets finish the equation.
In 1993 when families would have now received 18 million in aid from the SSA, and bring in the rate of rise in the last 10 years-IN AUTISM ALONE- of 805%.

Even if only multiplying by 400%, a 405% marigin of error that is
18 million times 400% and 72,000,000.00 million is a conservative estimate for the increase of diagnosed cases today. Autism alone.
 

Iriemon

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
19,405
Reaction score
2,187
Location
Miami
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
CaliNORML said:
Yes people pay into the SSA.
Now if only contributors received benifits, then what comes in equally is spent back to the contributors.
That is not the purpose of social security. It is not called the national pension fund, it is called social security. It is not a savings plan or a pension plan. It is social insurance. You're benefits are not limited to what you pay it. You have not guarantee of getting back what you pay in. Just like any other insurance.

SSI is like a joint account with those funds. When they write a check to a disabled person, no law is broken. A husband and wife have a joint account. The wife goes shopping wild, taking out a large chunk and not reinvesting. The husband starts to write a check to contributors only to find less funds than were expected to be in the account. He calls the bank, and is told the transaction was legal, the money is gone. How now does he pay back the contibutors?
Invalid analogy. SS is not a savings plan. It is insurance.


The monies they paid in taxes to receive as a retiree are spent upon a child. A child who was unable to contribute themselves, and to the parents who are also unable to work. Payments such as these have eaten away the intrest gained and are fast running through the capitol of SSA.
Payments of SS to folks like Warren Buffet who have absolutely no business being on the dole eat up a lot more.
 

Iriemon

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
19,405
Reaction score
2,187
Location
Miami
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
CaliNORML said:
Ok
Lets finish the equation.
In 1993 when families would have now received 18 million in aid from the SSA, and bring in the rate of rise in the last 10 years-IN AUTISM ALONE- of 805%.

Even if only multiplying by 400%, a 405% marigin of error that is
18 million times 400% and 72,000,000.00 million is a conservative estimate for the increase of diagnosed cases today. Autism alone.
OK, the $72 million for the last 10 or 13 years. That represents 0.014% of SS outlays of approximately $500 billion last year. This is hardly the driver of the SS financial problems. The problems are paying pension benefits to huge numbers of baby boomers that are going to be turning 65 en masse in about a decade. The problem is that our Govt stole the 2 trillion SS trust fund that was supposed to be saved up to pay for them with their damned deficits.
 

CaliNORML

Active member
Joined
Oct 15, 2005
Messages
250
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Socal Security Administration is for retirement, Disability, and Survivor benifits. If not a pension then a fund for retirees to draw from, with your Social Security number issued to you as an individual the amount is calculated according to your contributions into to the fund, thus what your payments per month are to be.
Then Social Security gives receipents Medicare, usually reserved for people over 65 in our Nation. Why then is therersuch a drain on this fund that Congress met to discuss the children of that program as a source of possible cuts? Could it be that too many children are receiving assistance for ADD, ADHD, Tourette's syndrome, Autism, emotional outbursts, learning disabilities and a whole slew of frontal brain disorders that run rampant in our nation today? Looking at the special education enrollment in our nation's public schools is an indication of this jump almost all special education children are eligible for SSI benifits.

When my son was diagnosed, Autism was only known as that movie "Rainman", Artistic and Autistic was commonly confused. Now 1 out of 166 is born with this disorder 3 times more boys than girls. What I used to define to America is now a condition that, if many Americans think about it, they Know someone with or have heard of a family afflicted by this type of condition.
 
Last edited:

Hornburger

Active member
Joined
Jun 2, 2005
Messages
452
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I don't see the logic of social security. Why should we be forced to put money into these government accounts just for other people to use later? I don't see why we can't just manage the money ourselves. Unless if I'm missing something about social security, which is quite possible.
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
23,722
Reaction score
8,409
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Social Security should be for those extenuating circustances, but not for the average lazy and slothful citizen.

I currently am almost 6 years away from my retirement. By the time I retire, I will only be 39 and drawing retirement pay. I will have completed my BA in Science Occupation and mostly (if not completed already) be finished with my Masters in History by then. My second career will encompass teaching in school in which I will draw another retirement check in the end. Years ago, I began investing in an IRA Roth Mutual Fund for my old retirement age in which I make direct deposits into on a monthly basis. I will not need Social Security.

Why can't everyone else take responsibility of their own futures instead of bleeding the Government tax payer dollars for their ineptness and stupidity? Keep in mind, that I am not any smarter than the average American and I am not doing anything crazy to prepare myself for my own future.
 
Last edited:

SKILMATIC

Banned
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
3,407
Reaction score
0
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
GySgt said:
I currently am almost 6 years away from my retirement. By the time I retire, I will only be 39 and drawing retirement pay. I will have completed my BA in Science Occupation and mostly (if not completed already) be finished with my Masters in History by then. My second career will encompass teaching in school. Years ago, I began investing in an IRA Roth Mutual Fund for my old retirement age in which I make direct deposits into on a monthly basis. I will not need Social Security.

Why can't everyone else take responsibility of their own futures instead of bleeding the Government tax payer dollars for their ineptness and stupidity? Keep in mind, that I am not any smarter than the average American and I am not doing anything crazy to prepare myself for my own future.
I agree. Most of this countries problems are the peoplewho dont take responsibility for their lives and sit on the dole. They are a crutch to society and IMO the welfare systme needs to be destroyed. No more handouts to crack whores. No more handouts period. You either work or you do not eat. Simple as that. Me and gunny had a choice just like everyone else.

We had to chose whether we wanted to better ourselves or become a crutch to society. The decision for everyone else is no different.
 

SouthernDemocrat

Pragmatist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
22,299
Reaction score
13,533
Location
KC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
You guys might have a point….If Social Security actually was a handout. You pay into the system your entire working life. I am not saying that the system could not be improved upon, but rather, it’s not a handout.

Moreover, the median household income in the United States is $43,318 a year. Therefore, 50% of American households bring in that amount of money a year or less. There is no way with a household income of that amount or less, that the majority of Americans could completely fund their own retirement absent Social Security. Let me do the math for you here. This is a best case scenario for 50% of Americans: Assuming they have 30 years from now before retirement and at that household income level, they invest 7% of their income a year in a retirement plan. If that investment averages about 9% return or so and their income increases at about the rate of inflation, then when they retire they will have about $700,000 or so in their retirement plan. That might seem like a lot of money, but 30 years from now, $700,000 is not going to be worth near what it is now. In fact at the average inflation rate, it will be worth about $300,000. So, assuming they retire at age 65 and live to the age of 80 or so which is about the average life expectancy. So that means they will be in retirement about 15 years. That will give them about $20,000 a year to live off of. That’s not a lot of money you know. Of course, if they live beyond the average life expectancy, the money will run out before they die. [FONT=&quot]That is the situation that 50% of Americans find themselves in when trying to completely fund their own retirement. Of course, that’s a best case scenario because I used the median number, so a lot of Americans households earn less than that. [/FONT]
 

Iriemon

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
19,405
Reaction score
2,187
Location
Miami
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Social security is and never was a system of individual accounts. It is social insurance.

I sounds great to say people should just take care of themselves, and I agree that our system should not encourage people to not save for their own future.

On the other hand, despite the incentives and benefits of savings, many people end up old without enough savings, whether because they were too poor, too unlucky, or just too stupid.

What do we do with those folks? Let them starve? Do you like the concept of an American where you have grannies begging at the stoplights for food and living under the freeway?

Most of us don't want to live in that kind of America. That is why we have social security.
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
23,722
Reaction score
8,409
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
SouthernDemocrat said:
You guys might have a point….If Social Security actually was a handout. You pay into the system your entire working life. I am not saying that the system could not be improved upon, but rather, it’s not a handout.

Moreover, the median household income in the United States is $43,318 a year. Therefore, 50% of American households bring in that amount of money a year or less. There is no way with a household income of that amount or less, that the majority of Americans could completely fund their own retirement absent Social Security. Let me do the math for you here. This is a best case scenario for 50% of Americans: Assuming they have 30 years from now before retirement and at that household income level, they invest 7% of their income a year in a retirement plan. If that investment averages about 9% return or so and their income increases at about the rate of inflation, then when they retire they will have about $700,000 or so in their retirement plan. That might seem like a lot of money, but 30 years from now, $700,000 is not going to be worth near what it is now. In fact at the average inflation rate, it will be worth about $300,000. So, assuming they retire at age 65 and live to the age of 80 or so which is about the average life expectancy. So that means they will be in retirement about 15 years. That will give them about $20,000 a year to live off of. That’s not a lot of money you know. Of course, if they live beyond the average life expectancy, the money will run out before they die. [FONT=&quot]That is the situation that 50% of Americans find themselves in when trying to completely fund their own retirement. Of course, that’s a best case scenario because I used the median number, so a lot of Americans households earn less than that. [/FONT]

Yes...but to so many, it is a handout. To so many, who have not prepared for their futures and lived their lives with the comfort that someone else is responsible for their old age, social security is a burden to the rest of us.

How much do you think the military get payed? Many of our young Marines who started families early are on welfare. Were it not for my ex also drawing a paycheck, I would of had to be on welfare too as a young Devil Dog.

I believe in helping others, but I also believe in the notion of "survivor of the fittest." So many people do absolutely nothing for themselves. Social Security will one day be a problem. The longer people live and the healthier our medicines and technology keep us, the more money the government is going to need for this. You would be surprised of how many people that currently do not save or invest would if that safety net wasn't there.
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
23,722
Reaction score
8,409
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Iriemon said:
Social security is and never was a system of individual accounts. It is social insurance.

I sounds great to say people should just take care of themselves, and I agree that our system should not encourage people to not save for their own future.

On the other hand, despite the incentives and benefits of savings, many people end up old without enough savings, whether because they were too poor, too unlucky, or just too stupid.

What do we do with those folks? Let them starve? Do you like the concept of an American where you have grannies begging at the stoplights for food and living under the freeway?
Most of us don't want to live in that kind of America. That is why we have social security.
They can trick or hook. HAHAHAHAHA! I couldn't resist.
 

Hornburger

Active member
Joined
Jun 2, 2005
Messages
452
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Iriemon said:
On the other hand, despite the incentives and benefits of savings, many people end up old without enough savings, whether because they were too poor, too unlucky, or just too stupid.
Isn't it their fault that they failed to save x amount? I don't see why hardworking Americans should have their money given to people who were too stupid to see they'll need money in retirement.

What do we do with those folks? Let them starve? Do you like the concept of an American where you have grannies begging at the stoplights for food and living under the freeway?

Most of us don't want to live in that kind of America. That is why we have social security.
If they aren't able to save as much as they should have planned for, yes, they are on their own. Let people take responsibility for themselves and their actions during life, just don't put more burdens that aren't needed on the rest of the American population. America isn't a socialist country, we shouldn't give handouts to people just because they are poor. That decreases the incentives to save your money, and burdens the hard-working Americans who DO save their money.
 

Iriemon

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
19,405
Reaction score
2,187
Location
Miami
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Hornburger said:
Isn't it their fault that they failed to save x amount? I don't see why hardworking Americans should have their money given to people who were too stupid to see they'll need money in retirement.
OK what do you propose to do with those that are too stupid, poor, or unlucky to have saved for their retirement. Let them starve? Sleep under the freeways? Kill them?


If they aren't able to save as much as they should have planned for, yes, they are on their own. Let people take responsibility for themselves and their actions during life, just don't put more burdens that aren't needed on the rest of the American population. America isn't a socialist country, we shouldn't give handouts to people just because they are poor. That decreases the incentives to save your money, and burdens the hard-working Americans who DO save their money.
Sorry. You are wrong. America is a socialist country. Most people, including myself, don't want to have to deal with old crones in rags coming up to us at stoplights begging for food. And I am pro-life enough to think we shouldn't just let them starve to death.
 

Hornburger

Active member
Joined
Jun 2, 2005
Messages
452
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Iriemon said:
OK what do you propose to do with those that are too stupid, poor, or unlucky to have saved for their retirement. Let them starve? Sleep under the freeways? Kill them?
Legalizing drugs would be a good start, that would help keep some of those people out of gangs, and also working on education and such. But the biggest reason why these poeple or too stupid, poor, or unlucky is because of unstable families. How do you fix unstable families? It's a good question, but it can't be answered through social security anyway.

Sorry. You are wrong. America is a socialist country. Most people, including myself, don't want to have to deal with old crones in rags coming up to us at stoplights begging for food. And I am pro-life enough to think we shouldn't just let them starve to death.
If you want to be technical about it, it is a mixed economy, with the law putting somewhat of a responsibility on people but still helping out those in need. I just think it is up to the person themselves to make better for themselves, not for the government to penalize those who actually do try to better themselves.

If you don't want to see such people on the streets, feel free to pay them, but don't make me do it.
 

Iriemon

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
19,405
Reaction score
2,187
Location
Miami
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Hornburger said:
Legalizing drugs would be a good start, that would help keep some of those people out of gangs, and also working on education and such. But the biggest reason why these poeple or too stupid, poor, or unlucky is because of unstable families. How do you fix unstable families? It's a good question, but it can't be answered through social security anyway.
I'm for legalization of drugs too, though I don't understand what it has to do with social security, unless you are suggesting lethal injection for poor people who didn't save enough for their retirement. That would be ghastly.

If you want to be technical about it, it is a mixed economy, with the law putting somewhat of a responsibility on people but still helping out those in need. I just think it is up to the person themselves to make better for themselves, not for the government to penalize those who actually do try to better themselves.
No problem with this. But we still need a safety net and something to take care of old folks who don't have sufficient funds.

If you don't want to see such people on the streets, feel free to pay them, but don't make me do it.
Sorry, we are not allowed to individually determine application of tax revenues in this country. The Govt spends a lot of money on stuff I don't want to spend my money on as well.
 

Hornburger

Active member
Joined
Jun 2, 2005
Messages
452
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Iriemon said:
I'm for legalization of drugs too, though I don't understand what it has to do with social security, unless you are suggesting lethal injection for poor people who didn't save enough for their retirement. That would be ghastly.
I mean legalizing drugs will help keep those people from joining gangs, and then they can focus on other more productive activities, like their education. That way we won't have as many stupid, unlucky, etc. people.

No problem with this. But we still need a safety net and something to take care of old folks who don't have sufficient funds.
I dunno, I just think that the old folks should have created their own safety net when they were young folks.

Sorry, we are not allowed to individually determine application of tax revenues in this country. The Govt spends a lot of money on stuff I don't want to spend my money on as well.
Maybe we should have more a say on what the government spends on? I mean, if the majority of people also think the gov. shouldn't spend money in certain areas, they should start considering it. A lot of it goes to pointless programs, and the money just goes to waste.
 

CaliNORML

Active member
Joined
Oct 15, 2005
Messages
250
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I am sorry Sir, but stupid these children are not. They have a frontal brain disorder, and were born that way. Yet you can blame them? I see that lack of empathy, among the US is another brain disorder running rampant as well.

These individuals could not work if they wanted to due to the circumstances of their birth. Do you not think parents seeing a child in this manner wish they were not Autistic? We do! It is no picnic to watch your child self abuse, and frustration and rage eat away their existence. Sir, it is hell!!!!!!


Once again how can America be expected to help fix a problem if they are not aware it exists? It seems more as if they are trying to seperate out retiree benifits from disability benifits without admitting to the problem at hand. The life long care these children will require, and just where that money will come from. Congress is now trying to end run this "privatizing" Social Security to divide the retiree's benifits from disability, leaving the cost of our children up to each state.
Yet Congress has dodged another bullet on this issue, seeking now to eliminate the Medicare costs and the Federal Food Stamp payments included to families with children on SSI. America never stoped to ask itself, why are so many CHILDREN on a government medical program reserved for persons over 65? Or the next question. Why is our Federal Government paying a county welfare act of food stamps to so many families out of the national Social Security Administration funds?
America will soon be flooded at the county level with such parents seeking medical and food aid which was once provided by Federal funds. Nationwide the alarm will soon be rung drawing attention to these arsonists burning away our childrens lives and leaving only empty shells in their wake.
I only fear the backlash of the working people of America when confronted by a huge problem they never even realized existed, and are told they have to help pay for it as well.
This is the Government trying to pass the buck of responsibility to every state AFTER the horse is out of the barn. Congress was warned of this and their course of action seems to be cut these kids loose without ever admitting to what they have known for at least five years to the American public. There is an epidemic in our Nation and goverment only wants to silence it.
Dr. Bernard Rimland of the Autism Institute gave testimony in the Autism Epidemic over the use of Mercury in vaccines. Congress then closed the doors to hold private hearings, April 6, 2000, which have not been released to the public yet. Here is Dr. Rimland's testimony to Congress where he tells them "action is needed now" to stop this "silent epidemic." Testifing again Nov 9, 2003 on the rapid increase in Autism in the United States.
www.worldhistory.com/wiki/B/Bernard-Rimland.htm April 2002
www.autismwebsite.com/ari/treatment/congressionaltestimony.pdf Nov 2003

Leagalizing 1 drug Americana Cannabis is showing to be a major factor in Frontal brain disorders.
With proof of the use of American Cannabis Sativa recorded as recently as the 1920's and perscription medication useage are current as the 1930's by reputable drug companies such as E. Lilliy and J. Hopkins. A group of Americans are starting to see a link between the effects of Cannabonoid receptors in the frontal brain, and the rise in these related disorders among our children.

Available over the counter and by perscription here is a link to a web site devoted totally to Cannabis medications available.
http://www.conquestdesign.com/uncler/index.html

Cannabis Americana is even listed in the Army Pharmacy Guide as recent as 1918.
http://www.ibiblio.org/herbmed/ecle.../tincturae.html

Discovered in 2003 Cannabonoid receptors located in the frontal brain where the seat of abstract, language, communication, education, impulse control, socialization, and concentration reside.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabinoid_receptor
http://www.thc-ministry.net/cannabisinfo.htm

Many believe that like citrus protects our bodies from Rickets and Scurvy, both physical conditions brought on by the lack of vitamin C, congress passed and act against the advise of the AMA and this is the reaction of the 3rd generation born lacking the needed chemicals in thier own bodies.


KMS
 
Last edited:

UtahBill

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
18,265
Reaction score
6,648
Location
Utah
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I am with the "grunt" for the most part, as I will soon be a triple dipper myself. I only did 12.5 years active, then 10 years reserves, so I get my money and medical benefits when I turn 60 (soon). I also have civilian retirement that I am drawing now (it isn't much), social security at 62 (taking it early), plus a couple hundred thou in IRA's. And my wife has a similar package, but only double dipping (but getting a lot more than me), and about the same in her IRA's. And our house is paid off, no debts whatsoever.
So, we are set.

But we are prepared only because we KNEW that it is foolish to depend on SS alone, and started saving and investing 30 years ago.

Why is it that so many of our citizens don't know? They are not stupid, but are uneducated. Our schools should start teaching us the financial facts of live as early as the 8th grade, so we can catch those who won't finish school. My wife teaches 8th graders, and those kids might decide to have more interest in their education if given a massive dose of reality.

SS should continue to be a very basic minimal support system for retirees, and that is all. Care for autistic/retarded/handicapped etc. should be under a separate program. For that and other medical problems, I am in favor of government funded health care under a major medical program only.
Comprehensive cradle to grave health care (as in the Hillary Clinton plan) is a bad idea, but government paid coverage for the really high $$$ stuff I can support.
 
Top Bottom