posted on December 21, 2001 06:47:43 PM new
It has been announced that the families of those killed in the WTC are to receive $1.65 million. What about the families of those killed in the Oklahoma City bombing? Or the families of U.S. soldiers who have died going after those responsible for the WTC disaster? Am I wrong to feel that something is not right with this? Are these families more deserving of such funds in some way?
posted on December 21, 2001 07:04:24 PM new
Who can say who is more Deserveing and just think this is above and beyond the $$$ being privitely donated !!! http://www.Dman-N-Company.com
Email [email protected]
"Survivors of a low-income, 60-year-old bachelor may receive $300,000, while those of a high-earning 35-year-old with two children could receive $3.8 million.
Relatives who take compensation money would largely give up their right to sue -- and some may not be willing to do that."
Stusi, I agree with you. Are the Pentagon workers included and the firemen and rescue workers who lost their lives?
posted on December 21, 2001 08:45:27 PM new
Glad to see I am not the only one that thinks there is something very wrong with this.
I wonder how many women [or men] that may have lost a loved one on that same day [or any other]but for some other reason,like a automobile crash, are left with nothing and kids to raise. They certainly aren't getting anything. I have no problem with helping people out for a time but to support them for a lifetime is not right. I am appalled at this and I do not want any tax dollars going to support people who should most certainly have had something saved..after all many of these folks were stockbrokers and they couldn't have been poor.Not to mention they are mostly young women perfectly capable of working,most with college degrees. I resent paying for them to never have to work because their spouse was killed in this 9-11 incident.
What happens if there is a dirty bomb let off in a city and millions are killed? Will we have to give their survivors enough to live on for the rest of their lives too? When will it end?
I don't begrudge them enough to help them out for a year or so but this is going way too far.
Do you think the government has a guilt complex? Why else would they even want to do this? I don't think that the people who were killed at Pearl Harbour had their families made rich because of it.
posted on December 21, 2001 10:16:48 PM new"Irene Boehm, whose husband died in one of the towers, was worried that the compensation for pain and suffering wouldn't be enough."
I do not wish to appear non-sympathetic, but why would anyone expect taxpayers (many with real problems of their own and who have lost family members "tragically" also) be expected to compensate for "pain and suffering"?????
As pointed out already, how many people have died since then all across the country? Some, I'm sure, left family behind who were tramatized, dazed and numb with grief. I'm sure most still have bills to pay, and children to feed. Who will help them?
Yes, the family of the 9/11 victims deserve help....but when they start complaining that the government isn't giving them enough compensation for their "pain and suffering", it just upsets me. Or when they state they don't want to give up their right to sue...sue who? Osama bin Laden???? The family of the lunatics that caused the tragedy???? The airlines (who had to be bailed out by the taxpayers immediately after this horrible crime)????
posted on December 22, 2001 05:04:02 AM new
I'm not sure that the Federal government should be involved in this - at least no more than they would be under normal circumstances. I suppose it amounts to a further bailout for the airlines though I don't know how many survivors and their families will choose not to sue.
The Washinton Post had an article about the compensation today. Two sisters of a woman who died were trying to decide whether to take the compensation or sue. The victim was 38 years old. The article didn't state whether she had children whom these sisters would raise. I would be horrified if one of my adult siblings died in the Pentagon crash but I wouldn't feel that the federal government owed me anything. After all, that section of the Pentagon was in the process of being re-inforced.
Veronica and Sylvia Carver, whose sister Sharon, 38, was killed at the Pentagon, were among the first to arrive at the Arlington claims center. But Sylvia Carver said they wanted only to "read about it and learn a little bit more about the fund" and hadn't decided whether to apply.
"We do have a lawyer," said Sylvia Carver, of Waldorf. Compensation for the death of their sister, who was an accountant at the Pentagon, would be about $750,000 but, under the law, would be reduced by the amount of her life insurance. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15279-2001Dec21.html
posted on December 22, 2001 05:51:24 AM new
How many victim's funds are there at this point? I can see the governments setting up a fund if there weren't so many other charitable funds, but that isn't the case.
Nobody is saying these families shouldn't be compensated, but this seems a bit overboard. Where does it end?
posted on December 22, 2001 06:47:13 AM new
Since the government is dumping billions into the failing airline industry, it's only fair that they give some money to the victims of WTC. But I don't trust that guy Feinberg (Washington Post article) at all.
posted on December 22, 2001 07:48:47 AM new
This payout is a hidden subsidy for any entity that might be sued and a tax increase for us all. The link below is to a news article about the OKC victims speaking out about the 9-11 pay out.
The wife of a victim went to WDC and lobbied for a higher pay out for the wealthier victims. I think that they all should get the same pay out, but that would cause the wealthier ones to reject it and file suits. The deceased's income would impact a suit's damage award.
I had some mixed feelings seeing one of the widows setting in her $300 K house saying she should get enough money to maintain her style of living - WITHOUT WORKING BECAUSE SHE WAS A STAY-AT-HOME MOM. On one hand they deserve everything, and on the other hand they deserve noting. But it does seem more like a lottery now than a tragedy. Why not give them a medal, an American Flag, and a small death annuity like a soldier ? Then get out and earn a living like the rest of the nation. The pay out situation sure is a sympathy killer.
Although Hillary Clinton supported the victim compensation fund above, she is not responsible for it's misuse as the article posted by REAMOND suggests. This bill was enacted after the WTC incident.
It's shameful that such extraordinary amounts are being dispersed to WTC families while children in this country live in poverty and people are without jobs, food, shelter, medical insurance and cannot afford medical care.
I believe in emergency funding for disasters but lifetime support is ludicrous.
posted on December 22, 2001 09:54:55 AM new As many as 500 firefighters who worked at the World Trade Centre site are on leave for respiratory problems and other rescue-related injuries.
One union leader has warned that the ailments could force many of them into retirement.
posted on December 22, 2001 09:56:46 AM new
When big sums of money are involved, it always seems to bring out the worst in people. The victims' families appear money-grubbing, trying to cash in on the death of a loved one.
I agree that there is no cause for the government to provide lifetime support for WTC victims' families, but if the gov. is funding an airlines bailout, and the airlines were somehow liable in this affair, it could get even more expensive. Three thousand victims at a million each is three billion, a drop in the bucket compared to what the government has already agreed to spend. I, for one, am sick of these bailout deals (banks, airlines, power companies, tech firms), which only encourage mismanagement at taxpayers' expense. Execs who mismanage funds should be in jail, not enjoying government perks.
Considering the terms of the deal, it looks to me like this is not assistance, but hush money.
posted on December 22, 2001 11:05:33 AM new"it looks to me like this is not assistance, but hush money"
......and hush money for what? What's to hush? Could there be apprehension on the part of the government concerning the possibility of questions raised in a full investigation of liability? Or are they just trying to save a buck by spending a half a buck?
posted on December 23, 2001 05:52:08 AM new
Frankly, what we're seeing played out is political philosophy differences between the dems and reps.
The reps believe that you get the money to the corps and they will in turn generate jobs through capital investment. The dems believe that you get the money into the hands of individuals and their goods and services demands will stimulate business and create jobs.
It seems both systems are being tried with the 9-11 pay outs. But it is not going that course thus far in the overall economic package in the Congress.
It seems that the reps have it bass ackwards. Give me customers with money and my business can take care of itself thank you. But I don't see giving my business economic aid will grow my business if the customer doesn't have any disposable income for my business to reap. It would be like using economic aid to open a Mercedes Benz dealership in a debtors prison.
I guess I see the logic of demand side economic policy and never could grasp the old supply side Reagan policy. But it cost Bush 1 his job and it may cost Bush 2 his job too.
