Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 3/10/2002 8:28:59 AM EDT
I was just watching This Week on ABC and it was stated that the average victim's family of the 9/11 terrorist attacks would recieve approxmately 1.85 million dollars. Our servicemen killed in action in the war on terror family would recieve less than 10k dollars. Don't you think that some of the money donated for the victims of these terrorist attacks should also be given to our fallen soldiers famlies, these soldiers are sacrificing their lives to protect our freedoms and I for one think their famlies should be compensated fairly. This is not in any way meant to take away from the victims of the 9/11 attacks as money can never replace a loved one.
Link Posted: 3/10/2002 3:53:28 PM EDT
SGLI is now at $250,000 I've been told. It was $10,000 when I was in back in 1976. Personally, I am strongly against the govt paying one cent to the victims of the WTC. Why weren't victims paid for the OKC bombing, Waco, etc. etc. This is why we have life insurance.
Link Posted: 3/10/2002 4:02:09 PM EDT
Originally Posted By BobCole: SGLI is now at $250,000 I've been told. It was $10,000 when I was in back in 1976. Personally, I am strongly against the govt paying one cent to the victims of the WTC. Why weren't victims paid for the OKC bombing, Waco, etc. etc. This is why we have life insurance.
View Quote
Maybe because this was an unprecedented tragedy that cultivated millions upon millions of dollars and something needed to be done with it other than the Redcross and other groups using it to airdrop food and meds to the Afghans? I'm just guessing there. OKC bombing was horrible, but didn't shock the nation like NYC and DC attacks did, the gov had to step up to save face for fucking up so badly in missing these terrorist attacks. HOWEVER, I think that the relatives are godamn leaches and do not deserve anything after they've tried to cash in, then bitch about the level of compensation their dead cook/janitor or whatnot brought. I find more dignity in sueing the airlines over bitching about an immediate free handout. Highly paid executives are a different story, the gov fucked the widows with thier "deductions." Oh yeah, why in hell would you associate Waco with WTC? Not even close buddy. They defied the gov and regrettably ended up dead, maybe from the gov, maybe from their own actions.
Link Posted: 3/10/2002 4:15:45 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Minman72: HOWEVER, I think that the relatives are godamn leaches and do not deserve anything after they've tried to cash in, then bitch about the level of compensation their dead cook/janitor or whatnot brought. I find more dignity in sueing the airlines over bitching about an immediate free handout. [b] Highly paid executives are a different story[/b], the gov fucked the widows with thier "deductions."
View Quote
Could you please explain this a little more to me.. Highly paid executives are a different story. What are you going at with what you wrote.
Link Posted: 3/10/2002 7:30:41 PM EDT
Originally Posted By tayous1:
Originally Posted By Minman72: HOWEVER, I think that the relatives are godamn leaches and do not deserve anything after they've tried to cash in, then bitch about the level of compensation their dead cook/janitor or whatnot brought. I find more dignity in sueing the airlines over bitching about an immediate free handout. [b] Highly paid executives are a different story[/b], the gov fucked the widows with thier "deductions."
View Quote
Could you please explain this a little more to me.. Highly paid executives are a different story. What are you going at with what you wrote.
View Quote
Deductions were taken from their lump sum payouts for life insurance policies, which pretty much put their family's payouts under a million, usually down to $1XX,000 thereabouts. By taking the government payout, these families waive all rights to further sue the airlines and basically anyone responsible. Basically, my belief is that if the government wants you to waive your rights to sue American Airlines and Logan Airport, they should have given the same cash award to each and every family equally. The lifestyle that the execs lived and their families should enjoy was taken away. I know a number of people in this very situation and it is disgusting that the gov would say that a victim's life is only worth $1.85 million, but if you got insurance payouts that are more than that, that its tough luck and you can't recover the government sponsored payout. If the attack was meant to strike our lifestyles, don't you think that the victim's families should maintain as close to their former lifestyle as possible, even if they are rich?
Link Posted: 3/10/2002 8:43:03 PM EDT
I have no problem with the funds collected for the survivors, only because I didn't contribute 1 cent towards it. They are private funds and that's that. I do have a problem with my tax money being paid out to the survivors. People get killed every single day, victims of circumstances that don't result in 1.85 million to their survivors. But, I'm not all that cold hearted as you would like to believe. I do believe the government should help all survivors "equally". It's called welfare. Then they can implement Gullianal's "back to work, off welfare program."
Link Posted: 3/11/2002 7:55:17 PM EDT
the original intent of this note was about the military men & women & the shoddy compensation they get compared to some of those millionaire widows who will leech from every scource available........ BobCole, i just heard on the radio today where survivors of every embassy bombing, the Marines in Kohbar Towers, various aircraft crashes, i.e., Flt 800...., trust me ol boy this WTC pay out is going to set a precedent that will get any one a quick 1.5 million if their "loved one" was killed, died or otherwize lost his/her lyfe by the direct or indirect action of a terrorist !!!!!!!!!
Link Posted: 3/11/2002 8:09:07 PM EDT
Social Security gave me $6000.00 over the eighteen years that I was growing up for the loss of my father. Why should the government guarantee that the family of the victims maintain an oppulent lifestyle? They have never done it for anyone else. Isn't it their own responsibility to buy life insurance to guarantee that? I expect that they have already received more than the average person in America, and to expect us to maintain them in the life they are accustomed is really a little too much. F$%k em. Let em eat fishheads.
Link Posted: 3/11/2002 8:20:41 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/11/2002 9:35:52 PM EDT
I object to the payouts mainly becasue they are coming from our tax money and I want to know why I should payout on something like this. The charities have collected enough money to cover all the of the pay outs but that money has gone instead to " organizations" to help people fill out paperwork so they can get the govenments (read OUR )money. The many funds are still fleecing people. The redcross is not only not distributing the money, they have no clue how to distribute it. They have no plan and no accountability. The donated money was diverted to other needs, The donated clothing and other items now fill warehouses and it rots in storage. The blood that was collected was not used and was wasted. A lot of people gave with out alterior motives and the charities raked it in. When it was time to pay out they choked. They are still choking. The red cross is guilty of siphoning funds intended for the victums of the OKC bombing as they had the mail that was addressed to the victims delevered to them under the guise of protecting the victims families. The mail was then opened and any checks or money that was in the mail was removed. The letters were then forwarded to the addressee. All they were doing was robbing all mail of any monitary items. some charity HUH? The Federal government is the culpable person here and they should be brought to task for all of the mismanagement of "security " as well as allowing the foreign nationals with expired visas to stay in this country. The federal govenment had information that directly linked several of the hijackers to terrorist organizations and allowed them to stay in this country. The up shot is the Charities have fleeced billions, they governemnt is calling for restricted rights and now can do seriptitious searches. The people are abused in airport checkpoints, subjected to UNREASONABLE searches, and outright theft of property. The ignorance at airport check points is so rampant that they select 90 year old wonmen in wheel chairs for searching, they accost 86 year old meadal of honor winners ( on the back of his medal it had the number of enemy planes that he shot down. The screeners thought this made him dangerous ) They call this security? Sounds like they been smoking something and not sharing. The charities should be the ones who pay, that's why we donated the money to them. The victims should sue the airlines and not take the governments offer. The biggest entity being protected is the insurance companies. This way they don't have to make large payouts and keep their bottom line solvent. IF the victims every see a cent of that money I will be greatly surprised. The lessons learned in OKC bombing held true here, the charities fleece everyone, delever nothing. The rescue efforts after 72 hours becomes a search for bodies and there are very few wouded. Most are killed or unhurt, well physically anyhow. Teh media desends like a pack of hungry wolves, with the if it bleeds it leads mentality. The government makes more bad laws and we now have to work to get them off the books. The patriot act was passed before it "had been set to paper". I think it had been in some socialists desk waiting on the proper time. Sorry for the soap box.[soapbox]
Link Posted: 3/11/2002 9:59:24 PM EDT
Originally Posted By thebeekeeper1: Sueing the airlines for what? They did not fail in any way, or show any negligence. Keep in mind the items used in the hijackings were allowed per FAA rules. The airlines are not culpable.
You are absolutely wrong. Boxcutters made their way through security, they are not allowed, trust me, my mother and girlfriend's mothers work for airlines. As far as negligence, I belive negligence per se would cover this one, especially since all you would need to know is that the airplane was used to murder thousands including the passengers. If you loan your car to a friend who murders with it, do you think its any different for you when the plainiff looks for the deep pockets? Wasn't TWA, Pan Am and others responsible for the deaths of their passengers? Yup, thought so. Going to that ridiculous Waco argument...how in hell would you like to justify lumping an insurrection with murdering of law enforcement officials with terrorist attacks? If you believe there is a link, then i feel sorry for your logic processes. I'm assuming you're just picking on the words I used about Waco though. I do feel bad about the deaths there, but come on man, they killed LEO's and fucked children! Deplorable scum bags if you ask me. Going back to the payouts, you're correct, I did confuse the issues of gov payouts with personal donations, HOWEVER, the gov payout was the only way to save American Airlines from major suits, by giving people alternate immediate compensation. This was nothing more than buying AA time people, not strict compensation for loss. Why should GI's not get anything? They are on that job with the knowledge that any breath can be their last. They assume the roll of soldier willingly and accept the possibilities of death or injury. I believe they should be paid more, but that's another thread.
Link Posted: 3/11/2002 10:24:58 PM EDT
Federal Government at fault?? The FAA sets minimum standards. If airlines decide to go further they can. At the time of this attack the AIRLINES were responsible for screening the passengers that board their planes. Most airlines chose to subcontract to a security company, at the lowest cost possible. As far as compensation, I think that the public, and the government responded in a humanintarian way to the attack. Don't even jump on the soap box trying to tell other people what they can do with THIER money, or what organizations they should or shouldn't contribute to. As far as the government, I'm not sure they are paying for the compensation in the first place. Could it be that the US Gov't. feels that those people that were killed in that attack, were killed because they were Americans?? Maybe they US Gov't. feels that when it's citizens are killed because they are Americans other Americans should "step up" to make sure their survivors are taken care of. Yes Service Members life insurance probably isn't enough, I think $250,000 basic with $500,000 of coverage for a slight charge. But name another country that is willing to insure it's Service Memebers. As to the arguement the the Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, Airmen, NYPD, or NYFD "signed up" knowing what the risks were...... YES THEY KNEW AND THEY STILL SIGNED UP, and it makes them more courageous people than most. Part of the little agreement that all those people signed up for was that their "survivors" would be taken care of if they had to make the supreme sacrifice. They lived up to their end of the bargain....................
Link Posted: 3/12/2002 5:48:25 AM EDT
Link Posted: 3/12/2002 6:00:50 AM EDT
As a veteran, myself, I don't begrudge the 9/11 victims receiving those funds. I knew what I was getting into. I had my little insurance policy. The DONATED funds were raised IN THE NAME on those victims' families. It would be dishonest for anyone BUT THEM to benefit from the FUNDS RAISED WITH THEIR NAMES, FOR THEM. As far as Tax$ going to them, I see it like the rebuilding of the WTC. We need to rebuild the Trade Center Towers bigger and better than they were before. We HAVE to do this, in order to show our enemies that we cannot be brought down, that we will rise up even greater than before. I feel the same thing applies to the victims' families. We allowed the terrorists to kill those people. We CANNOT allow them to ruin their families as well.
Link Posted: 3/12/2002 6:22:46 AM EDT
[b]They (victims of 9/11) don't deserve one-red cent more than any one of our soldiers get for giving their lives in defense of our freedom.[/b] Why should some victims family live the good life on our tax dollars while some poor soldiers' wife w/ 3 kids has to provide for her family workin 2 jobs or living off food stamps. And that's my final word on this matter. Mike
Link Posted: 3/12/2002 6:27:16 AM EDT
Most of this $ comes from the fund raisers. Noit taxes. Why don't some celebrities just hold a fund raiser for Veterans' Widows? Yeah, that'll happen.
Link Posted: 3/12/2002 8:26:40 AM EDT
Personally, I am strongly against the govt paying one cent to the victims of the WTC. Why weren't victims paid for the OKC bombing, Waco, etc. etc. This is why we have life insurance.
View Quote
I agree. It's not the government's place to be paying. It sets a bad precedent. These people were all victims of murder. Why should the family of someone who died in the WTC be compensated while the family of some guy murdered in LA or Detroit or someplace else not get anything? They're both cases of murder. The family of the guy murdered in Detroit isn't grieving any less than the WTC victim's family. Both families have lost a wage earner. If you seperate the emotions and circumstances of murder from it, the impact to either family is the same. If anybody should be compensating the victims of the WTC and Pentagon, it should be Usama Bin Laden, the person who is guilty of the murders. When the government pays these families, it implies that the government is somehow at fault. I have no problem with charities doing it because those are people who are willingly giving charitable contributions. And with this trajedy, I think that it has been proven that charities are more than capable of generating the money and resources necessary to help victims. And like BobCole said, this is why we have life insurance.
Link Posted: 3/12/2002 11:23:38 AM EDT
They (victims of 9/11) don't deserve one-red cent more than any one of our soldiers get for giving their lives in defense of our freedom.
View Quote
My sentiments exactly! I think our soldiers who are killed in the war on terrorist families should share in all the donations given for the 9/11 tragedy.
Link Posted: 3/12/2002 11:32:25 AM EDT
Link Posted: 3/12/2002 12:05:14 PM EDT
Originally Posted By thebeekeeper1: I would take issue with these words. They killed LEO's in self defense after being attacked by said LEO's. I am very pro-law enforcement, but ATF attacked them without provocation, and deserved to be hammered in return. The child abuse b.s. was propaganda to turn the public's attitude against them and head off a revolt by the populace at large. Keep this in mind--if there [b]was[/b] child abuse occurring, where is ATF's jurisdiction in this? There was no meth lab, there were no illegal machine guns, there were no grenades. There was to be a highly publicized "raid" to justify a higher budget. The element of surprise was lost and ATF got whipped initially, taking more casualties than giving, and the government retaliated later by burning them out. Period. Read the book, watch the movies, it is all obvious. I hope it does not happen again. [pissed]
View Quote
The ATF WAS serving a warrant for illegal machine guns. Hence, the abundance of officers and heavy hardware. Davidians panicked and opened fired, first. The ATF didn't just "attack" without provication.
Link Posted: 3/12/2002 12:11:56 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/12/2002 12:19:32 PM EDT
Originally Posted By thebeekeeper1:
Originally Posted By Minman72: I'm assuming you're just picking on the words I used about Waco though. I do feel bad about the deaths there, but come on man, they killed LEO's and fucked children! Deplorable scum bags if you ask me.
View Quote
The child abuse b.s. was propaganda to turn the public's attitude against them and head off a revolt by the populace at large. Keep this in mind--if there [b]was[/b] child abuse occurring, where is ATF's jurisdiction in this?
View Quote
My point is that I could give a fuck about these morons. When all is said and done, they MURDERED LEO's and disobeyed the law. You cannot argue that without further sounding like and ass. ATF's jurisdiction lies in firearms, given. But what does it matter if a secondary effect of the raid was to save the kids inside from Koresh? Give me a godamn break, don't tell me your tin foil hat is that tight!
Link Posted: 3/12/2002 12:20:33 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/12/2002 12:25:28 PM EDT by CITADELGRAD87]
Minman, I take exception ot SEVERAL of your statements. The gov't has no business paying anyone for the murders, it's simply not their place and sets bad precedent. Second, your assertion that executive's widows got screwed by what you call "deductions" highlights how wrong it is for the government to step in at all. There was a level of payment determined to be "appropriate" for the survivors based on income, etc. Just because somebody bought insurance ahead of time doesn't mean that they have higher needs, their payout will be reduced by the amount of insurance they contracted for ahead of time. I understand the logic, and NOBODY's getting screwed by the calculation, but don't you see that this kind of payout from the government DISCOURAGES people from buying insurance, just like when the rush in after every flood and take up the slack because nobody wanted to pay for flood insurance because the govt always steps in--see the cycle? But to say that the people who paid for insurance should hit the jackpot is wrong as well. Lastly, box cutters WERE NOT PROHIBITED UNDER FEDERAL REGULATIONS PRIOR TO SEPT 11. I don't care who works where, that statement you made is WRONG. I personally have flown with pocketknives, and the regulation prior toSept 11 was any blade under 3" as long as it was not serrated. Last time I checked, the blades of boxcutters are NON serrated and well under 3", so the airlines were not at fault in any way. What is it with people who imediately think dollar signs every time something happens? Honor in suing the airlines? Please, try ruining the economy by bankrupting the airlines. Just becasue something terrible happenned doesn't mean that somebody with money MUST be available to take the hit of a verdict or settlement. That's why I pay for my own life insurance. Edited to add, negligence per se DOES NOT COVER this situation, nor does your example of me loaning my car. Neither isnegligence per se, which is very rarely applied. If I loan my car to you and have no reason to think you will go berserk, or even that you are a bad driver, pound sand if you think Iam liable. Read your insurance policy and your local state laws, the driver's insurance covers the vehicle he is in. Negligence per se means the act itself is the definition of negligence: If I am driving 100 mph in a school zone and hit someone, my arguments about being careful are moot, the act is so dangerous that doing it equals negligence. Flying a fleet of planes with security mandated by the federal govt does not fit the definition. One other thing, stop dispensing legal tidbits until you know what you are talking about.
Link Posted: 3/12/2002 12:26:30 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/13/2002 2:03:16 PM EDT
Originally Posted By John91498: The ATF WAS serving a warrant for illegal machine guns. Hence, the abundance of officers and heavy hardware. Davidians panicked and opened fired, first. The ATF didn't just "attack" without provication.
View Quote
Except for the teeny-tiny fact that there was NEVER a machine gun found. Except for the teeny-tiny fact that the local sheriff would always call Koresh (sp?) in for a chat & he would come in willingly. Why not again? Except for the fact that the Director of the BATF had the media there for the raid to show he needed a budget boost & thus more money & more power. Except for the fact that the informant on the inside of the compound begged the ATF to call off the raid as it had been compromised & they refused. I could go on & on & on with facts but I think you should start getting the picture.
Link Posted: 3/13/2002 2:18:43 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/13/2002 6:19:19 PM EDT
Originally Posted By levi: I have no problem with the funds collected for the survivors, only because I didn't contribute 1 cent towards it. They are private funds and that's that. I do have a problem with my tax money being paid out to the survivors. People get killed every single day, victims of circumstances that don't result in 1.85 million to their survivors. But, I'm not all that cold hearted as you would like to believe. I do believe the government should help all survivors "equally". It's called welfare. Then they can implement Gullianal's "back to work, off welfare program."
View Quote
That sounds like you. Another mensch in our midst. [img]http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/smilie/groucho.gif[/img]
Top Top