9/11 settlement is wrong

[hans007]

I was reading about the 1.6 million dollars that is estimated that the federal govt will give to the victims of the september 11th tragedy. my dad brought up the point of just how wrong it is. now it may seem like the right thing to do, but it is definitely the wrong thing to do. in all fairness, who is there to say that people who died in the world trade center have lives more important than other victims of other tragedies. if i get killed in a drive by shooting tommorrow, by terrorists which is what people who do drive by shootings are, then my family doesnt get a nickel. so obviously my life is less important than people who died in 9/11 ..



now i may sound like a bastard right now, but we need to not lose sight of fairness and equality when we deal with a tragedy. i don tthink they gave 1.6 million dollars to the oklahoma bombing victims either. the whole thing reeks of the government trying to make itself look good. anyways, flame away, because i know i am gonna get flamed

 

[churchdoesmatter]

it's good to have a national debt

 

[Maleficus]

sounds valid to me, i agree. IF thats what the money is going towards



<-----hasnt looked at this issue.

 

[loup garou]

Well, the money came from people donating to that particular cause (relief charities). I wouldn't appreciate it if the money that I donated was given to a charity other than the one I allotted it for.

EDIT: Just read an article stating that about 1/3 of the 1.6 mil figure per family is coming from the federal government. Maybe they should rethink where THAT money goes.

 

[jonnyfin]

what happened to all the donated money anyways? it has to be hundreds of millions!!!

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

I don't believe that there should be any sort of internal debate or lawsuits reguarding 9/11. Focus should be on getting the job done, not bitching among eachother.

BUT... if the government decides to reimburse those who had a loss in 9/11, I know there are going to be those weirdos out there who weren't involved at all who are suing for money that they don't deserve; those who will protest it and get a group together to fight it, etc. I don't think that's avoidable, but oh well.

If the government is going to reimburse people for this, they should reimburse others for other, lesser important issues. Then it will get excessive. The government shouldn't be reimbursing people -all I see is a road leading to the government reimbursing other people who bitch that they should get money for stupid issues, etc. With this, things are going to go to hell.

Nik {such is life?}

 

[Wozster]

I agree, saw this on Fox news all day and it's BS IMHO.
It appears the reason they're doing this is to prevent people from suing the airlines or the Government in civil court.
How is 9/11 the airlines fault? It's not!
How is 9/11 the Governments fault? It's not!
If you think it's the gov's fault because the CIA/NSA didn't catch it, you're wrong,
we the tax payers have been cutting the CIA/NSA/FBI budgets for years.
This is proof that even the Government is afraid of frivolous lawsuits.

 

[Cyberian]

Further discussion here and here.

I think you are basically correct, but emotions are running pretty high right now.

 

[vi edit]

The settlement was part of a federal relief package. It was in the BILLIONS of dollars. The Red Cross and United Way funds couldn't make up for that much money.

Also, the settlements were post retirement and personal insurance payouts.

In short, it's a mess. It will ultimately tear people apart instead of brining them together.

 

[hans007]

ya its like some 6 billion dollar federal relief fund. my dad also mentioned that most people who get killed in drive by shootings are poor and they wouldnt get crap, while the twin towers people are mostly white collar so their families are presumably pretty well off.


anyways, the whole point is that its unfair. the red cross money was not gonna be factored in to the money that they felt that each person deserved. they were calculating like the amount of income each person would have made, vs their age and were gonna give them a certain amount from 300k to 2.5 mil. and they would subtract life insurance and other settlements before the federal govt would kick in. but they werent gonna subtract like al the red cross donations. anyways.... its gonna be a big mess either way, but i dont think they should do it

 

[Tom]

In the real world it isn't up to us or Fox News to decide who if anyone has any liability for the damages inflicted on 9/11. It's up to a jury, and it's been the way we settle disputes since 1215ad.(Magna Carta)

Given that fact, it seems like a fair offer to me. Fair for the victims and their survivors, fair for the airline industry, which probably would not exist as it does now without the ability to insure against future potential losses, and fair for the taxpayers/government, which BTW, is the same thing.

"...that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
A.Lincoln

 

[Cessna172]

I totally agree. I obviously feel sorry for the family and friends of victims of 9-11. However, why is someone who died in a freak terrorist attack any more important than someone who died from a car accident today? Or who died a long, excruciating death from disease in a hospital?

Thousands and thousands of people die every day. But when everyone's in one spot geographically (9-11), it's apparently much more tragic in peoples' eyes. If you think about it logically instead of emotionally, it makes no sense.

And why does the cause of death matter? If you have 2 people: one dies in a collapsing building from the terrorist attack, and another dies in a car accident--both people are dead. The family and friends of the person who died in the building aren't going to miss them any more than the car accident victim's family and friends will. So, they are equally tragic. Obviously, the terrorist attack makes the news because it's so unusual--but it is no more tragic an event for the families involved.

Therefore, if the government is going to give money to the terrorist attack victims, then they have to give money to the families of everyone who dies--and that's just a preposterous concept.

 

[Metropolis2000]

<< my dad also mentioned that most people who get killed in drive by shootings are poor and they wouldnt get crap, while the twin towers people are mostly white collar so their families are presumably pretty well off. >>



Huh?? Unfortunately a good friend of mine from high school and dozens of his co-workers died that day. Was he a white collar worker? Yes. Were he and his co-workers well off? Heck no. What about the dishwashers and waitresses working in "Windows on the World" restaurant? People of all backrounds were killed, there was no discrimination based on bank accounts.

What I don't think is fair is that just because some people were successful and had provided for their families with large insurance policies they are entitiled to less (or in some cases no payout). Why should their families not be compensated because they were wealthy? Is their grief and sorrow worth less? I think it should very simple math: Money available divided by number of victims. Period.

 

[hans007]

well the argument about them being white collar, was sthat white collar people have more political clout , etc than poor people

 

[Dually]

No, he isn't talking about the donated money that has yet to be dished out which is a seperate issue. He is talking about the money the U.S. Fed Government is giving the families.

 

[Metropolis2000]

<< well the argument about them being white collar, was sthat white collar people have more political clout , etc than poor people >>



Huh???
Huh???

And this means something because....

 

[Cyberian]

<< Why should their families not be compensated because they were wealthy? Is their grief and sorrow worth less? >>

Are we reimbursing survivors for grief and sorrow, or trying to allow them to carry on with their lives financially?

 

[Metropolis2000]

<< Are we reimbursing survivors for grief and sorrow, or trying to allow them to carry on with their lives financially? >>



I'm all for allowing them to carry on with their lives financially, as long as it's done fairly. My friend's life was not worth any more or any less than anyone else who perished that day (financially speaking anyway).

 

[Grunt03]

I to have a major Problem with this settlement issue...........

As hans007 has pointed out. Why are they special? Was their or was there not other Terrorist attacks where
several people were killed.Some were from America but many from other countries also.

If I remember correctly;

Kobar Towers - Attacked by Terrorist......While American Military and Dependants were sleeping, These Spineless Bastards
drove a truck loaded with explosives into the Building.Many were injured and killed.The ones who provide the Freedom did not
come back as Heros nor did they return to become Rich.Some would not return to active duty, now having to fight another battle
just to get their disability.

USS Kole - Attacked by Terrorist........ Out on a standard six month Deployment. Going into Port to replentish the ship.A smaller
boat driven by Terrorist.Once more these Spineless Bastards attacked American Military Men. Fathers, Brothers, Husbands.
Once more they were not asked to go on this voyage, they went because of their Duty.Many killed, some once more would have
to get out.I did notice that when they came home that they barely made the news.They were not Heros, nor would they get rich
going from TV show to another.There was no Talk of them getting one million dollars.

Their are more incidents where we have been attacked by the different Terrorist.Always the Military is a great Target, they get much fame
by attacking us.

So what do we get out of it.If we live we get discharged from the Military, we will get a very big 50% retirement, and have to fight for
our disability check that year after year gets smaller because the Government make them go and get re-examined just to downgrade their disability.

The real reason why they are getting the money is because the big boys at the top screwed up.They did not stop this when they had the warnings.
But because it is the Civilians who were injured.This time it was not just the Military.

If you dought what I am saying just wait and see.All of the Military Personal who were hurt will not receive any of the money promised.

Yes some will say that we have the life.No tax on goods sold on base, free houseing, medical, dental and Free travel.

Consider this then - Most of our shopping is done off base because the PX caters to the officers. The government does not have enough houseing for all of
us and the newer housing goes to the officers who get paid the most.The medical and dental are not anything to brag about.Just check with the local Hospital
near a base to see how much they lose by treating the military.

 

[Metropolis2000]

grunt03:

No disrespect intended (seriously), but last time I checked you have to "volunteer" to join the military. No one forced you. If you don't like the way you or your fellow servicemen are treated or you felt you have been misled in any way, then leave when you are able to do so.

 

[gopunk]

yea i don't think they should be getting anything from the government... if some charities want to give them money, i'm all for it, but goddammit, the government is not a charity.

 

[Amused]

This has already been discussed in two other threads. I'm not going through this again.

 

[Jeff7]

I think you are basically correct, but emotions are running pretty high right now.

Definitely. A few people have made the point that, while we call the terrorists cowards for their attacks, the majority of our attacking has been done from thousands of feet, or many many miles away, by way of cruise missiles and bombings. We have what, over a million soldiers in the army alone? If we wanted bin Laden right away, we could simply overwhelm them with a hundred thousand ground troops. We are trying to fight a war without casualties. We're arming other people and letting them fight for us. (and look how nice the Taliban was to us after we armed them during the Cold War to fight the Soviets)
If we're going to fight them, we are going to take casualties. It's just the way war is.

I figure the people and families involved should get compensation for lost property and lost worktime; the firefighters and police should of course get some money for their incredible efforts. Heck, some of the donated money could also have been used to send presents to the soldiers in Afghanistan, since they have to spend the holidays so far from home.

 

[rahvin]

The feds are paying the victims so they don't sue AA and USAIR and put them out of business. The loss of those two airlines would crush the air travel industry and would decimate commerce in this country. The settlements are to prevent individual lawsuits, nothing more. By agreeing to accept the federal money the victims agree to waive all rights to suit.

 

[hans007]

i can see the reason for doing it to save the airlines, but i think tehy shoul dmake the families settle as a class if they are gonna do that.