Start by reading this article... I have to say I have mixed feelings on this one. Granted, a terrible tragedy has affected their families and I do believe they are entitled to get something. However, when one weighs all the other disasters that have happened in comparison and what they got....I start to get a bitter taste in mouth as well. There are many acts of terror here and abroad where the victims' families didn't get jack squat. Now, it appears the 911 families aren't happy with the current deal and want more out of it. Some are saying they want justice? There is no doubt they will get money from both the government funds and the charity funds which should equate to a hell of a lot of compensation in comparison to what other people have received in other disasters. Now, you have people from terrorist bombing(s) here(Oklahoma City) and abroad(embassy bombings) crying foul. The whole thing should be fair in my opinion. If we are going to give 911 victims money, then we go back and give others an amount of money that is fair to what they went through and lost. The problem is how do you measure a human life in monetary value? Sure, you can say well....he was this age, he would have worked this many more years at this job, and he has this wife and this many dependents....here is X amount of dollars. That is what the govt. is trying to do...moreless. The govt. isn't paying this money, though, the taxpayers are. You and I. It's a very difficult position to ask the govt. to put a price on a human life. So many factors go into the equation. Would this victim have had kids in the future? Would he have advanced to CEO of his company? Would he have hit it rich in the stock market? Who knows? With all the factors, how can there be any right price? What about that janitor who died...are we going to give his family a measily couple of grand because he didn't make that much currently. What about his potential? I believe this is where the plan is flawed. I will say that I believe they are entitled to something generous for their pain and suffering. But how generous is definitely a matter for debate. The victims want justice as do we all. Part of that justice is the war against terror which has huge costs in itself. The other part is homeland defense. This is a form of justice for the victims....just not a monetary form. Truth is all the money in the world is not going to make their pain and grief go away. Is the point to set the family for life so they can vacation the rest of their lives and not have to worry about anything ever again money-wise? Somehow...that doesn't seem like justice to me and does give off a stench of greed. Justice is going out and getting the people who did this. The costs associated with this are huge as is. We are at war....we didn't start the war but we are in it for the long haul. The fact is we were at war long before we wanted to acknowledge it. Only after it was brought home did we finally decide we were at war. I'm not about to call the victims and their families of 911 greedy. They have suffered badly. They are due compensation for what they have been through. This is obviously a very touchy subject but I have brought it up because there is a negative backlash mounting against the victims because they appear to want more money than they are getting...which is substantial for most and terribly lacking for the rest. I would hope that the purpose of "getting it right" is so every victim/family comes away with a good amount of compensation for what they have been through. But, we need to keep in mind who is actually paying the costs(us) and how victims of other tragedies have received zippo. I don't care what the tragedy is....it could be natural or terror. 911 was particularly horrible...but a F5 tornado wiping out a town is horrible as well. The Oklahoma City bombing was just as horrible at the time it happened. This needs to be done fairly and it shouldn't be up to the victims' to tell us what they should get. The govt., with our taxpayer money, should come up with something that is fair for all involved. If it's not fair, then it should be re-worked. Part of the plan is to give less to victims' families who had life insurance coverage and are receiving vast sums from that plan. I believe this to be fair and noone should be crying about how they didn't get money from the govt. plan because they had life insurance coverage. The question is now becoming how much is enough? This is creating backlash and many who supported the victims' families are turning against the victims in e-mails, forum postings, etc. . If this drags out, then it will only get worse. The fact is the victims are now hearing unleashed criticism against them from the very citizens who once supported them. As for myself, I am obviously torn between this. The fact is people die daily around the world from terrible events and they get nothing from their governments. Life is not fair in so many ways. To say that if you die a certain way by a certain method, your victims' family are now entitled to be set for the rest of their lives with huge monetary gains....isn't this where this is going? Does being a millionare make it all better? Is this justice? Are we responsible for what happened? If it were smaller scale, then you may have received nothing outside of charitable contributions. This compensation plan will have impact on future compensation for future victims as well. Oh well....just some thoughts...what do you think? Definitely not an easy subject. Very good for a college exam paper on a controversial subject I do think. Surf
I think that some of the victims are greedy and some aren't. It just matters what there financial situation is. If they need it or if they don't. If they really don't need the money and they want lots of it then I think it's greed.
Yes, it is very tragic that so many people lost family members and friends so suddenly and under such terrible circumstances. If the government does give them money, it will set a standard for every other event or tragedy yet to come. People die suddenly and tragically every day. What makes these people's loss worthy of compensation and more tragic rather than someone who loses someone to cancer, or an automobile accident. Death in itself is a tragic thing. I think that the government would be making a big mistake to give them any money. While I feel bad for everyone affected by the events of 9/11 and hope the best for them, their loss is no greater than anyone else's. My opinion is probably unpopular, but that's how I feel. Life is not predictable-you can't plan for anything, but you should plan for everything. Play with the cards you're dealt and make the best of it. I would rather see government money go to former Enron employees. They were lied to and cheated and people profitted from their losses. (In all truth, I'd rather all the big wigs of Enron give their employees what they deserve, but that'll never happen). When life gives you lemons, make lemonade. Don't complain that you don't like them and expect the government to bail you out.
How is what happened in 9/11 more tragic than any other death on an individual basis? Yes, it's terrible that X died in the terrorist attacks. But is it any worse that Y was shot to death in her own home? 9/11 as an event, of course, is far more tragic. But that's because of the scale.
i think if from anywhere they should be getting money from the airlines.. since it is their responsiblity to make sure something doesn't happen like this on their planes..
GREED GREED GREED. aslo a completely prefect example of the sickness that american society has become. now im sure that Manny of the survivors wouldnt care of no money was offered. they would get by and deal with the most important aspects of the traqdgedy. the loss of lives. the poow will be supported in the same way that survivors of smaller tradgedy. fire victims are usually cared for my churches and neighbours who lend a hand. infact im sure many of then would "make out quite well" this way. however anyone who actually thinks they deserve dollar one, just because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time is a greedy POS. anyone who thinks they are entitled to money every time something goes wrong in their life is a POS. and anyone who is thinking that they deserve more money than whatever dollar amount is decided upon for ANY reason is the lowest POS on the planet. the survivors of perl harbor got JACK. the survivors of World war I, II, got JACK. just because junior or daddy dies dosnt mean its payday. it means you mourn and work through it like any other human being. did the survivors of any terrorist airplane attacks get $$ did any associate wit the Embassey bombings in Africa getr jack. how about the USS Cole? how about Oklahoma city. ok im hyped up. I personally dont belive in a world where lives = $$$. if i were a victim i would give the money back, or spend it on advertizing encouraging other victims to give it back. I have had many things happen in my life where i could sue for millions. (broke arm on town rollerhockey rink because of sand not cleaned up after a rain, permenently damaged neck on doctors boat because of his sons stupid ass driving, hit by a drink in a car while riding a bicycle) I just dont hink money fixes anything. if you want to help give of your heart and time. if i were a victim i would accept assistance throught emotional and physical help, but not government financial help. maybe make it so no victims or victims families have to file taxes this year or other things that take a time burden or create stress. hell think of the presedent. what do we do if 10 years from now a small nuclear weapon goes off in say chicago killing 1.4 million affecting 28 million family members?? do they each get 2 mill?? is there suffering more, do the sue if nuclear is not given higher suffering value than conventional terrorism?? ok i should stop now. I dont know about other Nyers, but this whole thing has Jaded me. I really had hope at first, but i dont see a single positive gained from the collective population of NY at this point, and thats just plain sad. I thought people were suposed to be more friendly/helpfull??!! screw the greedy bastards!!! Peace hehe, 4 people posted while i typed this rant. maybe i will edit this later when i am more chill, but that wouldnt be true to my feelings.
I completely agree. If we had better security, this would not have happened. If they want to blame someone, it should be the airlines!
Well... It wasn't illegal to carry box cutters on an airline before. Was it forseeable that such a thing would happen? Sure the security could have made the airplanes safer, but could they have done so reasonably given the information they had at the time? I mean, the airport security could have stripped search every passenger and taken away anything that could possibly be used as a weapon (or pretend weapon. The airline personnel would likely not have resisted even if the hijacker had only what he said was a bomb, even if it wasn't a bomb that he had), but that's not reasonable. There's always been a tradeoff in regards to security. Passengers will never allow our airplanes to be as safe as humanly possible. Until September 11, the airlines were constantly being chastised by passengers and by Congress for not moving people and planes through fast enough. If anything, they had lots of incentive to be lax on security. But given the rules in place at the time, there's nothing those airport security people should have done differently.
I think it's ludicrous (if true) that the victims have to sign away their rights to sue without knowing if they'll even get a penny. However, with $6B + $1.6B in private money, I'm curious how anyone can NOT get anything. You had about 3000 dead, so let's say 3000 families. That's $2.5 M per family. There should be plenty of money there to divide up. What I don't like is that we're valuing lives differently. I understand different earning power, etc, but when trying to compensate people, I don't think you can value each life differently like that. A life is a life, whether it was a homeless person or corporate CEO. If this is about pain & suffering, the pain is no less for the struggling person's family than the CEO's family. If it's about helping the future, then the struggling family probably needs the money more than the CEO's, who should have likely saved up something.
So, how can we value the lives of the people in the 9/11 attacks over anyone else's? Why do they deserve compensation when someone father might have died in a car wreck unexpectedly and they don't get a dime from the government?
<B>So, how can we value the lives of the people in the 9/11 attacks over anyone else's? Why do they deserve compensation when someone father might have died in a car wreck unexpectedly and they don't get a dime from the government?</B> Oh, I agree with that. I don't think the government should be in the business of tragedy-compensation. However, that's just going to happen regardless because of (1) political motivation, (2) the need to make the government look like it is doing good, and (3) to help ward off legal action. I think the charities have more than enough money themselves to help families deal with all the issues that will crop up in their lives. Given that its going to happen, I still think they are going about it the wrong way.
Sorry Major. I just wanted to clear that up. I think it's going to be such a mistake. Everyone will now expect the government to bail them out of any problem. I totally agree with you. That's why we have charities and insurance...for life's unexpectancies.
I dont understand how blame can be placed on anyone other than Osama Bin Laden and his group. That being the case, I say we freeze his assets and divide those up amongst the surviving relatives/injured when or if we get a chance. However, I don't think the airlines should have to pay - I dont think they were at fault. In fact, given the heroic efforts of the Pennsylvania plane, I would say we might actually owe something (not monetary) to the/a airlines. Also, isnt this what life insurance is for? As has been mentioned, tragic deaths occur everyday.
mrpaige.. i agree and wasn't trying to put the blame off on t hem instead of osama. i was just saying i think they are more to blame than the government.. but is interesting that they all chose to get on the same airlines planes.. and that i belive the guy with the bomb on his shoe also was on the same airline. but i'm not positive about that. i know it coudl not have been seen.. but i was kinda suprised the cockpit door hadn't been secure long ago.. seems to me like that would be an obvious security measure that should have been done years ago
Shouldn't the Government be the most to blame for not making it illegal to carry box cutters or knives on airlines? There were two different airlines. But the security is paid for by all airlines and subcontracted out to security firms. When you go to the airport, you don't go through different security to get on an American jet than for a United jet. It is one large set of security. No one airline is to blame for what gets through. And the bigger problem is that the hijackers didn't do anything illegal until they hijacked the plane. You can't fault security for not doing something that nobody ever told them they had to do. Security may well have known about every single box cutter that got on board those planes, but they wouldn't have done anything about it because it wasn't against the law or against the rules to take box cutters on board airplanes. The government allowed the law to be broken by allowing at least three of the hijackers to overstay their visas. Airport security didn't allow any laws to be broken. It seems obvious, but it isn't. There were many good reasons why the cockpit door was not strengthened. And making it so may well cause a problem in the future. As far as I know, none of the terrorists HAD to break down the doors. They started killing passengers to lure the pilots out. The pilots were trained to do what any hijacker said (because in the past, the best way to prevent large loss of life was to go along with the hijacker's demands. September 11th was unlike anything we'd seen before).
First of all, this goes back to the fact that it is WAY too easy for people to get into and stay in our country. Second, we can play the blame game all day long. Blame the government for not making stricter laws. Blame the airlines for letting these people on (although I know it has been mentioned that the terrorists had nothing illegal on them necessarily). Blame the flight schools that trained them. Blame the hotels that housed them. Blame the airlines that flew them over here in the first place. Blame the government for letting them in and not getting rid of them when their visas expired. Blame Osama. Blame Islam. Blame Americans and Christianity (which they believed they were fighting against). Blame the pilots for following orders and training. Blame other passengers for not standing up and fighting back. It can go on forever! Bad, VERY BAD things happened to very many people all at once. It still comes to the fact that they do not deserve government compensation for their losses. Oklahoma City victims didn't get money. Or victims of Pearl Harbor. We can go on here too. One life is not more precious or deserving of government money than another and I think the government is digging itself a deep hole to make that decision.
Agreed, and it makes me sick that i actually donated some of my hard earned money to these people. If god forbid anything like this happens again i'll be sure not to donate a dime.
Charities are good when they give the money to the people who need it. Back here in June with Allison, the Red Cross got TONS of money. But it didn't get to the people who needed it. Poor people who's homes did not flood waited in line for vouchers. And many churches gave clothes and food away to anyone who showed up. Many people took advantage of the situation. My boyfriend's house flooded and they saw little or no money or help from many charities. I didn't donate any money and I'm glad because he would not have seen any of. Instead, I tried to be supportive and helped out with what I could. I wonder if people in New York are abusing charities as well? The people who want government money are abusing the situation. Money and stuff would help them, but charities should be able to do a lot. Like I've said before, deal with life's unexpectancies. The government can't bail everyone out all the time. Charities can't either, but at least it's their job to help people in a crisis.
I hate what happened on 9/11 but I have to agree that I dont think that they are owed anything. Had any of these people been in a car wreck because of a drunk driver, it would have been just as unexpected. Congress wouldnt have been falling all over themselves to get money for that victim. If they are going to give people money, I think it is complete BS that anyone should get more money than another. Just because Mr. CEO makes more money than Mr. Janitor doesnt mean that Mr. CEO deserves more money. If anything, Mr. Janitor deserves more money because his family is going to be affected by the loss of a money earner than the family of Mr. CEO. Mr. Janitor probably doesnt have insurance. Mr. Janitor probably doesnt have much if any savings. Mr. Janitor's family is screwed while Mr. CEO has insurance, savings, equity in a home, and who knows what other kinds of money to fall back on. The bottom line is that Mr. CEO and his family is not worth more or are better people or deserves more money than Mr. Janitor and his family.
Aren't all these awards offset by things such as life insurance? I thought I had read that. I don't like this aspect: the US government is acting like they are responsible for the tragedy by stepping up as they are.
