Posted on 12/23/2001 5:42:29 AM PST by estrogen
I am really disturbed by the articles about how the 911 families are reacting to the government assistance that has been offered. I know that they are very distraught and have had the worst thing imaginable happen to them but look at this clip from the article and see how you feel? Maybe I'm way off base.
When I hear that 1.65 million isn't enough, I have to ask myself what if their loved one died in a car crash? Would we sue the car maker? People die every day and don't depend on the government to take care of their families for the rest of their lives. I feel awful about the loss of people on the 11th and that is why I donated monies to the charities. The American people opened their wallets in the millions, maybe billions, and now that's not enough? SOME of the survivors now want the American people to continue supporting them,or as one mother said, "my daughter should never want for anything". Maybe her spouse should have made arrangements for that statement prior to 911.
For many, the government payments would come in addition to thousands of dollars from charity groups. Accepting money from the fund comes with a requirement that recipients largely give up their right to sue.
Veronica and Sylvia Carver, whose SISTER Sharon was killed, were among those who came seeking information. But they were skeptical about the way the compensation program determines the size of payments.
"We just think that it's totally unfair how they plan to distribute the money out, and we feel that it should be distributed equally," Veronica Carver said.
Sharon Carver was a 38-year-old civilian accountant at the Pentagon. She was single and had no children. Her family is entitled to about $750,000, although that figure would be greatly reduced by the value of life insurance, pensions and other compensation. "Since Sharon was single, that means we would probably get nothing from the victims' compensation fund," Veronica Carver said. The Justice Department had expected low turnout Friday, in part because much of the information being offered is available on the Internet and over the phone. The Justice Department reported receiving more than 500 calls on Friday. Jobs at Fox News Channel Terms of use. Privacy Statement. For FoxNews.com comments write to
This argument about who gets what is just as bad as the Red Cross deciding after the money is in the bank that it should be spent on new furniture and computers.
Makes it very difficult for local charities with no overhead to convince people to donate. This is an unintended consequence of the Internal Revenue Code allowing deductions for charitable contributions. That makes large charities a large business, with no regard for the purpose of the organzation.
Don't get me wrong, I think they are entitled to the money that was collected through charity because that is why the people donated it. However I don't think they are entitled to any more than that plus, the group life insurance that, ( I am sure they carried through their employer ) and any other individual life insurance plans they carried through other life insurance companies through a family financial plan. If they didn't provide for their dependents by purchasing a life insurance plan for the entire family then they were not thinking to clearly about the future of their family.
If these people had died from any other accident, they would have been entitled to just what I mentioned above, not any reimbursment from a government plan or donations from charity, at least to the extent of the donations the victims will receive from this disaster.
Think what a military man's family will receive if he is killed in action, I don't know what the plans are for military personnel now but I wager it isn't anywhere near what we are talking about for the dependents of the victims of the September 11th tragedy.
Suppose, G-d forgive, we have another sad event like this in the future, are we going to continue to reimburse the victims dependents in the same manner, I think it could reach a point where we can not continue to do this and should not continue to do this.
Believe me, I know what it is to lose a loved one prematurely by tragedy and I feel very sad for the dependents but it is the responsibility of the "bread winner" to provide for his/her family in the event of an untimely death and, that is just what this was.
Flame if you wish but what I am saying here is the way it should be because we are not out of the woods yet and we may have more of these sad events (one was just averted yesterday over the Atlantic Ocean) and we can not keep providing these unrealistic monetary settlements for people that should have been ( and, I'm sure, a lot of them did ) providing as a responsible obligation to their loved ones.
I agree. People die under tragic circumstances every day. My father died of cancer when I was 16 and I got what I was untitled to under Social Security survivor benefits. It was not the U.S. Government's responsibility to financially replace my father's future earning potential.
What I fear is that such unprecedented generosity will soon be looked at as an entitlement. Even now, some families are complaining about the amount "not being enough" when the fact is that the U.S. Governmnent, aka the American Taxpayer, owes them nothing except Social Security survivor benfits.
My Dad was killed in Vietnam when I was 14. It was his third war in 27 years of military service. My Mom received most of the money he would have gotten if he had retired at 26 instead of going off to war. She received money from his life insurance.
But no one made us millionaires. And if I were killed on active duty today (after 18 years), my wife would receive my life insurance, some money from the government - and she would go to work, since it wouldn't be enough to "keep her in the lifestyle she was accustomed to."
I fail to understand why a sister killed in an office is so much more valuable than a sister killed by a drunk driver. And until someone can explain to me why she is, I'll continue to think these 'survivors' should be thankful their loved ones were killed in a terrorist attack instead of a fender-bender the day before.
You are right on target with that statement. When I donated money to one of the charities, I believed it was to help them out with their bills until they could get back on their feet. Boy was I wrong! If I had it to do over again, I would donate to a local charity to help out the people in my area that won't be getting a government handout.
Sharon Carver was a 38-year-old civilian accountant at the Pentagon. She was single and had no children
This is completely ludicrous. Why in the world, should the taxpayers pay anything to the survivors of a single, childless woman?! Yes, I feel very sorry for the horrible way in which they lost their dear sister. However, having your loved one killed by a terrorist is not, in effect, winning the lottery.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.