The Poor are Treated like SHIT in America- even 9-11 victims

[Yollam]

Here's a recent example that REALLY pissed me off.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0104/p11s1-coop.html

Compensate all 9/11 families equally
By Eve Weinbaum and Max Page
AMHERST, MASS. - "How do you measure a life?" Jonathan Larson, the author of the musical "Rent," answered his own question: "Measure in love." Ken Feinberg, the special master of the Sept. 11 Victims' Compensation Fund, has a different formula. It's based on last year's tax return.
Mr. Feinberg, who will have final say on each compensation package, has enshrined the massive gaps in income and wealth that characterize America in the 21st century. Under his guidelines, the families of each survivor will receive $250,000 for pain and suffering, plus $50,000 per child, plus an amount based on the victim's age and income.

So if you were a single, 65-year-old service worker earning $10,000 a year, your family gets $300,000. The young, rising-star bond trader, who leaves a wife and two children and was earning $175,000 a year, gets $4.35 million.

No amount is likely to comfort the families. But our problem is not the figures; it's the fact that each victim's worth is tied to income. The fund is based on a market model. Each person's standing is determined by his or her ability to compete in the marketplace. Those with greater incomes are not only worth more, but will probably become more valuable over time. In the competition for compensation dollars, lives that were already unequal become much more so after death.

Wealth is not the only inequality perpetuated by Feinberg's algorithm. Some families are more valuable than others. The largest settlements go to married victims with children. Ostensibly, their families need the cash most. But who is Feinberg to determine which life is most worthy? What about the single person whose elderly parents lived with her and depended on her wages? The woman whose disabled husband had thousands of dollars of hospital bills? The window washer whose salary was sent back to Honduras to support half a village?





SICK SICK SICK. Fuck these people and the kind of society that produces their sick values. :puke:


Call me a communist. I don't give a crap.

It's what's most wrong about America. That one man or woman can slave away 60 hours a week and get bupkis, and another man can work, maybe hard, maybe not, but he makes 1000 times more. He is not 1000 times smarter, nor does he work a thousand times longer or harder. He certainly doesn't have a thousand years more education.

And our society doesn't blink an eye at it. we just take it for granted that some people are rewarded outrageously for a couple strokes of a pen while others work and strive and try and try and play by the rules and get nothing.

[NMMNG]

1. How vile

And how Republican. :puke:

[wicket]

2. Let me join you

:puke: :puke: :puke:

:grr:

[bluestateguy]

3. For that matter

Why do these terrorism victims get compensation and not the victims of the 1993 WTC bombing, or the OKC bombing in 1995, or the Columbine shooting in 1999?

I agree, however, if there is going to be a government compensation, let it be equal. I'm sure the wealthy victims had good private life insurance policies to supplement the money their families will be getting.

[EOTE]

6. Hush money.

They lose their right to sue the government for their incompetance and/or complicity. It's worth a lot to this administration to strip the families of their right to sue, which then makes them lose their motivation to see how the events of 9/11 really transpired.

[raccoon]

15. I agree, while their families have my sympathy, I don't think

they should get compensation.

If your relative was killed in a drive-by shooting, would you get compensation? Or killed by a drunk driver? Hell, no.

But Post #6 is right, it was hush money.

[pitohui]

52. what the--?

you know what, i was in a drive by shooting, as was my husband, so this is pretty close to home

yes, if one of us had been killed, our life insurance would have paid -- imagine that!

killed by a drunk driver, our life insurance would have paid -- and likely sued the estate of the drunk driver if he left any money and perhaps our heirs would have been paid even more

however, life insurance does NOT cover acts of war, acts of terror, etc.

you would leave these families with NOTHING at all?

what's wrong w. people?

[stepnw1f]

64. Wow... Just Wow

Nothing like being a compasionate human being.

[xenu]

79. Yes, that's sad

Some states DO have some programs for victims of crime. However, I don't think it's a good idea to get rid of ALL relief programs, simply because not everyone benefits.

The idea that some victims ARE getting compensation VALIDATES the idea of victims' compensation and sets a strong precedent. That is why it's important.

[pitohui]

48. private life insurance doesn't cover acts of war or terror

you may be "sure" they had insurance, but i think you need to read your insurance policy again

if you die in an act of war or terror, your life insurance is void, my friend

[Yollam]

68. Even if that's the case...

...there's no doubt that the wealthy victims' families are much better positioned to handle the loss. They have investments and luxury homes to sell if need be. Their kid may have to go to public school - Mom may have to (gasp) get a job. The waiters at Windows on the World left their families with NOTHING. They go from a shitty apartment to the street.

They should have gotten an equal amount to what the rich fucks got.

There is NO way of presenting this as just.

[xenu]

80. it ought not be

If you look at September 11th as a crime. I like looking at it as a crime rather than an "act of war" because calling it an "act of war' validates and legitimates the so-called "viewpoint" of the perpetrators.

[Nobody]

4. A conversation with a coworker last week

You said...

It's what's most wrong about America. That one man or woman can slave away 60 hours a week and get bupkis, and another man can work, maybe hard, maybe not, but he makes 1000 times more. He is not 1000 times smarter, nor does he work a thousand times longer or harder. He certainly doesn't have a thousand years more education.

....

And that reminded me about that conversation. He was talking about risk vs reward and that's why some people are paid (and should be paid) very little. Those that take big risks get paid more (and should).

I disagreed. Visions of Enron floated through my brain. Multimillion dollar bonuses going to people who risked what? Other people's livelihoods. Other people's retirement funds. Other people's life savings. And isn't a person's time worth something?

I don't understand the "people are only worth a pittance if they work in certain jobs" mindset from those making just barely a living wage like this guy.

I agree with paying 50k more per dependant, but it should be dependant, not just children. That way, elderly parents can be covered. I don't know how we could be fair to the village in Honduras in your example.

[Divernan]

7. Good point re elderly parents should be covered also.

Especially with the pisspoor care provided to the indigent elderly in the US. And at the going rate for nursing home care (approx. $45,000 per year just for the basics), many elderly who worked hard, saved money, were contributing members of society, are impoverished many years before their deaths by nursing home care costs.

Furthermore, adult children of elderly parents provide increasing levels of personal care and support and oversight, as well as financial assistance, to elderly parents. Years before my Mom went into a nursing home (at age 91) I was able to provide enough assistance - grocery shopping, driving her to medical appointments, auditing her checkbook, taking her out to dinner or a movie several times a week, helping her shop for clothes, making sure maintenance was done on her house, etc., which allowed her to safely stay in her own home about 10 years longer than if she had been without help. I would find the spectre of approaching old age terrifying were it not for the fact that I have loving adult children. What would it cost an elderly parent of a 9/11 victim to pay someone to do all those things for them for 10 years?

[global1]

5. It's Interesting To Note That In Iraq When A Family Member Is Killed.....

someone from our government is there to give them - in person - a cash payout. They have loads of cash around to dole out - our tax money - to those poor unsuspecting Iraqi's that didn't ask for this 'occupation' and want us out.

In the U.S. - they put limits on payments to victims - be it 9/11 victims or Katrina victims or other victims. Then they question how this money is being spent.

[marmar]

8. To quote the great Howard Zinn:

I start from the supposition that the world is topsy-turvy, that things are all wrong, that the wrong people are in jail and the wrong people are out of jail, that the wrong people are in power and the wrong people are out of power, that the wealth is distributed in this country and the world in such a way as not simply to require small reform but to require a drastic reallocation of wealth. I start from the supposition that we don't have to say too much about this because all we have to do is think about the state of the world today and realize that things are all upside down.

[Ksec]

85. Zinn rocks

I saw him for the first time the other day,and I was truly impressed with his grasp of reality. He gets it.

86. that is good

things make sense from that view.

I once got disqualified from a jury because God forbid, I didn't think just because the people who were injured were rich, they should get reimbursed based on their being rich.

This stuff about compensation based on "value" is bullshit to me. Too bad communism didn't work in Russia.

[foreverdem]

9. I can't say it surprises me..

that the Repuke way is that a person's worth as a human being is tied to how much money they make. Like there is a price that can be put on human life and somehow one is better than another based on their paycheck.

How disgusting they are. Hey, if anyone would call you a communist for having the opinion on this that you do, then I must be a communist too, because I'm right there with you.

[dsc]

10. There is a simple reason for this

I am not justifying this but the reason is that these payout are in lieu of lawsuits. Thus they are related to the damages one would be likely to get in a lawsuit which are directly based on income and age.

[Yollam]

11. Lawsuits are a different story altogether.

Those payouts are based on what the plaintiff might have earned in his/her lifetime had he not been killed or injured by the defendant.

This was a fund based on charitable donations from people who wanted to help, and I doubt most of them would want their funds distributed in such a social Darwinist way. I would guess that many poor and working people donated, only to have their donations distributed to millionaires.

:puke:

[dsc]

37. No this is the tax payer fund

and people who take this money can't sue. That is why they are using the same model of compensation that a lawsuit would.

[pitohui]

don't let common sense and facts get in the way

thanks, dsc, of course you are correct

people are letting their emotions get ahead of themselves

[pitohui]

53. don't let common sense and facts get in the way (wink)

thanks, dsc, of course you are correct

people are letting their emotions get ahead of themselves

[Yollam]

56. Please explain the common sense to me...

...where the rich get huge payouts and the poor get much less on account of being poor. This was NOT insurance. What facts?

[dsc]

87. It was in lieu of lawsuits

The rich had more to give up so they got more to give it up. I don't like the way we compensate via lawsuits but that way has existed for a long time.

[vssmith]

12. Bush cares more for his little black

dog more than he does poor people. I guess his brand of Christianity makes this ok.

[berni_mccoy]

13. The payments are designed to setup a replacement income

At the time of 9/11 the best non/low-risk return rates were about 3-4% per year. By putting the money in a low-to-no risk income generating vehicle (money-market fund, CD ladder, etc), the victim's income could be replaced by the return generated from the rewarded amount.

4.35 million X 4% = 174,000
300K X 4% = 12,000

Now, you can't force the victims to put their money into an income generating account, but that's what these amounts were designed to do.

I'm not saying that's how it should have been done, but that's how these numbers were calculated.

[Yollam]

14. It shouldn't be about helping people maintain a "lifestyle...

...that they've become accustomed to". Every person should have gotten the exact payout.

:mad:

[berni_mccoy]

35. I don't see it as a "maintain a lifestyle"

but rather as a replacement of what was known to be lost.

There is no way to value a human life with money. There is no known measure.

One thing that was certainly known to be lost for the families of these victims is what that person provided monetarily.

Is the money a replacement for the person? No. It's a compensation of one known lost attribute of that person. By giving an equal amount to everyone, the end result will be that you would be putting a price on a life. Every victim's death was worth X dollars.

No matter what the gov't did to compensate, someone was going to be unhappy with it. They were faced with three choices:

1. Give equal amounts (putting an artificial value on life or the loss of life)
2. Give an amount relative to their income or some other known loss
3. Give nothing.

[bettyellen]

36. replacing what was known to be lost? duplicating payment of life insurance

ignoring what they have in the bank, ensures people who are very well off, who don't miss the income still get much more. people whose lives are devastated by the loss of income get much less.
this was disbursed by charity donations from people wanting to help- probably not intended for millionaires so much. this isn't forcing a company to reimburse a family for loss of life. this money is from people who wanted to help people put in a very bad way by 9/11. the choices this trustee made are contrary to the spirit and intention of the donors.

how is this not about "maintaining a lifestyle" where the wealthy are taken care of and the poor get the short end?
that is the net effect, is it not?

[berni_mccoy]

40. A few facts

The money in the September 11th Compensation Fund was granted by Congress and was taxpayer money. There was over $7 billion payed out in this program. This was not money raised by charity.

Insurance and total net worth was factored into the compensation grants delivered by the 9/11 Compensation Fund. Gifts from charities were not deducted from the compensation. You can read about that here: http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2001/December/01_ag_658.htm

Charities raised under $3 billion dollars and was not used in compensation that was managed by the 9/11 Compnesation Fund. The money collected by charities was poorly coordinated and managed. Eventually, some charities grouped together to form The 9/11 United Services Group. The GAO did an investigation and you can read the report here: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d021037.pdf

[bettyellen]

41. wealthy people were determined to deserve more, whether you like it or not

and part of it is so they can maintain their lifestyle. that's the net result.
i got the two funs confused, but i'm sorry, most people i know think it's disgusting rich people got more.
tax money, charity funds, by and large it ain't the wealthy that paid out the bulk of this money, but somehow they get more then their share, per capita.

[Yollam]

42. This was not a lawsuit situation.

The choice should have been the fair one - number 1.


The families of the rich victims have huge homes to sell and life insurance policies. The families of the poor have NOTHING. Disgraceful to give more to the families of the rich.

Saying what I would like to do to the person who came up with this distribution plan is against posting rules here.

[midnight]

16. It is early and I'm on my first cup of coffee but doesn't this

stem from GDP. Doesn't Gross Domestic Product put it's stamp on how much worth something has? It appears that the labor done by negotiating numbers has more importance than teaching our children how to count these numbers. Something like that. Never took economics.

[genie_weenie]

17. The Education System of the US

has been very good over the last 100 or so years at convincing the Poor and Middle Class that the Rich made their money through hard work and dillgenice alone.

It has also made sure to hide the collusion of Government and the Rich through byzantine and obscure laws and propaganda campaigns ala the "Death Tax!" slogans.

Those in power whether it be Business or Government realize they are natural allies and have for years kept the money amongst themselves.

[ThomCat]

18. The wounded are treated worse.

The people who were catastrophically hurt but survived 911 where shuffled off to workers comp and forgotten. They didn't see a penny of assistance. They're living on Disability or fighting to get it.

[Catherine Vincent]

19. [a person's worth as a human being is tied to how much money they make]

As foreverdem said above, that's the typical republican mindset. I had this same conversation with a friend yesterday about that. She recently quit her job and was telling me how she finally got tired of the way she was treated. Not by her employer but by the customers. You see, she worked in concierge for a upscale hotel and I told her I was surprised that customers that stayed there treated her that way. She said those are the worse customers. She said a lot of them think because of the amount of money they make and pay for these rooms, they should be treated like royalty. One frequest visitor (a lawyer) would fuss and tell her that he makes such and such amount of money. He was jealous because a partner of his would get the bigger suites and he didn't. My friend said they never get him the extra perks because of his attitude. I guaranteed her that this guy was probably a republican.

I don't know why a lot of people think because they have a lot of money, they think they are better than other people and turn up their nose toward them. It's really sad.

[LibDemAlways]

32. Anyone who provides a service to the wealthy

could tell a similar story. I began my short teaching career in East LA where the students were mostly Hispanic. Many of their parents spoke no English. All of them respected me and wanted to know right away if their children were misbehaving or being disrespectful. I went from there to a wealthy school where many of the children had Hollywood/showbiz connections. There I was treated like shit by students and parents alike. These kids could do no wrong, and the parents challenged me on everything. I was just another lowly servant to be treated with disdain.

Having gone from the teaching world to the travel industry, I have a lot of experience dealing with the same issues as your friend, as well. I co-managed a small agency for awhile, and the demands made by the wealthiest customers were often ridiculous. Also, some of the people with the largest bank accounts are actually the most tight-fisted and difficult. One time some clients travelling in Europe lost their first class rail passes, called us collect from Paris, and demanded that we replace them at our expense. Others got pissy and moaned and groaned when we couldn't confirm a specific seat in first class because it was already taken. I had a businessman who had booked a last minute flight from LA to San Francisco. It was too late to confirm any specific seat for him, so I told him he had to get his seat assignment at the gate. I placed a call to the airline's travel agency representative who took a look, told me the flight was very full and that he'd have to take whatever he could get at the gate. There was nothing more she could do. All that was available when he arrived was an undesirable center seat in coach. He called me from the plane and chewed me out, calling me every name in the book and telling me he was going to get me fired for not moving heaven and earth to get him into first class or at least coach on the aisle. The sense of entitlement and the belief that others exist to be doormats is very real and very disgusting.

[earth mom]

20. No one's life is worth more than any other.

The way that they compensated the families of the 911 victims is absolutely vile and totally unconstitutional since the constitution clearly states that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUALLY.

So the "price tag" should be the same for everyone, period.

But since 911 was an inside job and the BFEE wanted to keep the lawsuits at bay they paid out more to those who could afford to sue and less to those who couldn't. It all played out rather perfectly for them too because they were counting on peoples' grief to keep them in line and from searching for the truth. That "hush money" money was just the ticket. :puke:

[deaniac21]

23. .

Mohatma Ghandi Timothy McVeigh
Al Gore Richard Nixon
Joseph McCarthy Thomas Jefferson
Adolf Hitler Louie Pastuer
Jerry Falwell Howard Dean
George Bush Wes Clark

ectera into infinity

[earth mom]

24. Get your point...except...

I'd say Wes Clark = George Bush. :)

p.s. And all men are created equally; but that doesn't mean they are equally good men.

[deaniac21]

25. He is kind of a goofier bush but with good intentions....

[Yollam]

29. Clark is goofier than Bush?

:wtf:

And what's with the multiple posts?

[deaniac21]

31. The page wouldn't update. DU program bug.

[earth mom]

30. No Thanks. I can't stand reTHUGS. eom

[deaniac21]

26. .

[deaniac21]

...

[deaniac21]

..

[deaniac21]

..

[deaniac21]

...

[deaniac21]

..

[deaniac21]

..

[deaniac21]

...

[deaniac21]

....

[deaniac21]

.

[deaniac21]

..

[deaniac21]

27. ...

[opihimoimoi]

21. The Poor better learn to VOTE in Greater NUMBERS

[Breeze54]

33. I don't think 'learning'

to vote by the poor is the issue. I think they're skeptical about their vote counting
or don't believe that it'll make a difference, is the reason they don't get to excited,
come election time. They need motivation but I think the MSM has made it more and more
difficult to get the message out. That's one reason I have frequented yahoo political
chat rooms. And I'm not alone. There are a lot of progressive's invading there and spreading
the truth! At least that's one way to talk over the RW radio talk shows. Dispute the lies.
Try to inform them. It isn't easy though. And the bad info is reinforced in their churches.












edited for spelling typo

[opihimoimoi]

54. Its the Season for "Reason to Vote"..

The Book 1984 ...the story....has come close...to our present mess.

Smart Voting results in ...Smart Gov'ts....results in....Smart Decisions...results in/Leads to...Less waste/Loss.....more efficency

... Higher Level of Living for General Soviety...Better for the COMMON GOOD...

We NEED to VOTE......

[Breeze54]

70. It's always "The Season for Reason to Vote"!

The poor get shit on more than pampers!
:grr:

[bobbolink]

83. Thanks, Breeze, and you're right.

Who was it who stood in line for 3, 5 and up to 11 hours to vote in Ohio?

It sure wasn't the rich, or the muddle class!

Seems to me standing in line that long showed lots of "motivation", and I think we owe them something for such loyalty! At least a little respect.

[bobbolink]

34. Thanks for the nice slam at poor folk.

Such aloha.

NOT.

[opihimoimoi]

51. It was NOT meant to be a slam.....It was regarding the VOTER

turn out numbers.....

Dismal at best

People vote pocketbook

Those in poverty have the most to gain by voting....

The most to lose by NOT VOTING....

[bobbolink]

82. Your assumptions don't gain voters.

Of *course* it was a slam.

Substitute any other group in place of "poor people" and it would be considered discrimination.

When the Dems start reaching out to poor people again, then things *will* change.

[opihimoimoi]

89. Why must the Poverty stricken wait for the Dems to reach out to them?

They should be energizing themselves to vote...Xhrist, it would only take 5% OR SO, TO CHANGE THINGS AROUND....

My assumptions don't gain voters....maybe thats the way it is...

All I said was for the poverty stricken to vote more often and in greater numbers...

If you wanna take that as a slam, thats your call.

[bobbolink]

90. If 5% is all it would take, then why aren't the Dems offering more

to people in poverty?

I hear your anger, although I don't understand it, and I'm sure you hear mine. I'll explain mine more.

WHY -- do the Dems "reach out" to gays, but can't reach out to poor folk? Look at all the activism for gays now, yet it's too much trouble to advocate for poverty issues?

WHY -- do the Dems "reach out" to minorities, but not to poor people regardless of race? (Although African Americans are beginning to say that if the Dems can't be more active about race issues, they will look elsewhere for their voting.)

WHY -- Do the Dems "reach out" to labor unions, but can't be bothered with poor folk? Especially considering that many unionists now vote GOP! But, I sure don't hear the comments about labor that I do about poor folk!

That's just for starters... many more examples.

ALSO-- as I said further in this thread..... you so roundly assume that poor folk don't vote, yet what about all those who stood in lines for 3, 5 and more hours??? What about them?? Wanna give them credit for *their* vote? I'm sure you are aware that it wasn't rich or muddleclass people who stood in line hour after hour, yet I don't hear you confronting them. That really makes my blood boil. It wasn't enough that so many people FOUGHT to vote in 2000 and 2004 and don't get acknowledged for their effort, there is so much assumption that they didn't bother, and vilification of them after false assumptions like this! How 'bout thinking that through?

Lastly, thanks to a kind DUer, I was given this link, and the message in it would spell out some of this to you. I hope that you will take the opportunity to listen, and maybe understand what some of us are so worked up about.

http://www.unc.edu/law/povertycenter/audio/barber.mp3

The understanding is worth your time.

[lonestarnot]

22. It's a class war baby and as soon as people wake up to this fact, we

will be better off in the world. K & R

[leftchick]

28. I think of Hotel maids and public toilet cleaners

For me those have to be some of the worst jobs. I mean I hate fucking cleaning toilets! I can't imagine doing it all day long all week, cleaning up other people's urine and shit! I would go insane!

[0007]

38. It took you four years to figure that one out?

[Yollam]

43. No, it pissed me off then, too.

Occasionally things like this pop back into my mind and piss me off all over again.

[0007]

59. I know what ya mean jelly bean!

[porphyrian]

39. And people still have the nerve to deny the rampant classism. - n/t

[undergroundpanther]

46. Oh yes

they deny it,Ohhh You don't think ALL rich people are bad people do you?

No, but I do think too much money is the root of all evil (Thugs with wealth bought our government for themselves)so it has an effect on people that is not always good.Money and"good fortune" can make decent human beings into assholes preaching the philospohies of bullies(social darwinism) as if it was not all about hoarding what they got from others...

[porphyrian]

58. The most obnoxious and unforgiving conservatives I know...

...are the rare few who came from poverty and were gifted and/or lucky enough to make it rich. They believe everyone should be capable of doing the same, and anyone who doesn't is lazy and/or parasitic.

[undergroundpanther]

77. They want to take credit

as if thier"accomplishment" was thier own doing by themselves and they feel thier"good fortune" and ambition makes them somehow worth more than others

[Greyhound]

44. Interesting factoid heard on Frankin this morning...

the average CEO takes more $$ before lunch on Jan. 1, than the minimum wage worker makes all year.

We are sick and fully deserve what is coming. :banghead:

[undergroundpanther]

45. This is why I hate

Evil rich people. They have too much and that IS thier "fortunate" circumstance and thier "fortune" fucks us ALL.

[pitohui]

47. all insurance works like that

they are not compensating you for an intangible, such as what a terrific person you are, they can't, they are compensating you for a measurable -- lost income

it is all very well and melodramatic to say that a low income worker's life is worth just as much as the bond trader's, but if it were really true, then low income workers would have no choice but to blow up where they worked all the time so that they could catapult their descendents into wealth, you would actually make terror into a legitimate economic strategy for the enrichment of one's heirs and the success of one's DNA

[Yollam]

49. This was not an insurance policy.

nt

[pitohui]

50. it was a replacement for insurance -- ins. doesn't cover acts of terror

i get that most if not all on this thread have no clue what they are talking abt but do you really think the families should go uncompensated?

because bear in mind that your life insurance policy DON'T cover acts of terror

don't believe me, read your policy, i get the idea most here have never bothered

[Yollam]

55. I think all the victims' families should have been compensated EQUALLY.

And how do you figure this was a "replacement for insurance"?

[B Calm]

57. Kick and recommended

[newportdadde]

60. Isn't this trying to replacing lost income, like basically any ins policy?

I guess I don't see the problem here, both figures attempt to compensate the family for lost income. It looks like both amounts try to give a vechile for using a conservative investment to keep generating amounts of money similar to their income prior to death.

Don't we all do this? My wife is had no life insurance for the first 6 years of our marriage. Now that we have twin newborns she has a 250k policy to help cover expenses if heaven forbid anything ever happened to her. I imagine when we both get older we will drop our coverage lower because neither of us will no longer need it to replace a form of income or support with the policy.

It makes logical sense to me.

[Yollam]

61. This is NOT an incurance policy.

This is NOT an incurance policy.This is NOT an incurance policy.This is NOT an incurance policy.This is NOT an incurance policy.This is NOT an incurance policy.


How anyone would find it sensible to give MORE money to rich victims and less to poor victims is beyond me.

Infuriating.


God forbid that the rich widow have to move into a duplex, and that the poor widow might actually move from a roach-infested hovel into a decent condo.


We must make sure that even after a tragedy, people stay in their "proper station".


:puke:


These people each suffered an EQUAL loss.

FUCK. This country is beyond hope, if "democrats" agree with this shit.

[newportdadde]

62. Its not about 'rich' its about fairness. That was the fairest way to go

Its the fairest way to do it, its trying to replace income and lost livelyhood. Why is this so hard to understand?

Lets make this more real, lets say you have a couple who is 60 years old and the husband make 35k, they have 3 grown children all moved out and gone. Now lets say you have my family like mine, I'm 30 I make near 60k, I have a wife and 3 young kids 2 1/2 and twin 4 month olds.

The FAIR solution is to provide each party with funds which will replace their current income whatever that is. If you do that nobody moves up in station and nobody moves down in station.

Otherwise you end up saying to the 60 year old widow, your husband made 35k but this money will allow you to get 45 a year now. Then you turn to my wife and say your income goes from 60k to 45k, pack up your three kids and get out of your house because you can't make the payment.

Get what I'm saying? The solution was fair!!!! Neither party gained anything each party had their current income whatever that number was equally 'replaced'.

[Yollam]

66. The fairest way to go would have been to compensate everyone equally.

No, I don't get what you're saying. The wealthy people had huge homes to sell, life insurance, investments - the poor people had nothing.

Stop telling me that something utterly sick is "fair".

[newportdadde]

69. They were compensated equally and fairly.

They were compensated equally based on their income and the loss of that income to their family. There is no other way to do it any more fairly.

You do not know if they had a huge home to sell, infact its very possible the 60+ year old widow had a paid off home, bought when property was cheap to sell for profit then the the younger couple. Life insurance does not pay for things like terrorist attacks or war. Your making assumptions, I guess you want means testing then?

So a firefighter with two kids making 50k rushing in to save lives dies... but he was a good saver and lived frugely so since he has some modest savings in CDs etc he should be punished by giving him a payout equivalent to 35k. Whereas we have this 60 year old alcoholic gambler who made 25K, had nothing because he was broke, lets give his widow a payout equivalent to 35k too because you know he didn't have much...

You have no idea what a person's 'wealth' is, income is not 'wealth'. The only class blind method of compensation is to give the survivors the equivalent of the victims lost income.

Like I said before if you compensate by replacing the existing income of a person NOBODY IS HURT, it is equal, noone gains noone looses.

[Yollam]

71. "Based on income" is the OPPOSITE of equally.

THere is a way to do it more fairly. Take the amount of the entire fund, and divide it equally by the number of victims and distribute it to the corresponding families.

Your way is not equal. I am not talking about "punishing" anyone.

Income is not wealth, but it's a pretty safe bet that most people who had six and seven figure salaries had socked away more of a nest egg than those making 15K at a restaurant.


I guess you want means testing then?

No, I wanted an exactly equal lump sum given to the family of each victim. It's that simple. It requires no testing or looking at income tax returns.


"The only class blind method of compensation is to give the survivors the equivalent of the victims lost income."


This is the most amazingly oxymoronic statement I have read all year. Thank you for that.

I understand where you are coming from. You want the peons in their place and the Junior League ladies to be able to live in the way they have become accustomed to.



Look, it's over anyway. You got your way. The wealthy young brokers wives got a fortune, and the old and poor got a great deal less. To you it's fair.

To me it's sick. Just leave me alone already, okay?

[newportdadde]

72. Its not about keeping someone in their place its about fairness.

Its about compensating the family for their lost income, WHATEVER that amount is. That is fair.

Telling a widow that she gets 35k instead of a 50k because her husband 'earned to much' is NOT fair.

I believe a firefighter dying in the WTC deserves to have his window compensated fairly for the loss of income. I believe a waitress in the WTC deserves to have her family compensated fairly for her loss of income. And yes, a stock broker working in the WTC making money I will never see deserves to have her family compensated fairly for the loss of her income.

A tragedy like loosing a spouse.. a father a mother should not be a tool used to take down those making more then others.

[Yollam]

74. Stop it.

Stop hounding me with your reptilian illogic.

Telling a widow that she gets 35k instead of a 50k because her husband 'earned to much' is NOT fair.



I would say to that telling a widow that she gets 35k instead of a 50k because her husband 'earned to little' is NOT fair.


But you would tell the poorer victims - "The stockbroker was worth more than your dishwasher husband, so his wife gets $300K and you get $25k. It's fair, don't you see?"


You are making zero sense at all. If this was an insurance policy, it would be different. This is OUR tax money. I want it to be distributed EQUALLY, not in greater amounts to the rich.

I'm off to bed, it's late at night here.

[newportdadde]

81. They are trying to have it function as an insurance policy.

Its a pretty good bet most of those life insurance policies did not pay out, they are attempting to give everyone a defacto life insurance policy.

But you would tell the poorer victims - "The stockbroker was worth more than your dishwasher husband, so his wife gets $300K and you get $25k. It's fair, don't you see?"

I would tell all of the family survivors that their payout would be equal to an amount that if invested conservatively would result in the replacement of the vicitms income, which is what they did.

They replaced the income of that individual for each family. For that to work then yes as your income increases the amount of your payout will increase.

Goodnight.

[berni_mccoy]

65. What is the purpose of the compensation then

if not to replace lost income?

I'm trying to understand your position. I agree that there are issues of fairness, but what is the purpose of giving the money in the first place?

[Yollam]

67. The purpose should be to compensate for the loss of a human being...

...not their theoretical potential income over X number of years.

The wealthy victims had insurance, investments, huge homes, the poor had nothing.


Ugh.

[stepnw1f]

63. Kick (nt)

[Deja Q]

73. Where are the "culture of life" supporters? Or are they vultures of life?

[Yollam]

76. Apparently There are only a few of us DUers who even have a problem...

...with this. I guess I'm more out of touch with the democratic party than I thought. No wonder so many working class fools go vote GOP, if they know "liberals" who are so elitist as to support this kind of thing.

I'm feeling very disillusioned. Good night.

[Lars39]

75. How hard would it have been to just divide things on an equal basis?

good grief.

[xenu]

78. That system doesn't measure loss accurately

Those with professional degrees can rebound and recover their income much more quickly.

Those without them face health care costs and other liabilities that could put them deeper and deeper into debt.

[Ksec]

84. Thats the way this country is going under them.

Its always that way when repukes are in control. The poor get royally screwed and the rich get it all.

You would think the people in this country could see this after so many examples . Its truly sickening and it pisses me off to no end to watch this happening. Our government is run by rich people for rich people.

[chaska]

88. Yup, there ya go. that's it right there.