Can someone explain to me why the Govt paid money to Sept 11 victims families?

[modest mouse]

Its been nearly a year and I have yet to fully understand why the Govt stepped in with money paid directly to the families of victims.

Does this set a precedent?

For terrorism? (OK City)

For Airline crashes? (Too many to mention)

How many have to die in an act to merit Govt involvment, financially?

 

[Guru]

 

[modest mouse]

Not so much skeptical as left witht he feeling that the Govt. engaged in PR.

4,000?

Shouldnt it be one or one million? No in-between.

Look at it from the POV of an outsider and it seems somewhat odd. have yet to get my head around it.

 

[HeavyStick]

I'm more worried why the Red Cross got over 2 Billion dollars and has paid out less than 25% of that. Hell George Clowney....errr Clooney did his charity event and paid out almost every dime except admin expenses. (not saying you are) Some people complain about Government spending, this case it was worth it, taking care of our own. The Red Cross was designed to help out and what has it done?

 

[Lost Cause]

Mommy Government......

Bailing out the insurance companies from paying out. Where's the "compassionate" government when a soldier dies in a foreign land? The family of a soldier gets a couple grand, and a flag, no national sympathy, no rush to pay for the estimated earnings of that person's life! It seems to me that it's divisive to highlight the victims of that attack, while ignoring others like the embassy bombings, or assasinations. Not to mention again, bailing out those fucking insurance companies! (They are a bigger threat to our freedom than the terrorist threat!)

 

[70/30]

American lives are worth $5-10million, it's why we can't fight a real war ever again. Mommies will cry that their Billy Joe Bob was the most precious thing on this planet. She'll say after he turned 19 and he got his GED, she just knew he was gonna make it to the top but his life was tragically cut short. War is too costly.

 

[modest mouse]

The Red Cross isnt spending my money. The Govt is.

The families were given far larger sums than soldiers who died in Afghanistan. The soldiers knew the risks but it still sits wrong with me.

 

[HeavyStick]

I'm not disagreeing with you on how disproportionate the money is. but the Red Crosses coffers were NEVER this full. 9/11 gave them that. The Red Cross OWES the 9/11 victims it's bulging coffers. Some victims have been promised compensation by TRC and haven't received ANYTHING after they were promised.

I'm in the military, I know what we DON'T get, but instead of me whining about it I get pleasure in hearing how others enjoy it.

I'm discussing this with you modest mouse, not against you.

 

[Shy Tall Guy]

How many have to die in an act to merit Govt involvment, financially?

Enough to makeup a constituency of the people they leave behind - who will in turn ask for compensation, or at least be very grateful. Enough to make the Pols and the government seem compassionate for doing so. Enough for there to be a health chunk of change for someone to skim off admin costs. Enough for there to be some power gained by the Pols and Bureaucrats involved.

Why did the government pay compensation? All of those reasons and a few more:

Because we are so deep into the mindset that the government should take care of us if anything bad happens to us, that even when it is very clear that it is someone's else fault, that we want, nay we demand immediate "compensation". Hell, it isn't even compensation; compensating for what? Compensation infers some kind of responsibility, some kind of liability.

Such a mindset is so ingrained that the government immediately goes about "compensating" people before they even ask for it.

Can someone tell me how the government is responsible for the weather? For insects? For volcanos?

We "compensate" flood victims, earthquake victims, volcano victims, victims of a bad economy, victims of a good economy, victims of a war, victims of an oil embargo, victims of a tornado, victims of a drought, victims of an over abundancy in a crop, victims of crop failures, victims of insects, victims of a cold winter, victims of a hot summer, victims of tidal waves, victims of hurricanes, victims of snow storms, victims of wind storms - I could go on and on (I have, to make a point).

We are all a bunch of victims and the government our mother.

 

[modest mouse]

Lost Cause,

It is my understanding that the insurance companies are NOT being bailed out, that the Govt payments exist separate from insurance settlements.

***

Heavystick,

I disagree with your position that the Red Cross owes money to the families/victims of 9-11. I think any donation tot he Red Cross is made with a trust in how they distribute it. There were more focused charities available. If the Red Cross has met the needs of the families then I see no problem with them spending the money elsewhere.

However, I do agree that the Red Cross needs to be held accountable, in general.

***

STG,

I cannot take it quit as far as you have.

The Govt 'insuring' its constituency against vertain problems is something I am comfortable with as long is it is kept in check.

The difference is in FEMA rebuilding a washed out bridge and the Govt flat-out paying family memebers of victims.

Please correct me (anyone) if I am wrong but it seems unprecedented. Govt money placed directly in the hands of family memebers of civilians killed by an outside force. yes, the victims were innocent but so are victims of plane hijackings, murder sprees, and any other number of mass deaths.

***

Perhaps a tragedy of scale is the requirment for Govt payments. It just feels wrong.