posted on September 20, 2001 09:12:01 PM new
Don't forget each family will get Social Security benefits for surviving children until they are 18, in school or longer if handicapped. And also for some spouses, in certain situations.
I would like to be able to afford health insurance for me. Semi=retired and not old enough for Medicare, nor able to work.
posted on September 22, 2001 08:42:24 AM new
Well..this question needs to be continually asked! As of this morning, the news channels were reporting that MORE than $400,000,000 had been raised EXCLUSIVE of last nights entertainment telethon! And yet one of the next news blurbs was about how a volunteer worker at ground zero was telling how they could REALLY use some padded shoe inserts for the workers who are on their feet for 12-16 hours at a time???
$400,000,000 (& counting!) and the rescue/recovery teams can't get a pair of $2.98 Johnson shoe pads??
WHERE IS THE MONEY GOING????? And yet we are continuing to be URGED to send in MORE!!??!!
It is also interesting to note that the $20BILLION "bailout/aid" package for the airlines has been stated to be more than FOUR TIMES their losses.....granted the airline industry will be in problems for a while yet....but what about mom & pop America who are having problems? Where is THEIR "aid package"?
The bottom line is that we had ALL better start taking care of our economy now!
posted on September 22, 2001 09:47:34 AM new
<<<It is also interesting to note that the $20BILLION "bailout/aid" package for the airlines has been stated to be more than FOUR TIMES their losses.....granted the airline industry will be in problems for a while yet....but what about mom & pop America who are having problems? Where is THEIR "aid package"? >>>
You know what's MOST interesting about that, Pack? The fact that many Congresspeople wanted to attach a little rider to the bill that would tie the present and future salaries of the CEOs and execs of the airlines that got bailed out to it- that proviso was shot down. YET, what IS in that bill, if I understand properly, is a settlement package for all lawsuits which would bar anyone from suing them for 9/11 negligence once that preordained amount of money runs out. Draw your own conclusions about whether Corporate ummm I'll call it "expediency" should be tied to the taxpayers funding private for profit Corporations.
posted on September 22, 2001 08:20:11 PM newICYU: I was under the silly impression that the disabled vets received their money from the government according to law and not as the beneficiaries of any massive fund-raising event. Thanks for clearing up that misunderstanding for me. Now that I know they're receiving funds via donations, I'll be sure to earmark some money for them.
As for the fund-raising for the victims/survivors, it seems that the only focus is on the WTC people. There were people killed and injured at the Pentagon, too, y'know, yet they get next to no attention. What about them?
posted on September 23, 2001 04:14:59 AM new
GreedBay,
I am 100% in favor of limiting the liability of the airlines for the 9/11 events. Why?
1) The victims wouldn't see one dime of the money anyway. It would *all* go to the lawyers.
2) The airlines don't have any money. What little they do have is coming straight from Congress, not from daily operations.
Therefore, any and all lawsuits against the airlines would *not* be a cash transfer from the airlines to the victims, but a cash transfer from Congress to the lawyers. A person would have to be blind not to see this (after someone has explained it to them).
It is *not* in America's best interest to make all the ambulance chasing lawyers rich off this nation's tragedy, and to do so at the expense of the taxpayers.
If there were any way to make the airlines pay for their security negligence out of their profits (and the salaries of their CEOs), I would be all for it. But there is no such method.
[ edited by StormThinker on Sep 23, 2001 04:20 AM ]
posted on September 23, 2001 04:50:30 AM new
StormThinker-
1. There have been any number of lawyers who have stepped up and are willing to work pro bono and with no fees for a class action suit against the airlines in this case, all proceeds going to the "victims," just like AFA.
2. Some Congresspeople devised a way for thia package to be tied to the salaries of CEOs and other exces by performance. As I said, that proviso was shot down in Committee. Funny how you don't hear of one single Airline exec taking one iota of responsibility for what has been an abject failure of their system for many years now, as both they and airports skimped on costs, etc. Nobody took responsibility for the unbelievably lax hiring practices of personnel (no background checks, low to minimum wage, atrocious training, unreal turnover, etc.) like baggage handlers. With all the hoopla and publicity, have you heard a word from one of these execs?
posted on September 23, 2001 05:32:55 AM new
GreedBay,
I kinda see your point, but as far as I can tell, the airlines don't have any money "right now" anyway. So it's kind of a moot point. And it wouldn't benefit us any to have airline CEOs who are even more incompent (by making such positions not pay as well as other CEO positions requiring similar skill and experience).
Another unpopular opinion is that the airlines are not solely to blame for their lax security. Some portion of the blame must be placed on consumers who always want the lowest possible cost, regardless of the consequences. That same customer mentality is what allowed Wal-Mart to force tens of thousands of mom and pop businesses out of existence.
posted on September 23, 2001 05:45:36 AM new
Stromthinker-
Unfortunately what you said is 100% correct,
and in this instance, the bailout might be the lesser of 2 evils, the other one being these airlines going under. But that's basically blackmail, and blackmail because of the fact that American Corporations know Congress will handle these situation for what they consider "essential" industries like auto, airline, etc. They know that Congress will rush in to save their sometimes-slimy backsides if push came to shove. The point to me is, how can we keep American business from using the taxpayers as a fallback position if they screw up?
And as far of these Airline execs, do you see one of them rushing in to say (voluntarily) that they will forfeit or limit their sometimes-huge salaries themselves, thus taking their part of the responsibility for the situation?
posted on September 23, 2001 06:33:31 AM new
Someone on NPR said yesterday that the Red Cross had already spent millions because of their work at the site.
United Way hadn't spent any of the money yet, but a spokesperson said they will determine where it will best be served.
[This was either on the Diane Rehm Show or Kojo's Public Interest because I was making my post office run.]
Someone reported (probably NPR, that is where I listen) that a committee will be formed to decide where to spend the UWay contributions. Anyone heard who will be part of that committee?
