| Author | Message | ||
     Matt (Doc175) Member Username: Doc175 Post Number: 116 Registered: 11-2002 |
As a military man who has been to combat and watched my friends die for the US, this pisses me off. I know this is true, at least from the military side. I feel sorry for the 9/11 people but for God's sake, are you fucking kidding? Whether you like Rush Limbaugh or not, this is worth reading! By Rush Limbaugh I think the vast differences in compensation between the victims of the September 11th casualty, and those who die serving the country in uniform, are profound. No one is really talking about it either because you just don't criticize anything having to do with September 11th. Well, I just can't let the numbers pass by because it says something really disturbing about the entitlement mentality of this country. If you lost a family member in the September 11th attack, you're going to get an average of $1,185,000. The range is a minimum guarantee of $250,000, all the way up to $4.7 million. If you are a surviving family member of an American soldier killed in action, the first check you get is a $6,000 direct death benefit, half of which is taxable. Next, you get $1,750 for burial costs. If you are the surviving spouse, you get $833 a month until you remarry. And there's a payment of $211 per month for each child under 18. When the child hits 18, those payments come to a screeching halt. Keep in mind that some of the people that are getting an average of $1.185 million up to $4.7 million are complaining that it's not enough. We also learned over the weekend that some of the victims from the Oklahoma City bombing have started an organization asking for the same deal that the September 11th families are getting. In addition to that, some of the families of those bombed in the embassies are now asking for compensation as well. You see where this is going, don't you? Folks, this is part and parcel of over fifty years of entitlement politics in this country. It's just really sad. Every time when a pay raise comes up for the military they usually receive next to nothing of a raise. Now the green machine is in combat in the Middle East while their families have to survive on food stamps and live in low rent housing. However our own U.S. Congress just voted themselves a raise, and many of you don't know that they only have to be in Congress one-time to receive a pension that is more than $15,000 per month and most are now equal to be millionaires plus. They also do not receive Social Security on retirement because they didn't have to pay into the system. If some of the military people stay in for 20 years and get out as an E-7 you may receive a pension of $1,000 per month, and the very people who placed you in harms way receive a pension of $15,000 per month. I would like to see our elected officials pick up a weapon and join ranks before they start cutting out benefits and lowering pay for our sons and daughters who are now fighting. "When do we finally do something about this ??" PS---I don't really care for Rush but he is right with this. | ||
| Paul Clawson (Pnut) Member Username: Pnut Post Number: 52 Registered: 02-2003 |
A absolutely agree. I used to work with an ex-navy seal who got shot up in an undisclosed country. he got a fax at work one day saying they were cutting his benefits severely. He looked at another vet at work and said "it makes you feel loved doesn't it?" I couldn't believe it. Its just like when the space shuttle exploded. it was all over the news. the four guys who died in a black hawk helo.....one blurb. I'm not saying the space shuttle wasn't horrific, but give me a break! | ||
| TPH (Snowman) Senior Member Username: Snowman Post Number: 306 Registered: 12-2002 |
Is there another source that could confirm these figures besides Rush Limbaugh? I am simply curious because $1.185 million to $4.7 million seems a bit extreme. Money certainly cannot replace a loved one (experience here) but that seems a bit wacked. Was it through a lawsuit? S- | ||
| Paul D. Morgan (V22guy) Senior Member Username: V22guy Post Number: 1305 Registered: 02-2002 |
I have seen this type of data before in the media. Some of the families that lost people in 9/11 were not happy with the amount of compensation that they were to receive. Their 'standard' of living would have to change. The numbers are based on a 'loss of income' index. In regards to Military death benefits; those who serve, volunteer to do so. Before you go in, you are briefed on such matters and are allowed to up your benefits. For example, when I was in the Corps; If I crashed while flying around in a Helo, my parents would have recieved $200K. I always told my Dad that if it happens, take Mom on a cruise and buy a corvette  It was our way of making light of that situation. Anyway, I am not saying that families that have lost son's or daughter's in war are compensated equally or fairly when compared to the victims of 9/11. I am just saying that the folks in the towers did not volunteer to have a 767 crash into their office space at 600 knots. | ||
| Todd W. McLain (Ganryu) Member Username: Ganryu Post Number: 145 Registered: 10-2002 |
Paul, correct me if I'm wrong, but the $200K your referring to is SGLI, right? If my information is correct, that number actually went up to $300K several years ago, but I'm not positive. Also, if I do remember correctly, there is also a clause that doubles the amount if death occurs in a combat area. I think there are 2 major differences though: 1. Rush is talking about what the government would pay out to the serviceman's family. SGLI would be paid out by the insurance companies that underwrite the program. 2. Should a serviceman not want to pay the $16 a month premium, they can opt out of the program, or select a lower amount. I think what Rush was trying to say was more about the hand-out mentality of today's society that's been created by all of the Great Society programs created by FDR and LBJ, and supported by Paul G. I seriously doubt that he would support paying $1.185M to each servicemember's family as well. The truelly pathetic part in all this is the reason the government is doing it. The whole point of the program is to keep the families from sueing the airlines! My question is: What the hell are they going to sue the airline for? Just another example of the hand-out giveme giveme society. | ||
| Paul T. Schram (Paulschram) Senior Member Username: Paulschram Post Number: 1127 Registered: 02-2002 |
I don't see why we are paying the families of those killed in the WTC attack. If I get killed by an armed intruder, nobody is going to compensate my family beyond what my insurance does. Wrong place, wrong time. Paul | ||
| Steve Hinton (Steve_h) New Member Username: Steve_h Post Number: 16 Registered: 02-2003 |
I agree with Paul! I also served in the military and had friends die while in service. It's a part of the job you know is there when you sign up. But I fail to see why the government should pay the victims families anything. What about the thousands who die in car crashes, or the people killed in tornadoes, or earthquakes? What about the families of the policemen killed on duty or the firemen? What makes the victims families of 9/11 any different? | ||
| Greg Davis (Gregdavis) Senior Member Username: Gregdavis Post Number: 716 Registered: 08-2002 |
"What makes the victims families of 9/11 any different?" Publicity. | ||
| Peter Matusov (Pmatusov) Senior Member Username: Pmatusov Post Number: 536 Registered: 09-2002 |
Matt, funny you should mention that. I actually heard Rush Limbaugh on KFI with that piece. I absolutely agree with Paul Schram - if a brick falls on my head out of a blue sky, my family ain't gonna see any more than my insurance policy's worth. If the families of the victims wanted some _real_ compensation, why sue airlines and government, but not (say) the Saudis? | ||
| Matt (Doc175) Member Username: Doc175 Post Number: 122 Registered: 11-2002 |
Actually,the SGLI is now 250K and costs $20/month. I totaly agree with the thought that the military "signed up for it" but it is the principle that I have a problem with | ||
| Steven Woodbury (Woody) New Member Username: Woody Post Number: 10 Registered: 11-2002 |
Wasn't it Thomas Jefferson who once said,"A Revolution once in a while is a good thing." | ||
| Todd W. McLain (Ganryu) Member Username: Ganryu Post Number: 161 Registered: 10-2002 |
Steven, very much so. Hence a second ammendment allowing for an armed populace. |
