Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (43480)	2/5/2002 1:21:05 PM
From: YlangYlangBreeze	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 82486

Can someone, someone other than CH, please explain to me, by what rationale, the surviving family memebers of 9/11 attack are entitled to anything, other than normal pensions of firefighters or policemen killed on the job? Didn't they, in part choose their employers for the benfits, and didn't they have a chance to buy life insurance through their employer's or otherwise? Why is the government responsible? Why are they any more deserving than any other firefighter killed in line of duty, any innocent person killed in a crime, say, drive by shooting? What is life insurance for? Didn't they declare a value on their loved ones, when they bought (or didn't buy) a life insurance policy? Why did some sacrifice to pay premiums if the government was going to make it up if they didn't? If they didn't have insurance, aren't the destitute entitled to welfare, same as any other poor widows, widowers, children? Likewise, having lost a lifetime worth of income is different than being paid a million bucks up front where one could live off the interest 50k/year at 5% for the rest of their lives without having worked, passing on the fund to their survivors. I don't understand. (I am explicitly not asking you CH, so you don't slip in your weirdassed comments. )