SI
SI
discoversearch

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: YlangYlangBreeze who wrote (43525)2/5/2002 2:40:04 PM
From: Lane3  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 82486
 
Nicely put, Karen.

..for a dead person.



To: YlangYlangBreeze who wrote (43525)2/8/2002 2:27:20 PM
From: Lane3  Respond to of 82486
 
Time has an extensive article on victims' compensation if you're interested.

One clip: "Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan privately told congressional leaders that getting the planes up again was the single biggest "multiplier" that could revive the economy on every level. So the Democrats, who usually balk at limiting the ability to sue, accepted the idea of an airline bailout — as long as it came with a mechanism to compensate victims."

And another: "Congress created the fund as a safety net for the victims' families, to ensure that they maintain something resembling their current standard of living — whether they get assistance from private insurance or government money. The families see it as so much more. For the traumatized, the charts are like a Rorschach test. Some view the money as a halfhearted apology for the breakdown in security and intelligence that made the attacks possible. Others can't help seeing the award as a callous measure of their loved one's value. Many regard it as a substitute for the millions they think they may have got in court, had the liability not been capped. When the total comes out to be underwhelming, these families take it personally. There's a fundamental clash between the way they interpret the purpose of the fund and the way the government sees it."

time.com