What is everyone's opinion on the government giving as a min. $250,000 to the families and and additional $50,000 for each dependent. This is in addition to any other compensation they will receive.

An article I read had the response of some of the families and they say that is not enought. Two million to begin with!

Can then the families of those killed at Pearl Harbor go after the gov. for compensation?

Yes, this was a terrible loss, but is this the right way to go about healing wounds?

-- Cordy (ckaylegian@aol.com), December 20, 2001

Answers

I dont think the governemnt owes them anything. I know I dont want to pay them. Yes it was a terrible loss, but why are my taxes paying it? I send money to a couple of the 911 funds and wonder were that money is going. It was suppose to go to the victims, but what is a victim? Did you have to be in the tower? If your flower store 2 blocks away was closed due the lack of business of 911 are you a victim? I can see in about 3-5 years there is going to be a big law suit about where the money is or has gone. Redcross has already had problems. It was suppose to go to victims? Again, whats a victim? There were approx 6000 killed in the tower. Red cross has hundreds of millions of dollars donated. Seems a like a lot of money for 6000 people.

-- Gary (gws@columbus.rr.com), December 20, 2001.

I think that the government hopes eventually to recoup the payments from any terrorist monies they have seized and sued for.

Having said that, I don't know about how much should be paid out. Part of me asks why didn't a lot of these people have insurance (term life insurance is really cheap, certainly cheaper than health insurance). And before someone jumps on me for being insensitive, let me note how often you see expensive funerals for the poorest families. That money is better spent on the living.

The example used on TV a lot is the person who worked at one of the brokerage firms with a couple of kids, nice house, etc. vs. the janitor with 8 kids. I think you should pay out the money equally and not count income/insurance/whatever. Or make it not as a cash windfall (that a surviving parent could waste or lose by marrying some deadbeat but as vouchers for a full-ride college education (for the children), rent, or mortgage payments. Maybe buy a house worth up to so much.

There was also a story where they were talking about lessening the government aid to whomever got other aid (Red Cross, Firefighter and Police Charities) and also tying it in with a promise not to sue the airlines. I don't think the airlines should be immune from lawsuits, nor do I think that insurance companies should be allowed to weasel out of paying anying.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), December 20, 2001.

Is anything being considered in the way of compensation for the innocents killed in Afghanistan?

-- john hill (john@cnd.co.nz), December 20, 2001.

I also have a problem with the government making these payouts because it is coming out of my pocket!

My first reaction when I read the article was that these people were money hungry. Yes, bread winners were lost, but if you are healthy, get a job and stop moaning. So you have to sell that million dollar house and that Lexus, so you can't go out to eat 7 days a week and shop, shop, shop. There are so many more important things in this world. And what is this teaching the children? That if someone gets killed the government will pay and everything will be OK.

Sometimes (most of the time) I do not understand today's mentality.

No amount of money will ever replace a loved one, and as for pain and suffering, everyone who has ever lost someone goes through that and we grieve and go on with our lives the best we know how. Not asking for others to give us money because we lost someone, but doing for ourselves. Growing in confidence, strength and the knowledge that we did it! Learning new skills and then teaching others. Teaching our children real values so that they can weather any storm.

And as for Bush, well it is the holiday season and I will be king and not say anything.

-- Cordy (ckaylegian@aol.com), December 20, 2001.

When you come down to it, $250,000 plus $50,000 per dependent isn't all that much money. Say it comes out to $350,000 total. If someone were earning $40,000 per year (and that income ceased on 9-11), it would represent less than nine years of gross income. Some of those brokers may have been earning $1M a year, maybe more, with commissions and bonuses. Remember many of these folks may have been living a good life based on paycheck/bonus to paycheck/bonus. When it stopped, the lifestyle goes with it. Really no different than Joe Sixpack who gets laid off without any guaranteed income. Also, nothing I have seen indicates these payment are exempt from state and federal income taxes.

Another way to look at it, $1B divided between 4,000 people comes to $250,000 each. $1B doesn't go that far either.

-- Ken S. in WC TN (scharabo@aol.com), December 20, 2001.

P.S. to John H.

Once thing settle down there, there will be billions in foreign assistance pouring into the country. If past indications are an indication, bureaucratic expenses will skim off some and another healthy portion will go to warloads and movers and shakers for distribution or protection expenses. Some may eventually trickle down to the deserving.

Take the U.S. humanitarian food drops as an example. Almost immediately these packets started to show up in the bazarres (sp?) for sale.

-- Ken S. in WC TN (scharabo@aol.com), December 20, 2001.

I am a Libertarian, and coincidentally a realist and a fatalist. One of my beliefs has always been that life insurance is intended to take care of those left behind, but in a financial way. There is no reasonable compensation for the loss of love, closeness, and guidance by a lost loved one in monetary terms. If you need life insurance for your family to continue without hardship, that is your responsibility. And "accidental death" riders are only a way for the insurance company to make money. You need the insurance or don't, regardless of how you manage to cash in your chips. Whether you get run over by a moose, pick the wrong car or airplane, or die of terminal stupidity doesn't make much difference - you're still dead and they still need the same amount of support. And the thousands who have died in accidents since 11 Sept aren't even being considered for special treatment. Why? I abhor the events of 11 Sept. I grieve for those affected. But they are no more dead than the rest who have assumed room temperature before and since. Is it somehow politically correct to show sympathy for the deceased (really the survivors) depending upon how they went to the Great Beyond? (another whole debate here!) I think not. GL!

-- Brad (homefixer@SacoRiver.net), December 20, 2001.

John, the US was and is, one of, if not the largest, charitable contributoers to Afghanistan, even before Sept.11. Maybe we should take some of UBL's money and distribute to the country and people (Afghanistan) he helped destroy? Or maybe the Taliban should be made to pay retribution to all the widows they helped create over the years?

-- Annie (mistletoe6@earthlink.net), December 20, 2001.

Annie, I believe the US were indeed the largest contributors of aid to Afghanistan in the Taleban days. No one knows how many widows were created under the Taleban regime but they were very strong on law and order and Afghanistan was a safer place for the ordinary person than since maybe the communist revolution. Time will tell if the 'new order' being imposed there will be an improvement.

-- john hill (john@cnd.co.nz), December 20, 2001.

John, I hope and pray that Afghanistan comes out of this last 20 odd years of war, with peace and a government that is truly for the good of IT'S people. It would be nice to see the people elect their own government in time to come. The vast majority of the people of Afghanistan seem to be kind people and they surely deserve better than they have had in their country. Here's hoping, anyhow.

-- Annie (mistletoe6@earthlink.net), December 20, 2001.

And what is an innocent anyway? Are you innocent? I'm not. When they say "hundreds of innocent people were killed." do they mean "hundreds of people who did not have ill will towards their killers?" That I could understand, but where does the 'innocent' part come in.

And just who are 'they'?

Sept. 11 was an unspeakable tradgedy. UBL will pay. Go GB43.

-- chuck in md (woah@mission4me.com), December 20, 2001.

Just saw that the first lawsuit was filed against United Airlines by the wife of one of the guys on one of the planes. She is asking for "unspecified" damages and isn't accepting any federal money as that is tied to not suing the airlines. Greed on her part, or just maximimizing her return? I've seen stories about families who have already collected $10's of thousands who claim the aide isn't coming fast enough. My opinion is that, deserving or not, a one time payout and all goes away is much better for us as a society than endless lawsuits and a full employment act for those in the legal profession.

-- ray s (mmoetc@yahoo.com), December 20, 2001.

Brad, your answer about picking the wrong airplane is interesting, and to me should be an example that the courts should use to disallow any kind of blanket "no payouts due to terrorist acts clauses" used by insurance companies or airlines to weasel out of paying now or in future. Of course it was an accident people died in 9/11, just as if they died in a car crash. They happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. We are not talking about being on a military base in time of war. No one would have been in those planes or in the tower if they'd known what was going to happen. It was an accident you were there--the only ones who should be denied payments were the terrorists if they had policies in force.

I read the news story on the settlement proposal, and I still think it should be equal payments across the board if they have to do it. Taking into account pensions and insurance, etc. is NOT fair to those who did the right thing by their families and had insurance, or whose potential earning power was quite high. What they're proposing now sounds as though they're figuring that those at the other end of the scale were going to win the lotto at some point.

Not to mention the money would get to the survivors a lot faster instead of being bogged down by appeals and such. It is a good bet that aid will probably NOT be taxed. And I agree with others about the pain and suffering aspect--you cannot possibly compensate for that, so don't even try.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), December 20, 2001.

Ken, when you say that $250,000 isn't that much when you compare it to a regular years income you are right. BUT, when you get $250,000 in a lump sum and can invest it, it IS big money when compounding takes place over just a few years. What that amounts to is the life savings for an average person, handed over to families well before that loved one would have ever saved that much. Is it right? In my opinion, no. If you treat every family in the country who has a bread winner dead in a car accident, etc., that way, ok fine. But they don't. The reason you die shouldn't matter to a family when it comes to financial compensation. But I don't see the US gov nationalizing life insurance anytime soon, so it's all moot, anyway. People may genuinely need help and should be helped, but they shouldn't have a lifetime's savings dumped in their lap. I'll tell you, I'm 44 and if the gov handed me a minimum of a quarter million (tax free, of course) I would seriously think about retiring.

-- Jennifer L. (Northern NYS) (jlance@nospammail.com), December 20, 2001.

This country has become insane with compensation for things that are bad luck, being in the wrong place at the wrong time, stuff that in years past never would have been considered for any kind of governmental dividend . . . . taxpayers are paying for enough "insane" things as it is. . . . enough is enough!!! Stop the insanity!!!

If we expect this sort of thing . . . or blindly accept that our tax dollars (and more) is being used for it . . . . there is something wrong, I say!!!

The system has become "silly" altogether . . . for example just look at the payment McDonald's had to fork over for the idiot who was silly enough to spill coffee ON HIMSELF!?!?! What . . . places and people are expected to pay because he's a klutz?? NO!!! I think it's all ridiculous. . . . but that is just my humble opinion.

-- wolfie (wolfiequinn@hotmail.com), December 20, 2001.

Hi,

I think that the aid that was contributed by ordinary people through the Red Cross, United Way, or any of the concerts which were held for victims of 9/11 should be distributed. And distributed lock, stock and barrel down to the very last penny, including all the interest earned on that money. That is what the money was given for - victims families. I also think that charity begins at home, not with the US Government. I am the sole breadwinner in my family and if I get laid off, die, etc. what gov. agency is going to pay my family? NONE. Any monies that would be paid out for unemployment or SS, I guarantee I paid in more over the past 25 years to compensate for what little would be paid out.

Granted 9/11 was a disasterous event, horrible to those who survived it and to those families whose loved ones did not survive it. However, to expect to receive $300,000 plus from the FEDs is a bit much. It won't replace those that are dead, and if the folks who worked those high paying jobs didn't have insurance.., well they weren't very good planners now were they? Sorry to sound so awful, but at most any job (especially those that pay six figures) insurance is offered through the employer. Even at my low salary, I can take out up to six times my annual salary without a physical. The insurance is cheap through my employer, and was cheap through my last employer as well. If you still think you need more insurance, there is always private term insurance as well. I have insurance and I pay the premiums so my husband and my last boychild will have income in case I die. Doesn't matter whether it is an accident or not. I don't want them to have to do without the basics that they need to get by on. That is my responsibility to decide how much they will need to pay off the mortgage, plan for college, etc.

Why do people nowdays think that everytime something horrible happens, the government is supposed to pay out? Where is it written in the constitution that the Federal government will bail out every disaster? To many people nowadays thinks the government owes them something-unfortunately no one considers where that "something" comes from - all us taxpayers...personally I do not think my tax dollars should go to that. If it does, then line up Agent Orange Victims, earthquake, flood, Blacks who were wronged in 1800's, Indians who were wronged between 1800 and 1900, small farmers families who were pushed out by the Grangers, the list goes on and on...

-- Cindy (colawson@mindspring.com), December 20, 2001.

In rereading the original thread, I would like to point out, as far as I know, none of these payments to individuals or families are coming out of U.S. taxpayer pockets through the federal government. All of it is distribution of monies collected by various charities.

The government will, in all likelihood, bale out the insurance companies for a portion of the property losses.

-- Ken S. in WC TN (scharabo@aol.com), December 20, 2001.

Ken, this link to the Yahoo article:

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20011220/ts/attacks_victims_fund_6.html

clearly says "federal aid program" like in the first sentence or two. I saw that person authorized to run it on one of the news shows, and they were talking about factoring in how much they would count or discount monies received from the charities. I don't know if they have dropped that idea or not.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), December 20, 2001.

Everybody, Boy, I love this forum! I have been stewing for two months on this issue and biting my tongue so nobody would think I was unfeeling. All I can think of these days when I hear about the millions of dollars being collected for the victims of 9/11 is WHAT ABOUT ALL THE HOMELESS IN THIS COUNTRY ?! PEOPLE SLEEPING ON HEATING DUCTS AND GOING THROUGH DUMPSTERS FOR SUPPER. WHAT ABOUT THE UNDERPRIVILEDGED MINORITIES WHO CAN'T AFFORD COLLEGE TUITION. WHAT ABOUT AIDS RESEARCH? CANCER RESEARCH? ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS? AND OTHER CHARITIES? In other words, while the loved ones of 4,000 to 6,000 people in New York City and Washigton D.C. are being turned into overnight millionaires, the rest of this country continues to suffer hardship and hunger silently. WHERE IS THE FUND FOR THAT?!

-- DeborahStephenson (wonkaandgypsy@hotmail.com), December 20, 2001.

What Deborah Stephenson said. Really where is the funds to aid All the suffering Americans? I read that 55% of the available grants were reallocated for the "victims" of the 9-11 tragedy.

-- Kenneth in N.C. (wizardsplace13@hotmail.com), December 20, 2001.

Something is wrong with this picture...Let's see.

If you got killed in the 911 attack, your relatives should each get $50,000 to tide them over, Hmm.

Now lets say that you just worked there, and somehow survived. A lot more survived than perished. O.K. then you should get maybe $200 a week for unemployment. You will get this for 26 weeks and then you and all your problems (family included) will just disappear into the woodwork. You won't be unemployed anymore because your claim will be over. As a matter of fact you really won't count for much of anything after your unemployment claim is gone. You can be pretty sure that the building where you used to work, will still be gone too.

Sounds to me like this is a mindset. Both hands in the cash register and head stuck deeply into the sand.

-- Ed Copp (OH) (edcopp@yahoo.com), December 20, 2001.

Did the families of the folks killed in the bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma get some kind of settlement from the government? I don't remember hearing anything about the government giving them huge sums of money and they were federal employees and killed by an American! I probably missed the info about this but have wondered every since I hear about the big payoffs. What about the people who have lost loved ones in natural disasters?

I would hope that these young, successful business people would have thought to protect their families with insurance.

-- Betsy (betsyk@pathwaynet.com), December 20, 2001.

I have had a real problem with all the money being raised for the families let alone with the government wants to pay. I know it was a real disaster and have cried right along with the rest of the world; however, anyone could die on the job of anything. If I don't have sufficient life insurance to provide for my family, why shoud I feel that the rest of the world owes it to my family to support them. If I die of a heart attack on the job is it up to my employer and America to put my kids through college, keep my pay checks coming to the husband and kids, etc.??? I don't get it!

-- Karen (db0421@yahoo.com), December 20, 2001.

On the news one night they said the surviving widow or minor children of any NYC firefighter killed in the line of duty receive 100% of the firefighters salary tax free.

-- fred (fred@mddc.com), December 20, 2001.

As a Libertarian, I agree with Brad, when our federal government starts "playing God" and thinks that throwing money at every problem that life brings our way is THE answer, then, yes, I have a big problem with that attitude!!!

Life is about making responsible decisions, and life insurance is one of them, so is disability, unemployment, and health insurance. Folks need to be reminded our governments sole purpose is to run this country in the manner intended and clearly stated in our Constitution, not to be our baby-sitter and make all of our decisions for us.

-- Annie Miller in SE OH (annie@1st.net), December 20, 2001.

Appears I have to eat crow on it not being taxpayer monies.

December 21, 2001

COMPENSATION

Victims' Fund Likely to Pay Average of $1.6 Million Each

By DIANA B. HENRIQUES and DAVID BARSTOW

WASHINGTON, Dec. 20 — The overseer of the federal fund set up for the families of those killed or injured in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks estimated today that the fund could cost taxpayers as much as $6 billion and would provide tax-free awards, on average, of approximately $1.65 million for the families of those who died in the attacks.

Kenneth R. Feinberg, the special master of the Sept. 11 Victim Compensation Fund, offered the estimates as he unveiled the regulations that would guide the fund's work when it opens for business on Friday. Those rules allow Mr. Feinberg to grant larger awards if evidence shows they are justified by "extraordinary circumstances."

The likely awards by the fund, based on the economic assumptions Mr. Feinberg has adopted, range from $300,000 for an unmarried 65- year- old who earned $10,000 a year to $4.35 million for a 30-year-old who had a spouse and two children and who made $175,000 a year.

The estimated price of the no-fault compensation fund, the first of its kind ever created in the aftermath of an American disaster, is considerably lower than early, unofficial legislative forecasts, in part because the number of victims has shrunk to roughly half the number first feared lost in the attacks. Moreover, Mr. Feinberg has clearly put limits on how much the families of very high- income victims will be able to recover from the fund.

By law, the fund's awards must be reduced by whatever life insurance, pension payments, death benefits or government assistance victims' families have received — a step that could pare the public cost to roughly $4.8 billion. Charitable contributions received by the families will not be deducted from the awards, however. To seek an award from the fund, claimants must waive their right to sue over the disaster, a requirement intended to limit airline liability for the attacks.

"I have met with hundreds of claimants, families who have suffered, and I am absolutely of one mind on this," Mr. Feinberg said at a news conference at the Department of Justice. "Whatever we do is of small comfort, and I realize that. We do, however, aim to provide some appropriate compensation, some limited measure of comfort."

The fund, he said, would pay the awards within four months and would spare families the need to "revisit the tragic events of Sept. 11 over and over again during the pendency of a lawsuit in our courts."

Victims' families, lawyers and public officials, who have been waiting for months for some indication of how the fund will operate, gave the new rules and the projected payouts a widely mixed reception.

The president of the Association of Trial Lawyers of America, which is providing free legal help for families that file a claim with the fund, applauded the program, noting that the procedures allowed families unsatisfied with a potential award to argue for more.

But some victim representatives said the estimated awards were far lower than they had hoped for, particularly with regard to the compensation for pain and suffering, which they say is much lower than they might have won in court. Mr. Feinberg, whose awards are not reviewable by any court, determined that an unmarried victim without children should get $250,000 for pain and suffering. He decided that an additional $50,000 each would be awarded for any surviving spouse or child.

"It's an absolute disgrace, and as I read it, it only gets worse," said Michael Cartier, who lost a brother in the disaster and who is a member of Give Your Voice, which represents some families of civilians killed in the attacks.

The fund, which makes its awards based largely on the lost earning power of those who died, is also likely to be of little satisfaction to the families of the uniformed rescuers, about 400 of whom died at the Trade Center. Because the families of firefighters and police officers who die in the line of duty receive generous lifetime pensions and a $250,000 federal award, it will be difficult for them to argue that they have suffered great economic damage. Mr. Feinberg acknowledged that the fund's treatment of the families of some uniformed services personnel "is a big question mark" but said he would take a fresh look at the rules if it appeared that such families were "walking away with nothing."

The fund's new rules also drew strong criticism from Eliot L. Spitzer, the New York State Attorney General, who said they were "unduly restrictive and subvert the intent of Congress, which was to fully compensate all victims of the tragedy." Mr. Spitzer said he was particularly concerned about the limits the rules put on who was eligible to file a claim for physical injury.

Mr. Feinberg yesterday defended his efforts, saying that the fund was a much more attractive option for families than the uncertainties of costly, protracted litigation.

Even for wealthy people, the awards contemplated here are substantial and far better than going to court, he said. "I am hard pressed to accept the argument that these awards are too low," he added. "This is a classic trade-off between administrative speed and efficiency and rolling the dice in court and going for the proverbial pot of gold."

Although the federal statute that created the fund did not explicitly require him to do so, Mr. Feinberg has clearly tried to address the disparities between the awards made to the families of the wealthiest victims and those made to families whose lost breadwinner earned far less.

The awards increase steadily as the victim's income increases from $10,000 a year to $225,000 a year — but after that, substantial increases in income do not produce substantially larger awards. Thus, the award for a victim who earned $2 million a year is not appreciably more than the one for a victim who earned $225,000 a year.

Although Mr. Feinberg insisted that he had not set a limit on the awards the fund would make, he warned that awards of more than $3 million "will rarely be appropriate." Similarly, although he said that there was no official minimum award, the rules are aimed at ensuring that — between the fund's award, life insurance, death benefits and other noncharitable compensation — no victim's family would get less than $300,000 for those without dependents, or $500,000 for those who were married with children.

The most contentious issue Mr. Feinberg faced was the task of putting a dollar figure on the "pain and suffering" and other noneconomic losses sustained by the victims and their families. Some victims' advocates had argued that this component of the awards should vary depending on how each had died — instantly and without warning, or after nearly an hour of choking smoke and fear. Such factors usually play a significant role in the determination of jury awards in court cases over wrongful deaths.

Mr. Feinberg acknowledged that "each person experienced the unspeakable events of that day in a unique way." But, he said: "I will not play Solomon. I cannot make those distinctions, and I will not make those distinctions. Every life is valuable." Instead, he said, "the most rational and just way" to deal with these variations in personal tragedy was to establish a single, uniform amount of compensation for everyone — in this case, $250,000, plus $50,000 for a spouse and for each minor child left behind.

He said he was willing to listen to arguments that this element of the awards should be higher, but he noted that this figure conformed roughly to the amounts paid under existing federal programs that compensate the families of police officers and military personnel who are killed in the line of duty.

Mr. Feinberg has clarified some uncertainties that stemmed from the hastily drafted airline bailout legislation that created the fund.

The fund is open to claims filed on behalf of anyone — other than the terrorists — who died on the hijacked jets, at the Pentagon, or at the World Trade Center, including illegal aliens. But Mr. Feinberg has now defined who can file a claim for "physical harm."

Such claims may be filed only by those who were "present at the site" — defined as any area where Mr. Feinberg concludes "there was a demonstrable risk of physical harm" — during the "immediate aftermath" of the attacks. For civilians, the immediate aftermath means within 12 hours of the attacks. But for rescue workers, that period is extended to 96 hours.

However, Mr. Feinberg defines physical harm to mean an injury that was "treated by a medical professional within 24 hours" and "either required hospitalization as an in-patient for at least 24 hours or caused, either temporarily or permanently, partial or total physical disability, incapacity or disfigurement."

Mr. Spitzer, the New York Attorney General, argues that this definition would bar claims by those who continued to work despite severe pain, by those who deferred medical treatment for more than 24 hours so that they could reunite with their families, and by those who were treated, without documentation, at the emergency triage centers that sprang up the day of the attacks.

Families seeking to file a claim have two options under the rules. They can submit documentation supporting their claim, await a decision, and then seek a hearing to argue for a higher figure. Or they can seek a hearing first, make their arguments, and then await a decision, which would be final.

Moreover, anyone eligible to file a claim can immediately apply for emergency awards of $50,000 for death or $25,000 for serious injury.

The rules permit a single claim per victim, but Mr. Feinberg declined to determine who should file that claim, deferring instead to state probate and inheritance laws. Thus, he did not specifically invite claims filed by same-sex partners, fiancés or fiancées, and others lacking a clear, documented relationship to the victims, although he did not rule out such claims.

-- Ken S. in WC TN (scharabo@aol.com), December 21, 2001.

Wow!. I did not think I would get this kind of response. Thought most on the forum would think I was cold hearted and cheap. I just got so angry with what was going on with the payout.

Many of us have lost someone or have an illness that keeps them from working, or have lost their jobs. What about all those people who lost jobs since Sept. 11, is the government paying them so they can pay their bills? I don't think so.

When I was in NY over Thanksgiving, we went down to ground zero. It reminded me of pictures of Hiroshima and the bomb that fell, but what bothered me more was the souviner hawkers out there. Selling postcards, flags, pins and charging you for the use of a marker to write on a memorial. Eight dollars for a roll of film! Is that all everyone wants out of this...money! Has no one learned anything?

-- Cordy (ckaylegian@aol.com), December 21, 2001.

Cordy, you are quite right, humans haven't changed much since Shakespeare wrote "The Merchant of Venice". Sad, isn't it ???

-- Annie Miller in SE OH (annie@1st.net), December 21, 2001.

Cordy, now you've done it! Stirred up a hornets nest, I think. But I'll give you my 2 cents worth anyway! The whole World Trade Center/Pentagon event is certainly a tragedy. But, why should these people be given money? If they didn't have life insurance, why should we pay? What about the Oklahoma City bombing? What about all the wars we've fought? Today everyone is a victim, and everyone wants to sue to get easy money. In what way are the airlines liable for this? Yes, perhaps tighter security measures were needed, but you take a chance when you fly just like everything else. Accidents really do happen & it isn't anyones fault. This is what is wrong in todays world. No one wants to work or pull their full share! I'm only 34 years old but todays people are so soft, they wouldn't have lasted 50 - 100 years ago when people really worked. If they didn't work, they starved. Please don't get me wrong, I am a soft hearted person, but today's world is me, me, me. I also live by the motto "everthing happens for a reason". We might not understand why it happened, but fate is not something to question. Thanks for letting me vent my 2 cents worth!

-- Michael W. Smith in North-West Pennsylvania (kirklbb@penn.com), December 22, 2001.