redelk
Moderator
Please... speak to the hand.
Posts: 3212
|
posted January 06, 2005 01:03 AM
 Edited By: redelk on 6 Jan 2005 10:00
OT: What is a dead U.S. Soldier worth?
 There has been a supposed quote from Rush Limbaugh floating around that compares the compensation between a U.S. soldier versus someone who lost their loved on on 9/11. Since all of the dollar amounts are not quite correct, I won't post the original "quote". It did cause me to look up the data on snopes.com. Kinda interesting... sad... and just something that doesn't seem quite right.
U.S. Soldier Death Benefits
Servicemen's Group Life Insurance (SGLI) program pays $250,000 to the families of servicemen killed while on ACTIVE service. Servicemen and women have to pay $20 per month premiums for this insurance.
A $6,000 death gratuity to provide immediate cash to meet the needs of survivors.
A burial allowance ranging from $100 to $3,000 (and other associated compensation for funeral and burial costs).
A Dependency and Indemnity Compensation for the spouse at a flat rate annuity of $833 per month, with an additional $211 paid for each dependent child until age 18.
9/11 Surviving Family Member Benefits
The Victim Compensation Fund (VCF) paid out a non-taxable compensation amount of $250,000.
The VCF also paid an additional $100,000 for the spouse and each dependent of the victim in what is called non-economic losses.
Additional compensation is paid for economic loss determined by factors such as the victim's age and income level. The upper limit on compensation is about $4.7 million dollars. The average amount paid out was about $1.65 million per family.
Comparing the Two
Both families get $250,000. That is IF the soldier paid $20 a month. The 9/11 families paid nothing.
The 9/11 spouse gets and additional $100,000 and the soldier's spouse gets $6,000 and then $833 a month. I am NOT sure, but I do believe if the soldier's spouse remarries, the $833 monthly benefit stops. Marital status of the 9/11 spouse does not matter. Please correct me if I am wrong. In just short of 10 years' time, if she or he does not remarry, the soldier's spouse monthly benefit received will match the $100,000 benefit of the 9/11 spouse.
Each 9/11 dependent also gets $100,000. If the soldier's child was born on the day the soldier died, the maximum amount that child could get is $45,576.
Soldiers' families receive a burial expense benefit while the 9/11 families do not.
To the best of my knowledge, family members of fallen soldiers do not receive any form of economic loss benefit beyond the $6,000. There might be some other form of benefit through Social Security, but I doubt that it is anywhere near 1.6 million dollars
Here's the kicker... again, to the best of my knowledge, the fallen soldier's family DOES pay taxes on those benefits they receive (again, correct me if I am wrong). The 9/11 families pay no federal, state or local taxes on their benefits.
One could say I was comparing apples to oranges here and they would be right... to a point. One could also say that a soldier knew what could possible happen when they joined. Again, they would be right.
On the other hand, I could just as easily say that the victims of 9/11 were just folks at the wrong place at the wrong time. Heartless? Maybe, but it is a fact. Don't get me wrong, I cry on every 9/11. The deaths that occurred on that fateful day were tragic and needless. I once stood next to the Murrah Federal Building in OKC before they finished tearing down what little had remained after the bombing. I cried then as well. It too, was an obscene tragedy.
What is starting to upset me is that during the 9/11 hearings and even before, a limited number of the 9/11 families were claiming that they were not compensated enough. Financially, that is. If my family did such, I'd haunt them until they join me in the "after life". Since the government has paid benefits to the victims of 9/11, many victims in OKC feel they should be paid too. Should they? What about the victims of the embassy bombings?
Of course it is in all of our hearts to give and help those in need. What one might need to question is what exactly defines need. Also, should we also pay out such benefits for the victims of terrorist attacks in the future? How much is fair and just? Does it have to be domestic only or can it occur overseas and still "qualify"? If the "terrorist" is a naturally born U.S, citizen, does it "not count"? What exactly IS a "terrorist act"? Does it have to be a car bomb or just a Pinto that explodes into flames?
You might see where I'm going with this....
The level and circumstances of one being a "victim" can be viewed many different ways. Just as what would be a fair compensation for them being in "the wrong place at the wrong time". Just ask the tsunami victims. Their life stories and tragic separations from loved ones are shown to each and every night. Not quite as detailed, but similar to the victims of 9/11 and OKC.
On the other hand, how often do we hear about the widow of a fallen soldier? One that was reduced to using food stamps to feed their family while their spouse was deployed and will now continue to do so in their spouse's death. A widow, who with their new born son, will get $12,528 a year in "economic loss" compensation. Taxable compensation, that is. Even if it was not taxed, is that how we recognize and respect those that have lost their lives fighting AND dying for our and the world's freedom? Often, the UN uses troops made up mostly of Americans, but do they offer any compensation for those that die following UN orders. I doubt it.
I just don't get it. Like police and firefighters, it's those that "knew the hazards when they join" that we seem to ignore when they die doing exactly what we asked of them as citizens of this great nation. Yet we have no problem sending money out of our own pockets to aid those we have never met, in a country we have never been to. Is what happened to them tragic? Of course it is. Are they not in need of assistance? Of course they are. So, when a soldier, police officer or fire fighter dies in the line of duty is it not as tragic? Are their needs not as great?
I guess that because they are not "victims", they do not deserve the attention and assistance given to impoverished nations. Or maybe that "impoverished nation" also has to be a tourist resort area that was hit by a "natural" disaster to "qualify". After all, in just a handful of months back in 1994, over 937,000 died in the Rwandan genocide. Over six times as many that have died in the most recent and now referred to as the Greatest Human Disaster of All Time. Rawanda received little to no military or humanitarian aid. All the UN conceded in saying was that "acts of genocide may have been committed.". I guess that means Rawanda did not "qualify".
I'm not suggesting one not send a donation to help out these victims of natural disasters and terrorist acts. I would never think of such. What I am asking is that when you do have the blessed opportunity to give a few of your hard earned dollars to help someone in need, just take a little time to think about those that many have so easily forgotten, but are just as much in need of the basics like shelter, food and clothing.
In a way, the families of soldiers, police officers and fire fighters are just as much, if not MORE so... a innocent victim of a tragedy. A tragedy that happens each and every day in the streets of Kabul, Baghdad and yes... right here in the streets of America. Do they really deserve to be so easily forgotten? Is it "fair and just" and what we call "The American Way"?
... as redelk steps back down from his soapbox... picks it up... and goes home with his head held down low and a tear in his eye over the loss of another soldier... police officer... fire fighter...
____________
There are only three sports: bullfighting, motor racing, and mountaineering; all the rest are merely games.
-Ernest Hemingway
   
|
slug
Pro
Out in search of my mind...
Posts: 1433
|
posted January 06, 2005 04:52 AM
interesting read, being in military i was not aware that there was ANY compensation other than the SGLI
But i think in the case of the 9/11 families, it was a case of the squeaky wheel gets the grease.
9/11 was a crap event perpetrated by supreme assholes. (supreme assholes that some of our elected officials are now acting as 'defense counsel' for by attempting to set these same bastards free)
being in the WTC when it fell was an extraordinary stroke of bad luck. But i wonder if the people compensated were conmpensated for 'shut up' money (quit your complaining) or for insurance reasons? did their insurance companies refuse to pay out? or did these people just completely fail to have any plans for the future 'just in case' scenarios?
I wonder also how many of these people 'double dipped', got the government "free" money AND took the insurance benefits? Is that the level of dishonesty that we are reduced to in this country?
How many here would take a government check and cash it if they didn't know what it was for?
Hell it doesn't matter, the government has PLENTY of money right?
the FEMA money from the hurricanes is a great example...FEMA was literally itching to send out money. they sent money out to areas that never saw anything but an inch or 2 of rain from the hurricanes, but if someone made a hurricane damage claim the check was in the mail..
(some listener made a claim on neal boortz's behalf (libertarian atlanta talk radio host, better than rush IMHO) because he had lost a plane in the hurricane in floriduh. FEMA kept trying to send him money, he keept returning it. Why? because he had insurance and insurance had already covered the loss.... Even after conversations they STILL wanted to send him a check. )
while i am all for helping people that are unfortunate (unfortunate to me is wrong place wrong time, not living day in day out in a crap job and not attempting to find something better, unfortunate is NOT defined by piss-poor decision-making whilst in college and drinking away college money and not getting educated, unfortunate is not being a slack bastard hoping someone will bail them out) I think that it is WRONG for people to EXPECT a handout if something bad happens to them, just because.
Why should the taxpayers have to be forced to fund people that refuse to make their own plans for the future?
**** Please note for the ones that certainly will bash and flame and call me heartless, stingy, or whatever else vile epithets will follow for this: i do NOT have anything against charitable giving or helping people in need. i DO have a problem with someone taking my hard earned living away at gunpoint, and then giving it away haphazardly to anyone that happens to want a piece of it....
yes, taken away at gunpoint. if you don't pay your taxes, the men with guns will come get you. Isn't armed robbery a felony?
and again we have those thousand or so people who, serving our country have died, and will leave families behind. these people DID plan ahead for most part and had the insurance. but i wonder, like you red, why they are worth less than the families that were payed off for 9/11
maybe it is because they aren't up in arms screaming bloody murder every other day for the tv cameras... (but even if they did the same media would portray them as whiners and unwilling to accept the consequences of their husband/wife being in military... remember, the media hates the military unless they can use the military to further their own goals...ALWAYS remember this.)
  
|
Bagster
Zone Head
Posts: 630
|
posted January 06, 2005 06:58 AM
My memory is not so clear about the money part of 9/11.
Wasn't there a huge ammount of money donated to the red cross from citizens around the country (and world).
After a few months the red cross was saying it had more money than they could use on drugs and blankets and other needed items in this specific case and was going to figure out how to dole it out to the families when they figured out how.
A year later they were still trying to figure it out.
Didn't they end up working with the government for part of that large payout or did they end up keeping it?
|
redelk
Moderator
Please... speak to the hand.
Posts: 3212
|
posted January 06, 2005 07:43 AM
Slug, i feel that charities can freely choose if they wish to take care of those that "do not plan for the future". Just as I would choose if I wish to give to such charities... or not. Like you, I do not feel that my tax dollars should be spent on such items as replacing personal aircraft or other items that could be deemed "recreational". Even if they did not have insurance. On the other hand, if one lived in a RV as their sole residence, that might be different and deserves further review concerning benefits.
Bagster, the Red Cross was "busted" by the media (mainly FOX News) for not directing all moneies donated to the RC, with the intent of going to the 9/11 victims and using it for administrative expenses. To the best of my knowledge all monies given to charities, with the intent of going to the 9/11 victims, has been distributed to the families.... in ADDITION to the government moneies. I did not include such donations since those were given by choice.
There are charities that address the needs of military widows, but no where near the scale of the 9/11 victims. This is what I feel so saddened over.
____________
There are only three sports: bullfighting, motor racing, and mountaineering; all the rest are merely games.
-Ernest Hemingway
|
princesskiwi
Administrator
MISTRESS of SMACK
Posts: 7688
|
posted January 08, 2005 10:33 AM
I was at candle lit vigil for the Tsunami victims and a street guy wandered through the crowd asking for money.
Part of me was mad at the guy, because even as a street guy, he has so much more than people in the villages that had everything swept away. The other part of me was mad at myself. I mean so much money and time has been put into helping Tsunami victims, yet we still have people at home who need help. Most of the street people in my city are on the street because the government has closed mental institutions that they used to live in and now they have no place to go. I feel so torn. I only have so much I can give - how can I say who needs it more?
How can I help someone so far away, when there is still such a need here at home?
As far as 9/11 victoms deserving more or less?
That is a hard question to ask - let alone answer.
|
squidlydiddly
Expert Class
Posts: 247
|
posted January 11, 2005 03:01 PM
Redelk, Slug & Bagster... Thank you for putting plenty of thought into this matter & posting. I have found this to be a refreshingly interesting and intelligent thread.
Being Canadian, I would declare that I have no right to an opinion on the US governments' monetary treatment of fallen soldiers / 9-11 victims... But the opinions / arguments that the three of you have made make a lot of sense to me and ring true.
____________
A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices.
|
ridgeracer
Pro
Posts: 1309
|
posted January 29, 2005 07:10 AM
The major difference between the two groups is one had the ability to sue for wrongful death.
The 9/11 VCF was all about protecting the airlines and insurance companies from billions in lawsuits. To get VFC money you had to waive your right to sue.
|
|
|
|
|
HOME
NEW TOPIC