Greg Gutfeld to LA Mayor Karen Bass: ‘You Can’t Fight Fire with Platitudes,...
DEI Literally Dangerous! Female LA Firefighter Blames Victims if She Lacks Skills and...
CNN Analyst Thinks Trump's Comments on Wildfires 'Could Impede Effective Response'
Arson Arrest: Police Detain Man Suspected of Setting a Fire in the Kenneth...
Professor Finds in Wildfire Video a Metaphor for ‘Fossil Fuel Driven, Neoliberal Capitalis...
Sen. John Fetterman Accepts Trump’s Invitation to Meet at Mar-a-Lago
California Lawmakers Spend Day ‘Trump-Proofing’ State Against Litigation
WaPo’s Philip Bump Says Far-Right’s Lies About Wildfires Are Just Like 2020 Election...
BURNED: After L.A. Wildfires, Voters Need to Stop Letting Democrats Fail Upwards
Jemele Hill Throws Hissy Fit at Matt Walsh for Stating the Obvious About...
Woman Says Everyone Who Follows Libs of TikTok ‘Should Be Put Down’
PANIC: Axios in Absolute MELTDOWN Mode Over New Facebook Policy That Lets People...
Aaron Rupar Calls Out CNN for ‘Sanewashing’ Trump’s Comments About Jimmy Carter
FURY: Justine Bateman Says L.A. Residents Are (Rightfully) LIVID With Politicians Who Let...
Mayor Karen Bass Says Now Is Not the Time to Discuss Who's Responsible

Lefties at The Economist Finally Want to Cut Spending (of Veteran's Disability Benefits, That Is)

ImgFlip

This writer would like to remind you that we spend a lot of money -- and waste a lot of money -- on things both stupid and maddening. Under the 'maddening' category is the $150 billion we spend on illegal immigration every year. And there are slew of stupid things including $50 million for combating cow farts.

Advertisement

But the point is: we have to do something to cut spending. The Economist, who we've written about before, has found something we can cut back on. Except it's the most insulting option imaginable:

Seriously?

SERIOUSLY?!

Veterans are where they decide to make cuts?

No. Just no.

They write:

Mr Musk is zeroing in on discretionary spending, which includes programmes such as the department’s medical services. But the main driver of its spending surge is mandatory outlays for disability compensation. Between 2000 and 2024, such payments ballooned from $26bn, in today’s prices, to $159bn. Last year alone saw a 17% jump. And the department’s latest budget request forecasts that compensation will soar to $185bn over the next two years.

The current system was introduced during the first world war. It provides tax-free monthly payments to soldiers who are injured or sick owing to their service. From 1960 to 2000, roughly 9% of veterans qualified for payments, typically for ailments such as hearing loss or burns. The department assigns a rating from zero to 100% based on the severity of disabilities. In 2000 the average rating was 30%; monthly payments averaged the equivalent of $975 today. Few qualified for the top tier.

The men and women who served this nation -- many at great personal cost, both physically and emotionally -- are the ones The Economist thinks aren't deserving of benefits is galling.

Advertisement

We sent a lot of them to Iraq and Afghanistan over the last 24 years and now some nerd at this rag decided they shouldn't get money for that.

The good news is, everyone hated this.

They're not very bright, are they?

Nope. And they deserve it.

No lies detected.

And it gets even better. Guess who was all in on the Iraq War back in 2003?

Wow.

Just wow.

Not surprising at all.

YUP.

Always adorbs.

Advertisement

Much better idea.

Pure evil.

What's the fair price for getting your leg blown off by an IED, we wonder?

They'd deserve them.

That's where we start.

Or hurricane victims.

Noticing a pattern here.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Twitchy Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement