Bulwark’s Tim Miller Applauds Jamie Raskin’s Investigation Into Trump's 60 Minutes Intervi...
'Major Milestone’: Home in Pacific Palisades Receives Final Approval From the City
When Jake Tapper Said the J6 Pipe Bomber Was a ‘White Man’ and...
Rep. Jerry Nadler Explains Why States Are Refusing to Hand Over SNAP Data:...
Pramila Jayapal: ‘Being Undocumented Isn’t a Crime’ – Federal Law and Half of...
Jim Acosta Says Trump Should Be Impeached Over Hateful Comments About the Somali...
Another ‘Police Brutality’ Story Collapses: Woman Refuses ID to Protect Illegal Boyfriend
JD Vance Is Hearing Rumors That the EU Commission Will Fine X Hundreds...
George Clooney's Casual Muslim Brotherhood Flex: Bragging About Wife's Terror Ties on Barr...
Mayor Brandon Johnson Refuses to Entertain Racist Question About Teen Violence in Chicago
Rep. Ilhan Omar Claims She Knew Nothing About $250 Million Welfare Fraud Scheme
Dumbo Gumbo: Leftist Pro-Illegal Alien Protesters Disrupt Council Meeting Over New Orleans...
Mollie Hemingway Nails It — FBI Sat on Jan 5 Pipe Bomb Intel...
Local News Reports on the Rich History of Somali Integration in Minnesota
Walz Complains People Are Driving By and Yelling the ‘R’ Word—X Replies With...

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