MTG Slams the Door on Moskowitz’s Desperate Democrat Stunt: The Queen of ‘No’...
Adam Schiff Slams Jeff Bezos for Not Burning WaPo to the Ground to...
Oh, Great, Gavin Newsom’s Podcast Is Here to Save Us—Because California’s Totally Fixed...
Jeff Bezos Just Nuked 'The Washington Post,' & Lib Media Is Not Happy...
Actress Michelle Trachtenberg Dead at 39
Eli Lilly Throws $27 Billion at America Because Tariffs Twisted Their Arm and...
The MSNBC Purge Continues: Most of Maddow's Staff to Be Let Go (But...
NYC Mayor Adams’ Biblical Meltdown Is Either a God Complex or Political Desperation
There's Some Disagreement With ABC's Climate Correspondent As to 'How Science Is Done'
‘There’s No Bottom for These People:’ Jake Tapper to Release Book on Cover...
Chuck Schumer's 'What a Good Business Operator Would Do' Slam on DOGE Collapses...
Join Us! Here's How YOU Can Help Counter Dem/Media Lies About Trump's Agenda
Brian Stelter Didn't Always Think It Was Wrong to Ask If a Media...
'Mi Amor': Yarden Bibas' Eulogy for His Family Is a Stark Reminder of...
Legacy Media Pushed Fake Anti-DOGE Narrative With Staged Protests at Republican-Led Town H...

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