Thread: Why won't McCain support our troops??

While I certainly don't begrudge John McCain his $58,000 "disability pension", on top of his $165,000 senate salary. I can understand why so many veterans groups are angry at him. It doesn't look good that he so strongly opposed the recent hike in veterans benefits.

YouTube - Why Won't McCain Sign the GI Bill?

Sen. John McCain has long said he is in robust health and is strong enough to hike the Grand Canyon, but he also is receiving what his staff Monday termed a “disability pension” from the Navy.
When McCain released his tax return for 2007 on Friday, he separately disclosed that he received a pension of $58,358 that was not listed as income on his return.
On Monday, McCain’s staff identified the retirement benefit as a “disability pension” and said that McCain “was retired as disabled because of his limited body movements due to injuries as a POW.”
McCain campaign strategist Mark Salter said Monday night that McCain was technically disabled. “Tortured for his country – that is how he acquired his disability,” Salter said.
Certain types of military and veterans pensions are either partially or completely tax-exempt, depending on the seriousness of the disability. In McCain’s case, the exemption is 100%.
If McCain had to pay taxes on the full amount of the pension, it would have increased his tax bill by about $18,000 based on the percentage of his income he paid to the federal government.

McCain's disability pension may renew questions about his fitness - Los Angeles Times

Originally Posted by alexg

While I certainly don't begrudge John McCain his $58,000 "disability pension", on top of his $165,000 senate salary. I can understand why so many veterans groups are angry at him. It doesn't look good that he so strongly opposed the recent hike in veterans benefits.

YouTube - Why Won't McCain Sign the GI Bill?

McCain's disability pension may renew questions about his fitness - Los Angeles Times

From your link.

McCain spent 5 1/2 years as a prisoner of war in Hanoi. After he was released in 1973, he returned home on crutches and began a painful physical rehabilitation. He later regained flight status and commanded a Navy squadron before retiring from the service in 1981.

I don't get it. What is it that I should be outraged about?

Originally Posted by Think for myself

From your link.

McCain spent 5 1/2 years as a prisoner of war in Hanoi. After he was released in 1973, he returned home on crutches and began a painful physical rehabilitation. He later regained flight status and commanded a Navy squadron before retiring from the service in 1981.

I don't get it. What is it that I should be outraged about?

You don't need to be outraged. The thread is about the fact that McCain opposed the recent bill increasing benefits for veterans. I was going to title it, McCain to Vets - I got mine.

Originally Posted by alexg

You don't need to be outraged. The thread is about the fact that McCain opposed the recent bill increasing benefits for veterans. I was going to title it, McCain to Vets - I got mine.

The reason he opposed had to do with educational benefits and increasing them. I don't really see a coorelation regarding receiving increased educational benefits and receiving disability.

He also introduced an alternative bill that strives for the same thing without incentivizing people to leave the military which, although good for the individual, is an overall bad thing for the military.

McCain, along with Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Richard Burr of North Carolina, has introduced an alternative bill that would increase education benefits on a sliding scale based on an individual's years of service.

Originally Posted by freckles

The reason he opposed had to do with educational benefits and increasing them. I don't really see a coorelation regarding receiving increased educational benefits and receiving disability.

I believe what angered many veteran's groups was that McCain opposed the bill because he said it was "too generous". Some people might say that a $58,000 disability pension is "too generous", for someone who says he's healthy enough to be President.

If fact some people have suggested that it's dishonest for McCain be sucking at the public "disability" teat when he's holding down a full time job as a senator making $165,000 a year and saying he's healthy enough to hike the Grand Canyon.

Of course, I wouldn't go that far.

Technically? What does that mean? Usually, it means that under the strict reading of the law, you're covered, but in fact it's kind of a nudge-nudge-wink-wink situation - that's what "technically" means. It's called parsing, which is something you do to "technically" claim something is true, when on its face it really isn't. So is McCain "technically" disabled, and taking $58,000 a year tax free from the government, or is he actually disabled? I would imagine there are other solders who are actually disabled who could use the money. And if he is actually disabled, just how disabled is he?

Why is McCain getting $58,000 a year in disability income?

Originally Posted by alexg

I believe what angered many veteran's groups was that McCain opposed the bill because he said it was "too generous". Some people might say that a $58,000 disability pension is "too generous", for someone who says he's healthy enough to be President.

If fact some people have suggested that it's dishonest for McCain be sucking at the public "disability" teat when he's holding down a full time job as a senator making $165,000 a year and saying he's healthy enough to hike the Grand Canyon.

Of course, I wouldn't go that far.



Why is McCain getting $58,000 a year in disability income?

Let's look at this, and I will use myself as an example.

Two years ago I ruptured my Achilles. Now, I loved playing soccer, especially indoor soccer. It was a blast. I would get out there and mix it up with everyone, very much a contact sport. Now, my leg has healed. I can ride my bike a good 40 miles in less than three hours. I am in decent shape. However, I can't play soccer anymore. Does that mean I am prevented from other activities? No.

Let's look at McCain. He quit smoking long ago. He's not overweight for his age. He seems fairly spry. He probably can hike the Grand Canyon. However, his shoulders and back are a jacked up mess. So?

Now, McCain also served for 23 years as an officer in the Navy. What portion of his pension can you not attribute to that?

Originally Posted by Think for myself

Let's look at this, and I will use myself as an example.

Two years ago I ruptured my Achilles. Now, I loved playing soccer, especially indoor soccer. It was a blast. I would get out there and mix it up with everyone, very much a contact sport. Now, my leg has healed. I can ride my bike a good 40 miles in less than three hours. I am in decent shape. However, I can't play soccer anymore. Does that mean I am prevented from other activities? No.

But it does mean that you can't collect disability payments from the government. Because you can still work. Those are the rules unless I'm mistaken, and they are very harsh with people who try to fake disabilities.

Now McCain says he's perfectly healthy, while collecting this money. OK, he was "tortured". I've said I don't have a problem with his pension. I have a problem with his refusal to support the recent GI bill because it was "too generous".

BTW, here's a video of McCain at a townhall meeting, taking credit for the bill he opposed. What a slime.

YouTube - McCain Lies About Supporting the GI Bill

Originally Posted by alexg

But it does mean that you can't collect disability payments from the government. Because you can still work. Those are the rules unless I'm mistaken, and they are very harsh with people who try to fake disabilities.

That logic makes no sense at all to me. McCain was injured while working for the Navy. By your logic, as I read it, people who, let's just say lose a leg, are entitled to nothing becuase the can use an artificial one, right?