Patrick Murray of the Veterans of Foreign Wars has produced a rebuttal to a recent article calling for reducing veteran’s disability benefits that only a combat veteran could write.
By Jeff Schogol Task & Purpose
Amid the outcry over a recent article in The Economist that called for a reduction in what it described as “absurdly generous” veterans benefits, one voice has stood out from the rest.
Patrick Murray, national legislative service director for the Veterans of Foreign Wars office in Washington, D.C., has issued a rebuttal that reflects the frustrations of a generation of veterans who served in the Global War on Terrorism and now face growing efforts to balance the federal budget on the backs of wounded veterans.
Not only did Murray, a Marine veteran who lost his right leg in Iraq, describe the piece as a “turd sundae,” but he also wrote that The Economist had taken “a turkey-sized dump on disabled veterans” by running the story on Thanksgiving.
“The last paragraph of this loosely compiled puddle of garbage juice included the statement, ‘Reducing payments to former soldiers will never be popular, but it would be wise.”
Murray goes on to say in the statement that the editorial reads like it was written by “The guy or girl who ‘totally would’ve joined…but I didn’t because I would’ve told-off a Drill Instructor if they got in my face.’”
Veterans everywhere will understand exactly what Murray is arguing, but what makes his rebuttal unique is that it comes from one of the largest veterans service organizations in the country — one which you might expect to take a more formal and buttoned-down tone.
Most big organizations based in Washington, D.C., tend to stick with the stale language of officialdom and avoid drama in their statements. But in his response to The Economist article, Murray has morphed from battalion XO to “kill hat” drill instructor.
What’s more, is that the organization’s response is written in a style that many veterans can appreciate. There are echoes of Sylvester Stallone’s famous speech at the end of the second “Rambo” movie when he is asked what he wants: “I want what they want, and every other guy who came over here and spilled his guts and gave everything he had wants — for our country to love us as much as we love it.”
You can read the VFW’s entire response here:
Normally, Thanksgiving is synonymous with food, family, friends, and giving thanks. For @TheEconomist, Thanksgiving apparently means taking a turkey-sized dump on disabled veterans. The other day I had the unfortunate opportunity to read an unattributed article on The Economist titled, “American veterans now receive absurdly generous benefits” and it left me with a lot of thoughts. (You can read it for yourself here: https://econ.st/3D0Nk87, just be ready to sign up for a subscription.)
The piece on The Economist has no author and reads like it was poorly run through ChatGPT. And the title of the piece is insultingly stupid. The definition of absurd is “wildly unreasonable, illogical, or inappropriate.” I’d challenge the anonymous cowards at The Economist to illuminate us on which parts of veterans’ healthcare and benefits are inappropriate, illogical, or wildly unreasonable?
I am a disabled veteran. I had my right leg blown to pieces on September 4, 2006, in Fallujah, Iraq. Since that time, I have had to walk with an above the knee prosthetic and I have not had an easy day physically for as long as I can remember. Hey, The Economist, which portion of my healthcare or benefits are wildly unreasonable?
Service to our country can be an incredibly uplifting and positive experience for many who wore the uniform, but that service can also involve hazards. Some disabled veterans struggle physically or mentally with the effects of their service. Bullet wounds, Traumatic Brain Injuries, Post Traumatic Stress, and other effects of a service can sometimes cause chronic issues for veterans, and providing care and benefits for those issues is certainly not inappropriate or illogical.
While the AI assisted “journalists” at The Economist boldly chose not to put their name on this piece, they did attribute a quote to another non-expert in veteran benefits, Mark Duggan from Stanford University. Mark foolishly stated about VA Disability and Compensation, “Once you qualify you have an incentive not to get better.” An incentive not to get better?!?!? Hey Mark, any clue how I can get my right leg back? I’d gladly give back the money I’ve received so I can get up out of bed without the assistance of a wheelchair or a prosthetic.
The meandering poorly structured article in The Economist highlighted a lot of increased numbers and statistics, many of these figures quoted began back in 2001. It highlighted the increased number of veterans with high disability ratings beginning to increase in 2001. However, nowhere in the article does it state what else began back in 2001. These dopes conveniently left out the Global War on Terror that began in 2001 lasted for TWENTY YEARS! A full 20 years of the same all-volunteer force serving over and over, and over again in the same toxic hellholes fighting the same brutal terrorists. Gee, I wonder why today’s veterans are presenting with more chronic ailments than generations that came before us.
Ivy League elitists like Mark Duggan and the pretentious wankers at the Economist clearly didn’t bother to do much research on veteran disability or bother to speak to one of the millions of disabled veterans like me. We would have told these arrogant snobs that certain injuries and illnesses are with us for life, and no disability rating is worth the difficulties that come with some of the aftereffects of service.
The real cherry on top of this turd sundae was the lazy suggestion (possibly lifted from the fools at the @washingtonpost Editorial Board) that VA should means test veterans before receiving benefits. As in, if you make enough money after service, you won’t be taken care of for the costs of war. If The Economist had bothered to attribute a name to this drivel, I would ask that idiot, “how would you means test my inability to teach my son to ride a bike?” It’s a pretty routine joy that most parents get the privilege of taking part in. However, my prosthetic leg doesn’t really function in a way that allows normal bike riding. So that is a simple joy I won’t get. How exactly do buffoons like Mark Duggan and the dollar store journalists at The Economist suggest factoring in that loss?
The last paragraph of this loosely compiled puddle of garbage juice included the statement, “Reducing payments to former soldiers will never be popular, but it would be wise. America’s veteran obsession has gone too far.” — TOO FAR?!?!? Holy hell, this sounds like it was written by a jealous also-ran who every veteran has probably met. The guy or girl who “totally would’ve joined…but I didn’t because I would’ve told-off a Drill Instructor if they got in my face”. Losers…
In the future, if any major publication wants to embarrass themselves by anonymously taking shots at disabled veterans, I’d like to offer my services. I can start by helping you research this subject to learn about the actual effects of service-connected injuries and illness. I can also connect you with other disabled veterans so you can hear first-hand accounts of some of the difficulties veterans face. I could even help google image search pictures of actual veterans, instead of the stock photo of firefighters The Economist used at the top of its trash piece on veterans. Then finally, if you are still intent on disparaging disabled veterans, I can assist you in removing your head from your ass…free of charge.
Find the original article on Task & Purpose.
READ NEXT: President’s Family Flees To Russia – Kremlin’s Response Stuns
What he said! Ditto…
Thank you American Liberty and Patrick Murray for your excellent response to the Economist. Let me add my perspective. I didn’t serve. I got my very low lottery number back in the day and immediately went the next day to enlist. I failed my physical but was told I would be recalled when likely the surgery on my foot healed. I waited, kept my draft card, and figured one day I would be called and tested, tested to see if, in combat, I would be as brave as those before me. That day never came. After the attack on 9/11, I helped create the all volunteer, Independence Corps Foundation. We gave over $2.5 M of $25-$30K iBOT Mobility Systems, one $170K “Luke Arm” to disabled veterans. I think we embarrassed the VA into liberalizing providing these iBOT wheelchairs that climb stairs on their own and also balance on 2 wheels with the veteran seated at eye level with a standing adult. Until they saw what a nonprofit was doing, begging for donations and helping our veterans and later first responders, many VA facilities called the independence an iBOT gave a veteran, a luxury. Some of our veterans had stumps that couldn’t support a prosthetic, and for most, if not all, who would be honest, the best prosthetic can cause pain after hours of use.
So, whatever fools at the Economist never felt the fantom pain of amputation, never had to slide down a flight of stairs on their butt because the hotel caught fire. The elevators were shut down. Or other veterans in wheelchairs who were always looked down on when being spoken to in a public setting where they were stuck in their wheelchair and the other person was standing up. Tell the Economist authors to shut up and visit some military hospitals. We were at Walter Reed and met a quad amputee who, when he saw a “Luke Arm” video, said, “Sir, how can I get one?” And then, he had someone cut off the sleeves and legs of his uniform so he could be appropriately attired when he went and treated his unit when they landed back stateside from their battles in Iraq.
Not nearly strong enough.
I did not “serve” in uniform. I was a civilian engineer working on a nuclear missile project when I got a short and pointed note from the Pentagon instructing me to “Do not enlist”. Copy to draft board “Do not process.” They wanted the missiles more than another uniform and they got them. I was 7 years on the project, longer than most draftees served. I worked closely with uniformed personnel and have friends and relatives that served, some wounded and some who never came back and have endless respect for them. I am not eligible for any of the “benefits” available to those who wore the uniform. They are welcome to them. This article in question was not merely offensive, but shows clearly the trash left behind by the “woke” crowd. These are people who should live almost anywhere besides the USA for a 2-year “tour”. Anywhere that lacks the benefit of our amazing, dedicated and highly effective uniformed defenders. By the law of averages, a percentage of the people protected and preserved by those who serve are idiots and unappreciative with no clue about anything. This offensive raving is proof they exist.
Hey, I’m 77 years old, and female……….but I heartedly agree with Patrick Murray!!! I’ll even help him with removing the author’s head from his a**, free of charge!!!!
How about absurdly generous handouts to illegal immigrants. Or career welfare recipients. Or swamp bureaucrats.
And to get to those brain dead journalists. Take, oh maybe, 1,000 GOLD STAR family members. So those butt licks will learn why those brave women and men have only a head stone for their service.
Excellent response. I could not have been so civil. BTW, what is the “Economist”? Does it have anything to do with the economy? How many pieces have the written about the ungodly level of compensation executives receive. How about the fact that all of our political reps receive lifetime pensions that far exceed those of the average American and many leave their position richer that they began. I’m sure there are many things worth writing about when it comes to unequal benefits/compensation that those who are unable to face public criticism by using their name.instead anonymity. Maybe Patrick Murray’s response has properly chastised the Economist but, I doubt it. Today:s media is not capable of recognizing chastisement..
How tragic that Mr. A NON OMOUS decided to write an article bashing veterans- I am quite sure he/she/it has never served to save our country but feel they have the right to degrade those that have and are now paying the price with their issues. There is not enough money to make up for their losses going to war-a war to save those of us in the U. S. We should be so grateful that they chose to leave their lives back here to go to a foreign country and fight to keep things free for us . They didn’t question-they just did! So, whoever you are, shame on you. I put no stock in articles that the name is not signed!
As a fellow vet I salute you Patrick for your spot reply to this cowardly screed. Thank you for your service brother.