linked article wrote:
By Ralph Vartabedian, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
April 22, 2008
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%.
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.
McCain would be the oldest man to enter the White House if he is elected president, and questions have been raised about his health.
McCain has twice developed melanoma, a potentially deadly form of skin cancer.
The fact that he is legally designated with a disability pension may raise further questions.
"It is a legitimate question to ask about the commander in chief: Is he fit to serve," said Robert Schriebman, a senior Pentagon tax advisor and tax attorney who recently retired as a judge advocate for a unit of the California National Guard.
If McCain can hike across the Grand Canyon, then why should he be getting disability payments from the government that are tax-exempt, Schriebman asked.
McCain shattered his knee and broke both arms when he was shot down over North Vietnam in 1967.
In his autobiographies, McCain said that his knee still bothered him in cold weather and that he was unable to raise his hands above his shoulders.
Elmo Baker, a retired colonel and president of a Vietnam War POW group, said many former POWs were receiving some type of military pension that was partly or fully tax-free.
Baker said he was receiving payments that were 70% tax-free, but that he "didn't have as many injuries as McCain did."
Many of the Vietnam POWs are receiving payment under a program known as "combat-related special compensation," which provides benefits and tax exemptions under a complex system, based on such factors as the type of injury and the years of service.
Paul Galanti, another former POW in the group, said that while McCain's injuries were serious enough to qualify him for disability, it would not affect his performance as president.
"I don't know of any physical requirements to be commander in chief," Galanti said. "He would have a nice car to drive around in and a nice airplane to fly in."
ralph.vartabedian@ latimes.com
Times staff writer Maeve Reston in Alabama contributed to this report.
As much as I am for doing the right thing by our veterans, this guy's health is good enough to make this a waste of taxpayer dollars - he should be donating that money to other vets more in need than he is.
Last edited by Josh_Kablack on Wed Apr 23, 2008 5:47 am, edited 2 times in total.
Josh_Kablack wrote:As much as I am for doing the right thing by our veterans, this guy's health is good enough to make this a waste of taxpayer dollars - he should be donating that money to other vets more in need than he is.
First off, I'll say I believe McCain would be the worst choice for president of the three current front-runners. That said, this article is irrelevant.
Who cares if he gets $58,358 for his disabilities? When:
latimes wrote:McCain spent 5 1/2 years as a prisoner of war in Hanoi.
In his autobiographies, McCain said that his knee still bothered him in cold weather and that he was unable to raise his hands above his shoulders.
______________
I don't begrudge him getting a pension for his ailments and time served for our country. I begrudge him for wanting to spend trillions of dollars on a never ending war.
There is nothing worse than aggressive stupidity.
- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
How about Donald Diamond? That's the guy who McCain helped get a piece of property from the US military and make a 5000% markup reselling it on the open market.
SphereOfFeetMan wrote:
Who cares if he gets $58,358 for his disabilities? When:
Seeing as the man is quite adamantly arguing that he is plenty healthy enough to hold a difficult, high stress job, calling him "disabled" is a bit of a stretch. Given his war record and injuries, I could deal with that, except that he will soon be arguing passionately against using government money to help people in actual need, as wasteful spending and encouraging of an "entitlement mentality".
Thus this could make for a very useful sound bite or attack ad in a month or two, as it paints him as a hypocrite and a recipient of unnecessary entitlements (ie wasteful spending) in a way that is less polarizing that the Iraq war.
I don't know what degree of disablement qualifies you for 'disabled' status, but having bad knees and being unable to lift your arms up high is certainly a disablement of some degree.
I also fail to see how having bad knees and not being able to lift your arms up high would be a serious problem for a president, since I get the impression that presidenting is mostly a mental, rather than physical, job.
Josh_Kablack wrote:
Seeing as the man is quite adamantly arguing that he is plenty healthy enough to hold a difficult, high stress job, calling him "disabled" is a bit of a stretch.
Josh_Kablack wrote:
Seeing as the man is quite adamantly arguing that he is plenty healthy enough to hold a difficult, high stress job, calling him "disabled" is a bit of a stretch.
Josh_Kablack wrote:Thus this could make for a very useful sound bite or attack ad in a month or two, as it paints him as a hypocrite and a recipient of unnecessary entitlements (ie wasteful spending) in a way that is less polarizing that the Iraq war.
Only a nutter or US political campaign would run that.
He what now? Last I heard, he didn't like it and didn't want the US to use it. And there I was, thinking I was up to date on my politics thanks to watching Good News Week.
He doesn't like torture, but I'm pretty sure he's in the Bush camp of "anything the US does isn't torture." For example, forcing water down someone's throat is evil, but simply forcing their mouths open and pouring water down their throat is perfectly fine.
CHICKENS ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO DO COCAINE, SILKY HEN
Josh_Kablack wrote:You are not a unique and precious snowflake, you are just one more fucking asshole on the internet who presumes themselves to be better than the unwashed masses.
In October 2005, McCain introduced the McCain Detainee Amendment, prohibiting inhumane treatment of prisoners (including those in the legal limbo of Gitmo) by confining interrogations to the techniques in Army Field Manual 34-52, "Intelligence Interrogation".
In February of 2008, when a bill was put forth to hold the CIA to the standards of torture as defined in the Army Field Manual (HR2082), McCain voted against it. He also voted for the final version of the Military Commissions Act, which basically lets Bush define torture any way he wants; which so far is 'only that which maims or kills.'
"But transportation issues are social-justice issues. The toll of bad transit policies and worse infrastructure—trains and buses that don’t run well and badly serve low-income neighborhoods, vehicular traffic that pollutes the environment and endangers the lives of cyclists and pedestrians—is borne disproportionately by black and brown communities."
I love it when idiots write, with a straight face, "We are all playing on an even field."
I get the feeling we could start a new thread, "Letters to the editor that make us laugh, cry, or both."
Doom314's satirical 4e power wrote:Complete AnnihilationWar-metawarrior 1
An awesome bolt of multicolored light fires from your eyes and strikes your foe, disintegrating him into a fine dust in a nonmagical way.
At-will: Martial, Weapon
Standard Action Melee Weapon ("sword", range 10/20)
Target: One Creature
Attack: Con vs AC
Hit: [W] + Con, and the target is slowed.
Absentminded_Wizard wrote:I love it when idiots write, with a straight face, "We are all playing on an even field."
I get the feeling we could start a new thread, "Letters to the editor that make us laugh, cry, or both."
Wow, deja vu...
Yesterday, I saw two other geology majors have an actual, rational debate about the benefits and drawbacks of a semi-socialist government, like we have.
What was really strange was one of them is the department party boy, the guy who loves his alcohol and loves his parties, but he argued with some eloquence that people aren't always in control of their circumstances, that a society is more than just a collection of individuals, and that it's better that some people get money they don't deserve than people who are continually dealt a bad hand fail to get the help they need.
You can always start by rebutting the idea that we're all on an even playing field. When some people's parents have more money when others, and some school systems educate better than others, this idea is laughable. The one problem is that I suspect a lot of the people who make these kind of arguments were raised in rich suburbs and have their head up their ass about any reality outside that environment. But it's always worth a try.
I have a friend who (some months ago) lucked into a job making ~$90K/year. He immediately forgot what it was like to struggle financially. Now he parrots 'level playing field' talking points.
It's like there was a switch in his brain or something.
Tell me, does this friend spend this wealth on cocaine? That could explain the change, really. If not, calling him a coke-addict should at least irritate him, and as the saying goes, when all else fails, ad hominem.
angelfromanotherpin wrote:I have a friend who (some months ago) lucked into a job making ~$90K/year. He immediately forgot what it was like to struggle financially. Now he parrots 'level playing field' talking points.
It's like there was a switch in his brain or something.
I think this might be a whole different phenomenon. Some people from poorer economic backgrounds who make it up the ladder through luck (or even through skill or talent) think that if they can do it, anybody can. They don't realize that not everybody has the luck/skill/talent that they do and that most people will be stuck in the social class of their birth for the rest of their lives.
angelfromanotherpin wrote:I have a friend who (some months ago) lucked into a job making ~$90K/year. He immediately forgot what it was like to struggle financially. Now he parrots 'level playing field' talking points.
It's like there was a switch in his brain or something.
I think this might be a whole different phenomenon. Some people from poorer economic backgrounds who make it up the ladder through luck (or even through skill or talent) think that if they can do it, anybody can. They don't realize that not everybody has the luck/skill/talent that they do and that most people will be stuck in the social class of their birth for the rest of their lives.
Most of them believe that if they can do it, anyone who can't doesn't deserve it anyway.
I don't think anybody would seriously argue that everybody deserves to be rich. There are very few people who deserve that. In fact, most people who *are* rich probably don't deserve it. Now, when the nouveau riche argue that nobody else deserves any semblance of a safety net, that's when it gets offensive.
Now, when the nouveau riche argue that nobody else deserves any semblance of a safety net, that's when it gets offensive.