• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

McCain's War Vet problem, anti-GI Bill stance threatens support in fall

Bitek

Bitek

Lifer
Story

The point of contention between the two seemingly natural allies is a piece of legislation the Senate is expected to vote on this week to update the 1944 G.I. Bill to provide expanded education assistance and opportunities to the armed forces. The bill, co-sponsored by two other Vietnam veterans in the Senate, Republican Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Democrat Jim Webb of Virginia, would effectively provide full tuition and housing costs at a four-year public university for veterans who have served at least three years of active duty. Given his family's and his own long and distinguished service career, the bill would seem like a natural fit for the presumptive Republican presidential nominee. But McCain, concerned about the estimated $4 billion annual price tag and the incentive he worries it might give people to leave an already strapped military, has sponsored his own competing proposal. It increases the existing monthly education benefit from around $1,100 to $1,500 a month while adding more generous benefits for those who've served more than 12 years.

McCain's concerns, however, don't seem to impress the vast majority of veterans' organizations.

...Obama and McCain's G.O.P. rival, the antiwar presidential candidate Congressman Ron Paul, actually beat McCain in donations from the four branches of active military this year, according to a study by the Center for Responsive Politics.
Click to expand...


$4B is a ridiculous amt of money to quibble over given the invaluable service the vets have given to this country, and the shit they've endured under Bush and the Republican Congress's Iraqi adventure. Reps defended hotly the subsidies for oil companies, but refuse to support the troops in meaningful way.

Jim Webb kicks ass, is a true patriot and would be awesome on Obama's ticket.
 
The GI Bill was for draftees who didn't have the choice. Since the military is entirely voluntary now, why should citizens front the entire bill?

 
Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
The GI Bill was for draftees who didn't have the choice. Since the military is entirely voluntary now, why should citizens front the entire bill?
Click to expand...

Because they enjoy the peace, freedoms and protection the military men and women provide with very little compensation in return?


Also wanted to add that th retention goals of McCain's bill sucks. McCain's crap bill only looks to provide benefits to those serving at least 12yrs, ie career military. Not those who would sacrifice a few of their prime years of life to military service, then go back to work in the civilian world. Webb's bill has the correct intention.
 
I wonder how much unrelated crap was attached to that bill. I love how the crooks (on both sides) in Washington sneek stuff into bills like this then act suprised when it gets rejected.
 
Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
The GI Bill was for draftees who didn't have the choice. Since the military is entirely voluntary now, why should citizens front the entire bill?
Click to expand...
You object to giving the military a little something in return for the countless sacrifices they make for you!?

wow... if I were you, I'd have to kick my own ass.
 
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
The GI Bill was for draftees who didn't have the choice. Since the military is entirely voluntary now, why should citizens front the entire bill?
Click to expand...
You object to giving the military a little something in return for the countless sacrifices they make for you!?

wow... if I were you, I'd have to kick my own ass.
Click to expand...

The article doesn't mention the tax increase proposed to cover it (I think it's in this bill)...

It's not the .gov's job to send people to college on my dime. I can't be a hypocrite like others here and gripe about .gov spending being out of control, but in the next favor another if it suits my interests.

Yes the military folks perform a great service, and in an ideal world they would be getting their grants from veteran organizations and the like funded by people who can afford to contribute because they aren't swamped with taxes by a spend freely .gov. Holy run on batman.

Ron Paul voted against this fwiw...
 
While I think we treat our GIs badly in many respects to "provide full tuition and housing costs at a four-year public university for veterans who have served at least three years of active duty" seems a little much to me. Make it five years of active duty and I'm on board.
 
Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones

Ron Paul voted against this fwiw...
Click to expand...

I see why...

(The House version offsets the program by increasing taxes by 0.5% on those individuals who earn more than $500,000 a year and couples who earn more than $1 million, a move also under veto threat.)
Click to expand...

Paul has never voted for a tax increase.
 
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
The GI Bill was for draftees who didn't have the choice. Since the military is entirely voluntary now, why should citizens front the entire bill?
Click to expand...
You object to giving the military a little something in return for the countless sacrifices they make for you!?

wow... if I were you, I'd have to kick my own ass.
Click to expand...

You've had a lot of folks okay-doke with the Iraq war because those soldiers "made the choice" to sign up (not meaning BPJ in this case) - so why be surprised now that America doesn't give you the respect you should get now that you're going to cost money...

After all the flag waving is done, the vets get the shaft as history repeats.....


god bless America.....

 
I wonder why anyone would deny providing educational benefits or the increase thereof to the military while not wishing to deny private sector educational benefits which reduce the tax inflow to the same money pot. IOW what is the reason to reduce military benefits and not do so across the board...
 
Originally posted by: Hafen
Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
The GI Bill was for draftees who didn't have the choice. Since the military is entirely voluntary now, why should citizens front the entire bill?
Click to expand...

Because they enjoy the peace, freedoms and protection the military men and women provide with very little compensation in return?


Also wanted to add that th retention goals of McCain's bill sucks. McCain's crap bill only looks to provide benefits to those serving at least 12yrs, ie career military. Not those who would sacrifice a few of their prime years of life to military service, then go back to work in the civilian world. Webb's bill has the correct intention.
Click to expand...

In addition, we owe our vets a little extra now, because we are in a special time in American history with a pathetically stupid commander in chief.
 
Originally posted by: Sacrilege
Originally posted by: Hafen
Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
The GI Bill was for draftees who didn't have the choice. Since the military is entirely voluntary now, why should citizens front the entire bill?
Click to expand...

Because they enjoy the peace, freedoms and protection the military men and women provide with very little compensation in return?


Also wanted to add that th retention goals of McCain's bill sucks. McCain's crap bill only looks to provide benefits to those serving at least 12yrs, ie career military. Not those who would sacrifice a few of their prime years of life to military service, then go back to work in the civilian world. Webb's bill has the correct intention.
Click to expand...

In addition, we owe our vets a little extra now, because we are in a special time in American history with a pathetically stupid commander in chief.
Click to expand...

Well said, and I agree with that - but the history of this country tends to fend off those who have served when they are most in need of help...

gotta go put some more yellow ribbons on my SUV.......
 
Originally posted by: UberNeuman
Originally posted by: Sacrilege
Originally posted by: Hafen
Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
The GI Bill was for draftees who didn't have the choice. Since the military is entirely voluntary now, why should citizens front the entire bill?
Click to expand...

Because they enjoy the peace, freedoms and protection the military men and women provide with very little compensation in return?


Also wanted to add that th retention goals of McCain's bill sucks. McCain's crap bill only looks to provide benefits to those serving at least 12yrs, ie career military. Not those who would sacrifice a few of their prime years of life to military service, then go back to work in the civilian world. Webb's bill has the correct intention.
Click to expand...

In addition, we owe our vets a little extra now, because we are in a special time in American history with a pathetically stupid commander in chief.
Click to expand...

Well said, and I agree with that - but the history of this country tends to fend off those who have served when they are most in need of help...

gotta go put some more yellow ribbons on my SUV.......
Click to expand...

Rumor has it that it wasn't always like this... 🙁
 
This is depressing. We owe them a lot, especially now, and $4 bil is nothing. How can McCain be concerned with them being encouraged to leave the military, when winning is supposed to be motivation enough?
 
Originally posted by: Hafen
Story

...Obama and McCain's G.O.P. rival, the antiwar presidential candidate Congressman Ron Paul, actually beat McCain in donations from the four branches of active military this year, according to a study by the Center for Responsive Politics.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I love how people constantly harp on how Ron Paul supposedly beats McCain in donations from members of the military. The difference in donations between Paul and McCain is, wait for it . . .$800. Oh, and McCain has more actual military donors than Paul does according to the oft-cited study, 32 to Paul's 23.

Obama swamps both in keeping with Obama's general success in fundraising--Obama's raisd a whole $27,000 from 44 military contributions as compared to Paul with $19,300 from 23 and McCain with $18,500 from 32 donors.

The broader point is the the number of military donors and amounts involved for all three are so tiny in comparison to the candidates' total fundraising as to make the entire discussion a complete and total waste of time.
 
This is the same McCain that, for some reason or another, voted against giving a holiday to MLK back in the 80s.

Who know what goes on in his head.
 
Originally posted by: UberNeuman
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
The GI Bill was for draftees who didn't have the choice. Since the military is entirely voluntary now, why should citizens front the entire bill?
Click to expand...
You object to giving the military a little something in return for the countless sacrifices they make for you!?

wow... if I were you, I'd have to kick my own ass.
Click to expand...

You've had a lot of folks okay-doke with the Iraq war because those soldiers "made the choice" to sign up (not meaning BPJ in this case) - so why be surprised now that America doesn't give you the respect you should get now that you're going to cost money...

After all the flag waving is done, the vets get the shaft as history repeats.....


god bless America.....
Click to expand...

Vets should be getting top tier medical treatment for anything physical or mental as a result of their military service. I've said in other threads that federal employees shouldn't be able to vote, except for folks in the military, as a benefit of service. So I don't have anything against them.

Do you think it is a legitimate function of the federal government to pay for people's education?

Yes $4 billion isn't much. But to be consistent I say the .gov has to make due with what they already have. Not increase taxes to pay for it. Cut the $4 billion from somewhere else, should be easy to do. But instead of reducing or keeping spending the same, they try to pass off a tax increase as "support the troops" and people like you folks get mad at objectors saying we don't "support the troops".
 
Originally posted by: woodie1
While I think we treat our GIs badly in many respects to "provide full tuition and housing costs at a four-year public university for veterans who have served at least three years of active duty" seems a little much to me. Make it five years of active duty and I'm on board.
Click to expand...

Penny pinching a year? Come on.
 
Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
Originally posted by: UberNeuman
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
The GI Bill was for draftees who didn't have the choice. Since the military is entirely voluntary now, why should citizens front the entire bill?
Click to expand...
You object to giving the military a little something in return for the countless sacrifices they make for you!?

wow... if I were you, I'd have to kick my own ass.
Click to expand...

You've had a lot of folks okay-doke with the Iraq war because those soldiers "made the choice" to sign up (not meaning BPJ in this case) - so why be surprised now that America doesn't give you the respect you should get now that you're going to cost money...

After all the flag waving is done, the vets get the shaft as history repeats.....


god bless America.....
Click to expand...

Vets should be getting top tier medical treatment for anything physical or mental as a result of their military service. I've said in other threads that federal employees shouldn't be able to vote, except for folks in the military, as a benefit of service. So I don't have anything against them.

Do you think it is a legitimate function of the federal government to pay for people's education?

Yes $4 billion isn't much. But to be consistent I say the .gov has to make due with what they already have. Not increase taxes to pay for it. Cut the $4 billion from somewhere else, should be easy to do. But instead of reducing or keeping spending the same, they try to pass off a tax increase as "support the troops" and people like you folks get mad at objectors saying we don't "support the troops".
Click to expand...

You want disenfranchisement of federal employees? WTF?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top