The Daily Show: Supporting Our Troops

[jonks]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Here's a hint for you: if you have to resort to a posting like the one you just did, either your argument sucks or your attitude sucks. I'll leave it to you to figure out which one.

There is a third option of course ...

 

[trenchfoot]

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: thraashman
I can argue against this, but my numbers won't be dead on. I've found the recruitment numbers for 2007 but the re-enlistment numbers only for 2004. So assuming no major difference (give or a take a few thousand) since 2004, here's the math. These numbers are for the US Army.

Re-enlistment - 34,593
Recruitment - 80,407

Decrease re-enlistment by 16% means only 29058 re-enlist. A loss of 5535.
Increase recruitment by 16% means it goes up to 93272 or an increase of 12865 troops.

That's a net increase of 7330 annually in the Army. So the numbers game doesn't play in your favor. Even assuming a huge swing of 50% in re-enlistment since 2004, the number still play out in the favor of the new bill.

In other words, McCain is blowing smoke when he says the bill hurt enlistment. It actually helps. McCain really does not want to support the troops with better education benefits. Sounds like four more years of Bush.

abso-frickin-lutely. the bush/mccain agenda for the mideast requires that more and ever more fresh cannon fodder replace the ones bush/mccain will have burnt out, maimed or killed with their policy of "stay the course" - that is of course until the miracle that they've been sitting around sucking their collective thumbs and waiting for all these years occurs that somehow redeems their fabled and failed "shock-and-awe-shoot-loot-n-scoot stra-tee-geriz'in" for the area.

anything that interferes with this plan, including taking care of the veterans that are now no longer of any use to them...nay, that are now actually taking resources away from the fight - does not fall in line with "the plan" of which they will lose control of once the dems take over the executive and legislative branches.....and they will.

and despite how mccain wants to conjure the imagery that he is not bush's clone, i'll guess that the same below-cabintet level people who are now populating the many positions that bush/cheney's micromanaging crony-loyalists-before-talent policy of hiring put in place will still have their jobs, disseminating the same talking points and destructive attitudes that cheney/rove put in place...all without skipping a beat if mccain gets the nod.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: daveymark
rofl...according to Leibowitz, 16% decrease in re-enlistment = 16% increase in recruitment? lmfao

uh...there are more serving than there are enlisting...

example: say for the state of FLorida, there are 1,000 serving and eligible for re-enlistment. 16 percent of those would not re-enlist. so 160.

say that 100 are recruited. so 16 percent more means 16 new soldiers on top of the 100.

160 = 16?

more fuzzy math thanks to Leibowitz

You might want to re-check the fuzziness of your own math because for your numbers to work, you'd have to assume a current re-enlistment rate of 100%

Here's the link to the study from the Congressional Budget Office: Text

The current re-enlistment rate is about 42 percent. A 16% decline in the re-enlistment rate is 42% x (100% - 16%) = 36% according to the study.

Using your made-up Florida numbers, currently, about 420 of the 1000 eligible soldiers re-enlist. If the Post 9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2008 were to go through, only about 360 soldiers would re-enlist (a drop of 60)

 

[nageov3t]

finally watched the daily show... yeah, JS was pretty much talking out of his ass.

he made it seem like McCain wanted to cut the GI bill entirely, not increase benefit, and totally ignored the fact that we'd be replacing 16% of experienced soldiers with 16% new recruits who don't know the difference between a battlefield and the back of their mom's skirt, followed by the McBush line that seems to be the democrats entire victory plan for '08.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Why is a 'good bill' a compromise? The one being proposed by Webb...

you're right... I apologize for assuming that such a worthwhile issue is also worthy of an intelligent debate on the House floor. I also must apologize for suggesting that anything written by the great Webb has any room for improvement, or compromise.

Webb's bill proposals are obviously perfect from the moment he puts pen to paper.

my bad. silly me. :roll:

HURF BLURF HYPERBOLE.

The fact that something is a compromise doesn't inherently make it good.

Also your stupid comments aside, certainly no bill is perfect. I fail to see why attempting to find the middle ground with a bill that is manifestly worse would yield improvement.

Those of us who are not blinded by the letter in front of each of their names may see negative aspects in both proposals - primarily the lower versus higher time-in-service requirements. So, as I said in the very beginning, the answer lies somewhere between the single 3/4 yr hitch suggested by Webb, and the obnoxious 12 year requirement put forth by McCain.

My suggestion would be six years, with each of those six "vesting" 16-17% of the soldiers' tuition. Perhaps allow combat zone service to count as two years, 1.5x, or whatever; exceptions for medical discharge,... etc etc... (these could be hashed out in the debate you seem to object to)

Hence the word "compromise."

I agree. Sensible debate in which the American populace is an engaged third party would bring nothing but good for all involved

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: loki8481
finally watched the daily show... yeah, JS was pretty much talking out of his ass.

he made it seem like McCain wanted to cut the GI bill entirely, not increase benefit, and totally ignored the fact that we'd be replacing 16% of experienced soldiers with 16% new recruits who don't know the difference between a battlefield and the back of their mom's skirt, followed by the McBush line that seems to be the democrats entire victory plan for '08.

Your description is not accurate. It is replacing 7,000 experienced soldiers with 30,000 recruits of mildly higher initial quality. Even that's not the whole story as the CBO offered solutions to keep the force makeup the same as it is currently. (although this would cost the military about $1b) If this is a problem for you... well okay.

McCain wants to give the troops less educational assistance at the time for which they are by far the most likely to use it. I don't have numbers on exactly how many people with 12+ years in the military use their GI bill in any meaningful way, but I'm betting you that number is laughably small. People rarely leave the military at age 30, and at age 30 they rarely begin college. If McCain has the amount of military knowledge he claims, he knows this.

 

[Dari]

McCain wants an army of slaves beholden to the military for everything.

 

[trenchfoot]

more retention stats to ponder on

apparently, army retention goals are calculated a bit differently than what's been thrown around in this thread.

personally, i despise the shirts that are requiring multiple repeat deployments for our used and abused combat troops.

on the other hand, i stand proudly for the troops that they would re-enlist knowing what's in store for them: more repeat deployments in the face of the majority of public sentiment not wanting us to be there.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: loki8481
finally watched the daily show... yeah, JS was pretty much talking out of his ass.

he made it seem like McCain wanted to cut the GI bill entirely, not increase benefit, and totally ignored the fact that we'd be replacing 16% of experienced soldiers with 16% new recruits who don't know the difference between a battlefield and the back of their mom's skirt, followed by the McBush line that seems to be the democrats entire victory plan for '08.

Dude, it's alright, we're allowed to like it.

Check this out:

?This is our moment to provide each and every new veteran the opportunity to realize their version of the American dream, the dream that they have spent their lives trying to defend,? said Senator Clinton. "Let's send this legislation to the president and let's serve the men and women who serve us."

http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=298265&&

She said it's cool.

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Video

Did everyone else overlook the fact that the same study McSame cited as showing a 16% drop in retention rates showed the same 16% increase in enlistment because of the new GI Bill?

Our country providing decent health and education benefits to veterans is too close to Socialism to be allowed.

SUPPORT OUR TROOPS!!