The Daily Show: Supporting Our Troops

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: loki8481

he also provides transferable benefits, though. so the guy who's provided 12 years of service to his country to use his benefits to send his kid to college.

As does Webb's bill, but that's besides the point. Are we now saying that we want the purpose of the GI bill to be to educate the children of veterans instead of the veterans themselves? The GI bill serves a valuable function in helping veterans change over from a military lifestyle to a civilian one. Not only is it there to reward them for service, but to help reintegrate them into society. If we're focusing on their children we're losing that and that doesn't seem very smart to me.

 

[NeoV]

did anyone even read what eskimospy said?

Daveymark, where is your 'pull numbers out of your arse' math now?

 

[palehorse]

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. This particular bill should go straight to the President for signature tomorrow... it's that good!

my bad. silly me. :roll:

 

[mrCide]

People have gotten so used to eating up anything pulled from someone's ass they can't tell the difference anymore.

APPEASEMENT! er.

 

[daveymark]

people are falling all over themselves trying to turn this into a debate about the webb bill, or erroneously trying to discount my point because I used hypothetical numbers to show the analogy, when I was simply stating the fact that the video failed miserably in its overzealous attempt to somehow correlate the two 16% figures, as if they offset each other.

sadly, it seems too many in here assume that I was trying to prove some other point. No one wants to admit that I'm 100% correct on this, therefore in their failure to defend Leibowitz they attempt drum up some other issue and hope someone takes the bait (or they do admit I'm right and proceed try to obfuscate and deflect, as if I must be trying to make some other point)

I watch this show often and I get plenty of laughs from this show (especially shows like this one where numbers are jumbled erroneously to prove a point), but it's because of factual inaccuracies like this that I feel bad for those of you who watch this show for the news content.

 

[fskimospy]

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.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: daveymark
people are falling all over themselves trying to turn this into a debate about the webb bill, or erroneously trying to discount my point because I used hypothetical numbers to show the analogy, when I was simply stating the fact that the video failed miserably in its overzealous attempt to somehow correlate the two 16% figures, as if they offset each other.

sadly, it seems too many in here assume that I was trying to prove some other point. No one wants to admit that I'm 100% correct on this, therefore in their failure to defend Leibowitz they attempt drum up some other issue and hope someone takes the bait (or they do admit I'm right and proceed try to obfuscate and deflect, as if I must be trying to make some other point)

I watch this show often and I get plenty of laughs from this show (especially shows like this one where numbers are jumbled erroneously to prove a point), but it's because of factual inaccuracies like this that I feel bad for those of you who watch this show for the news content.

Look man, you can't seriously be trying to argue that you were simply attempting to point out the poor arithmetic skills of the Daily Show without attempting to make any larger statement about the issue that math addressed.

 

[thraashman]

Originally posted by: daveymark
people are falling all over themselves trying to turn this into a debate about the webb bill, or erroneously trying to discount my point because I used hypothetical numbers to show the analogy, when I was simply stating the fact that the video failed miserably in its overzealous attempt to somehow correlate the two 16% figures, as if they offset each other.

sadly, it seems too many in here assume that I was trying to prove some other point. No one wants to admit that I'm 100% correct on this, therefore in their failure to defend Leibowitz they attempt drum up some other issue and hope someone takes the bait (or they do admit I'm right and proceed try to obfuscate and deflect, as if I must be trying to make some other point)

I watch this show often and I get plenty of laughs from this show (especially shows like this one where numbers are jumbled erroneously to prove a point), but it's because of factual inaccuracies like this that I feel bad for those of you who watch this show for the news content.

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.

 

[palehorse]

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."

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: thraashman

Originally posted by: feralkid

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

Are you serious?


It's way worse; let's say there are 10,000 serving and eligible for re-enlistment.
16% would not re-enlist, so 1600.

Say that 50 are recruited. so 16% means 8 new soldiers on top of the 50.

1600 = 8?

See how much fun math can be when you don't have a clue?

Ok, let's do correct math here. We'll work on your 10,000 number. The way this ACTUALLY works is this. 10,000 are serving and eligible for re-enlistment. Now you're assuming this bill is changing it from 100% re-enlist to 16% don't. That's incorrect math. BETTER math (and actually correct) would be to say that of those 10000, 1500 wouldn't re-enlist. And this bill would increase that 1500 by 16%, creating a re-up loss of 240, not 1600. You apply the 16% number to the amount of people that wouldn't be re-enlisting to see what the increase to that number would be. And if we normally lose 10k a year, and that increases by 1600, but we normally recruit 10k a year and that increases by 16% we gain 1600. I'd have to look at the actual number of people who don't re-enlist vs recruitment numbers to know if this is an actual gain, loss, or break even. But the math of applying the 16% loss to the entire military is just ignorant use of math. Don't try and fuck with the numbers to prove your wrong point, shit like that got us into Iraq in the first place.

Sarcasm meter broken?

 

[SirStev0]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
So the difference of getting paid tuition to the best public schools as compared to the average public schools is going to cost the Armed Services cannon fodder? That's what it sounds like those against Webb's bill are saying.

McCain is saying that someone who never served shouldn't tell him what to do.

Bullshit.. but you know.

 

[SirStev0]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: jpeyton
McSame

Originally posted by: jpeyton

McSame

Originally posted by: jpeyton
McBush

what the hell is the point of this shit? we get it.

Remember the "Flip-Flopper" Line? That's how we felt.

 

[fskimospy]

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."

Oh don't give me your blind partisan bullshit. The vast majority of people get out after one enlistment if they're going to get out. They are the ones most likely to go to college and the ones that will go the farthest with it. It makes the most sense to target your benefits to these people.

Specifically since the CBO's estimate accounts for the increase in spending on re-enlistment bonuses that would be required to maintain the force's current profile (approximately $1b more then McCain's) it would appear to me that with that funding the only argument you could really give would be from a fiscal responsibility standpoint, ie. that's too much money to spend.

But hey, a compromise is always better right? Sure it pushes the benefits towards multiple enlistees, the kinds of people least likely to use it, but ahhh who cares.

 

[SirStev0]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Genx87

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

shhh you will ruin their circle jerk.

Psst: Guys, you might actually want to read up on this before shoving your feet quite so far into your mouths. Daveymark you are exactly right that all 16%s aren't equal. Unfortunately you got it completely wrong on the specifics. According to the CBO's analysis this would result in an increase of about 30,000 new recruits annually while reducing retention by about 7,000. So, the very same people that everyone is referencing seem to think that it will provide the military with so many more recruits over what they will need to cover their losses, that if you read the PDF they talk about reducing enlistment bonuses, etc. to actually deter people.

This probably is because you don't understand how military recruiting and retention works. The majority of people who serve get out of the military after one enlistment. If you re-enlist once however, your prospect of staying in goes way way up.

I'll give you a hint at the argument you actually want to be making instead of playing numbers games (and playing them incorrectly I might add). The problem here is that you're trading more experienced soldiers for new recruits. A guy with 4 years in is way more useful then a booter. Of course the CBO has included an increase in re-enlistment bonuses in it's cost analysis to counteract this, but it's still a way better argument then just using horribly wrong math.

Thank you for beating me and saving me the time. The first 16% is people who would be up for re-enlistment. Which is not a huge number. A 16% increase in recruitment which is a huge amount of people a year, is a big number.

There are a ton of people who enter the service for the free money to college. They would leave anyway. This is going to give a few other people that would maybe want to go to college and get a degree a little more incentive to go get that degree.

If you haven't been paying attention we have a huge problem with soldiers having difficulties getting employment after service. This has been a problem for a long time. A good amount of the skills of an average grunt don't really translate over very well except in a few areas. A lot end up doing construction.

A good portion of the 50's were spent convincing women not to work so their husbands who just came back from Europe or the South Pacific would have a job. A lot of people forget that throughout the 40's women where encouraged to get a job even doing manual labor as their patriotic duty.

Hell you need a college degree to become a cop in some places. Unless you were an MP in the military, You need to go to school.

You can easily train a kid to kill someone. The technical people and the people who joined the service to for a specific reason will probably stick around anyway. Grunts are where this turn around would be. The guys that go in for 3 years and then end up delivering pizzas or putting up siding are the ones that will benefit.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: SirStev0

Remember the "Flip-Flopper" Line? That's how we felt.

I'm with you, I'd just as soon see flip-flop join death inside a blazing inferno on the banned words list

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: palehorse74
A "good bill" would be one that falls somewhere between the two current proposals -- a compromise.

Why the hell is Congress incapable of doing so?!

the democrats have no interest in bipartisanship... which is a good thing if you agree with the DNC platform.

Maybe and maybe not. If so are you surprised after the 6 1/2 years where they were told to fall in line or STFU by the dominant (R)'s?

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: palehorse74
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."

Oh don't give me your blind partisan bullshit. The vast majority of people get out after one enlistment if they're going to get out. They are the ones most likely to go to college and the ones that will go the farthest with it. It makes the most sense to target your benefits to these people.

Specifically since the CBO's estimate accounts for the increase in spending on re-enlistment bonuses that would be required to maintain the force's current profile (approximately $1b more then McCain's) it would appear to me that with that funding the only argument you could really give would be from a fiscal responsibility standpoint, ie. that's too much money to spend.

But hey, a compromise is always better right? Sure it pushes the benefits towards multiple enlistees, the kinds of people least likely to use it, but ahhh who cares.

I could never work with anyone so unwilling to compromise or debate... I'd fire you in less than a week.

As I said, let me apologize for ever having the audacity to question the specifics outlined in Webb's version. It's quite obvious that they are perfect just as they are, and no further discussion or debate is necessary.

silly me. :roll:

 

[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.

 

[SP33Demon]

Hot dam, eskimospy is on a roll. His logic makes perfect sense to me: who the hell is going to college after 12 years in the military? The ones most likely to use it will be the 4 year enlistees, but since you're doubling your recruitments vice people leaving it may or may not pay off as far as experienced veteran retention. It's close enough to where I think it will be a non-issue, which means Webb's proposal is fair in my book.

 

[dainthomas]

Originally posted by: Ldir
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.

This is really a departure from normal for Bush/McCain. Instead of accidentally hurting the troops, now it seems like they're doing it just because (out of habit maybe?).

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: SirStev0

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: jpeyton
McSame

Originally posted by: jpeyton

McSame

Originally posted by: jpeyton
McBush

what the hell is the point of this shit? we get it.

Remember the "Flip-Flopper" Line? That's how we felt.

Heh. John Kerry's house of pancakes... lulz!!!

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Oh don't give me your blind partisan bullshit. The vast majority of people get out after one enlistment if they're going to get out. They are the ones most likely to go to college and the ones that will go the farthest with it. It makes the most sense to target your benefits to these people.

Specifically since the CBO's estimate accounts for the increase in spending on re-enlistment bonuses that would be required to maintain the force's current profile (approximately $1b more then McCain's) it would appear to me that with that funding the only argument you could really give would be from a fiscal responsibility standpoint, ie. that's too much money to spend.

But hey, a compromise is always better right? Sure it pushes the benefits towards multiple enlistees, the kinds of people least likely to use it, but ahhh who cares.

I could never work with anyone so unwilling to compromise or debate... I'd fire you in less than a week.

As I said, let me apologize for ever having the audacity to question the specifics outlined in Webb's version. It's quite obvious that they are perfect just as they are, and no further discussion or debate is necessary.

silly me. :roll:

Well if you need to envision yourself as my boss so that you can imagine-land fire me in order to feel better, by all means do so. Considering what you've put forth in this thread so far has been a vacuous appeal for compromise followed up by hyperbolic sarcasm, I find it funny that you would complain about people being unwilling to debate. Please add on a few more eye roll emoticons though, those really buttress your argument.

I never said Webb's bill was perfect, it's just that compromising with McCain's bill on the points of contention brought up would make it worse. 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.

 

[thraashman]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I never said Webb's bill was perfect, it's just that compromising with McCain's bill on the points of contention brought up would make it worse. 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.

Exactly. Agreeing to take worse provision from a worse bill to end up with worse results for stupid reasons to please a moron is not a compromise, it's a disaster. And to me this speaks on how McCain would run this nation, disasterously.

 

[eits]

ouch... um... anyone else see the flaw in jon stewart's statement?

"if you subtract 16% and then add 16%... you get...."

you get a 3.54% loss... i think john was implying that you break even. he shoulda reflected that point better, rather than saying subtract and then add 16%...

or am i getting this wrong somehow? i'm probably misunderstanding something here...

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: eits
ouch... um... anyone else see the flaw in jon stewart's statement?

"if you subtract 16% and then add 16%... you get...."

you get a 3.54% loss... i think john was implying that you break even. he shoulda reflected that point better, rather than saying subtract and then add 16%...

or am i getting this wrong somehow? i'm probably misunderstanding something here...

You do not necessarily get a loss. Sometimes, you get a gain. It depends on the numbers in question.

In relation to the topic at hand, the CBO had it as a net gain.