Which candidates (if any) are promising to help veterans?

[shortylickens]

I know that no one will actually do anything.
I'm just curious if any of the candidates are making promises to help veterans in order to get elected. Traditionally it falls on the Republicans to make such promises while running for office, but for some strange reason I cant recall hearing anything like that from the McCain camp.

Have they finally acknowledged it really isnt going to happen and they dont even wish to give us false hope anymore?

 

[Balt]

I haven't seen much in the way of promises from either side, but if this site is to believed McCain earns a D and Obama gets a B+.

 

[jpeyton]

McCain opposed the new GI Bill. 'Nuff said.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
McCain opposed the new GI Bill. 'Nuff said.

he opposed it... by supporting a different bill that also would have increased vet benefits.

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: jpeyton
McCain opposed the new GI Bill. 'Nuff said.

he opposed it... by supporting a different bill that also would have increased vet benefits.

shhh... don't discredit jpeyton!
That's how all these political jabs work! By discrediting someone based on a No vote of something important, but not giving credit for supporting something else that could be deemed better.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: jpeyton
McCain opposed the new GI Bill. 'Nuff said.

he opposed it... by supporting a different bill that also would have increased vet benefits.

shhh... don't discredit jpeyton!
That's how all these political jabs work! By discrediting someone based on a No vote of something important, but not giving credit for supporting something else that could be deemed better.

Of course, you forget to mention that Webb's proposal offered MORE benefits than the proposal McCain was pushing. McCain himself admitted Webb's bill was "more generous".

That's probably why troops are more generous to Obama with their campaign donations by a wide margin.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Balt
I haven't seen much in the way of promises from either side, but if this site is to believed McCain earns a D and Obama gets a B+.

Not sure I would believe that site.

According to them the lowest scoring Democrat still scores higher than the highest scoring Republican.

The scores are partially based on the Disabled American Veterans site which ranked 5 votes.
3 of those votes seem to involve amendments that add to Vet care by increasing taxes elsewhere.
Example:
By 46 yeas to 54 nays (Vote No. 41), Akaka Amendment No. 3007, to increase Veterans medical services funding by $1.5 billion in fiscal year 2007 to be paid for by closing corporate tax loopholes.

Another one takes money from one agency and gives it to a Vet agency etc.

Overall the rating seem convoluting. There were only 5 votes dealing with Veteran affairs during that entire year?

The other group they source is highly partisan. This group gave 80 Democrats an A rating and 16 Republicans an F rating. And again only Democrats got A's and only Republicans got F's. Also, in 2006 the group started a PAC heading by two Democrats. So much for nonpartisan.

Finally, do you really believe that every Republican is bad and every Democrat is good when it comes to Vet affairs?

 

[Butterbean]

McCain opposed the "more generous" version of bill the Dems put up (he supported another one) because it rewarded people with one enlistment the same as people with three. Studies show the Dem election handout (and we KNOW thats what they do) would see 17% of people leaving early because of lopsided benefits. Such a thing erodes the military under the guise of helping ("hurt and rescue" - the usual Dem tactic). Obama hates the military and cant wait to deball it and get all the "sensitivity" wierdos going with all the brainwashing seminars. Getting %17 to leave would be right up his alley.

 

[retrospooty]

Originally posted by: Butterbean
McCain opposed the "more generous" version of bill the Dems put up (he supported another one) because it rewarded people with one enlistment the same as people with three. Studies show the Dem election handout (and we KNOW thats what they do) would see 17% of people leaving early because of lopsided benefits. Such a thing erodes the military under the guise of helping ("hurt and rescue" - the usual Dem tactic). Obama hates the military and cant wait to deball it and get all the "sensitivity" wierdos going with all the brainwashing seminars. Getting %17 to leave would be right up his alley.

It really saddens to know that some people think the same way you do. You are so negative and wrong about..... everything.

 

[dennilfloss]

Obama talks about helping and respecting returning veterans all the time.

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: dennilfloss
Obama talks about helping and respecting returning veterans all the time.

let me see, I would think a vet/pow would have more of a heart for vets then someone who seems completely befuddled and ignorant about the military.

 

[retrospooty]

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: dennilfloss
Obama talks about helping and respecting returning veterans all the time.

let me see, I would think a vet/pow would have more of a heart for vets then someone who seems completely befuddled and ignorant about the military.

And yet Obama's voting record supports vets far better than McCains. You see repubicans don't give a shit about the troops once they are home and no longer of use to them.

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: dennilfloss
Obama talks about helping and respecting returning veterans all the time.

let me see, I would think a vet/pow would have more of a heart for vets then someone who seems completely befuddled and ignorant about the military.

And yet Obama's voting record supports vets far better than McCains. You see repubicans don't give a shit about the troops once they are home and no longer of use to them.

So you expect me to believe McCain cares nothing about the men and women he served with?
You would give Spock a meltdown.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: jpeyton
McCain opposed the new GI Bill. 'Nuff said.

he opposed it... by supporting a different bill that also would have increased vet benefits.

No! McCain's alternative would have denied exactly the same benefits to current vets that were given to Vietnam vets. His lame ass excuse was that he thought it would cause reenlistments to fall. McCain also opposed the provision of the The Webb - Hagel bill that would extend the same benefits to National Guard and Reserve troops who serve in combat. Furthermore, the Webb - Hagel bill provides the full cost of tution and housing at a state college or university for all vets while McCain's bill would only give inadequate fixed benefits to a limited number of vets who served multiple enlistment terms.

To show his disapproval, McCain threw a hissy fit and didn't bother to show up for the vote on the Webb - Hagel bill which passed by a 75 - 22 margin. If you look closely, you may find a few Republicans in that overwhelming majority.

If you want to know what real vets think of McCain's watered down bill, ask a couple of real vets, like the bill's sponsors, Sen. Jim Webb (D) and Sen. Chuck Hagel (R).

Originally posted by: destrekor

shhh... don't discredit jpeyton!
That's how all these political jabs work! By discrediting someone based on a No vote of something important, but not giving credit for supporting something else that could be deemed better.

McCain did a fine job of dishonoring American vets and trashing the value of his own service by opposing the Webb - Hagel bill that really helps those who risked their lives in service to our nation. The only ones you discredit are yourself and those who are still trying to argue that McCain's was anything other than a cold hearted, pathetically inadequate loser of a substitute.

Originally posted by: daniel49

let me see, I would think a vet/pow would have more of a heart for vets then someone who seems completely befuddled and ignorant about the military.

So one would think. The problem is, McCain doesn't.

 

[retrospooty]

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: dennilfloss
Obama talks about helping and respecting returning veterans all the time.

let me see, I would think a vet/pow would have more of a heart for vets then someone who seems completely befuddled and ignorant about the military.

And yet Obama's voting record supports vets far better than McCains. You see repubicans don't give a shit about the troops once they are home and no longer of use to them.

So you expect me to believe McCain cares nothing about the men and women he served with?
You would give Spock a meltdown.

Sure he cares about them... Just not to the point of being as generous to them as the democrats would... You know, bleeding hearts and all.

 

[heyheybooboo]

ButterBrain can't even get his misleading facts and lies of omission correct.

The CBO estimated that retention rates would be reduced 16% --- but the reduction in retention would be matched by an increase in recruitment of 16% --- so it's a wash.

Other McCain Veteran nuggets ....

* On Webb's GI Bill, he expressed opposition then was AWOL when it was time to vote on May 22, 2008.

* In September of 2007 he voted against another Webb bill that would have mandated adequate rest for troops between combat deployments.

* McCain voted no on a $1.5-billion increase for veterans medical services for fiscal year 2007 (funded through closing corporate tax loopholes). He also voted against establishing a trust fund to bolster under-budgeted veterans hospitals.

* In May of 2006 he voted against a $20-billion allotment for expanding veterans medical facilities.

* In April of 2006 he was one of 13 Senate Republicans who voted against an amendment to provide $430 million for veterans outpatient care.

* In March of 2004 he voted against and helped defeat on a party-line vote a $1.8-billion reserve for veterans medical care (also funded by closing tax loopholes).


The issues surrounding VA hospitals in my area were shown in a series of articles here ---->
http://legacy.charlotteobserver.com/va/

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Butterbean
McCain opposed the "more generous" version of bill the Dems put up (he supported another one) because it rewarded people with one enlistment the same as people with three. Studies show the Dem election handout (and we KNOW thats what they do) would see 17% of people leaving early because of lopsided benefits. Such a thing erodes the military under the guise of helping ("hurt and rescue" - the usual Dem tactic). Obama hates the military and cant wait to deball it and get all the "sensitivity" wierdos going with all the brainwashing seminars. Getting %17 to leave would be right up his alley.

How do you remember to breath?

 

[chess9]

LOL!

McCain OPPOSED almost every single veteran's bill since he's been in the Senate. This latest no vote was only one of many. His essential position is that when you join the military, Uncle Sam owns your ass and owes you NOTHING. If it were up to McCain we wouldn't have any VA Hospitals or veteran's pensions for disabled vets.

His philosophy is fundamentally Libertarian on spending, not conservative (as used by American conservatives).


-Robert

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: jpeyton
McCain opposed the new GI Bill. 'Nuff said.

he opposed it... by supporting a different bill that also would have increased vet benefits.

Come on we dont need context!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Xavier434]

Interested in why McCain's reasoning when it comes to helping veterans stinks? Take a look at this paper and start on page 2. Read through point #3.

The man just doesn't understand how to provide incentives for people to join the military while also attracting higher quality people to sign up.

 

[retrospooty]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: jpeyton
McCain opposed the new GI Bill. 'Nuff said.

he opposed it... by supporting a different bill that also would have increased vet benefits.

Come on we dont need context!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Although details would be nice. What bill did he vote for? The imaginary excuse one, or a real one? and what were the benefits vs. the other one?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: jpeyton
McCain opposed the new GI Bill. 'Nuff said.

he opposed it... by supporting a different bill that also would have increased vet benefits.

Come on we dont need context!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Although details would be nice. What bill did he vote for? The imaginary excuse one, or a real one? and what were the benefits vs. the other one?

There is a search function. We all had a nice lengthy discussion about it.

Either way it was a really dumb argument. All both bills did was increase the current benefits. It was painted as McCain hating vets. He just had a different view of how the benefits should work. Webb wanted his to apply to everybody out of the gate. McCain wanted his to reward longer service.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Genx87
There is a search function. We all had a nice lengthy discussion about it.

Either way it was a really dumb argument. All both bills did was increase the current benefits. It was painted as McCain hating vets. He just had a different view of how the benefits should work. Webb wanted his to apply to everybody out of the gate. McCain wanted his to reward longer service.

Yes, and by opposing all of these bills it basically shows that he wants to leave far more enlistees without much of a choice but to stay in the military longer even when against their will. He doesn't necessarily see it that way but that is what will happen. It will also reduce the quality of new enlistees.

Think about it. What are these people supposed to do? You got yourself a bunch of HS dropouts, some HS grads, and even some college dropouts all signing up because out of the choices laid out in front of them this is the best way to ensure their future. So that's what they do. They serve the military and once their enlistment period is over many of them do desire to leave, but they do not because they still have no where to go. There are hardly any jobs worth dick without a 4 year degree right now which is a separate problem in itself, but it ties directly into these people's incentives or lack there of. They want to leave but they have no education so many up reenlisting against their will. Many just don't want to be there and a lot of those that do are not exactly the highest quality people in the first place because they joined due to the lack of options as a result of not being able to achieve a decent enough education to be competitive in the civilian world. I realize not all are like that, but it does encompass a large slice of the pie.

At the end of the day, I just don't believe that people should feel pressured to reenlist in the military because they don't see themselves having any kind of chance to make it in the civilian world. We are supposed to reward them for service. We are not supposed to pressure them to stay by taking away their benefits. How exactly does such a thing increase the incentive for new higher quality people to enlist? I want higher quality people in my military. To have that, we need to ensure that they get incentives for serving or else they will all just go into the civilian world since the benefits and pay combined out there are more valuable to them.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Genx87
There is a search function. We all had a nice lengthy discussion about it.

Either way it was a really dumb argument. All both bills did was increase the current benefits. It was painted as McCain hating vets. He just had a different view of how the benefits should work. Webb wanted his to apply to everybody out of the gate. McCain wanted his to reward longer service.

Yes, and by opposing all of these bills it basically shows that he wants to leave far more enlistees without much of a choice but to stay in the military longer even when against their will. He doesn't necessarily see it that way but that is what will happen. It will also reduce the quality of new enlistees.

Think about it. What are these people supposed to do? You got yourself a bunch of HS dropouts, some HS grads, and even some college dropouts all signing up because out of the choices laid out in front of them this is the best way to ensure their future. So that's what they do. They serve the military and once their enlistment period is over many of them do desire to leave, but they do not because they still have no where to go. There are hardly any jobs worth dick without a 4 year degree right now which is a separate problem in itself, but it ties directly into these people's incentives or lack there of. They want to leave but they have no education so many up reenlisting against their will. Many just don't want to be there and a lot of those that do are not exactly the highest quality people in the first place because they joined due to the lack of options as a result of not being able to achieve a decent enough education to be competitive in the civilian world. I realize not all are like that, but it does encompass a large slice of the pie.

At the end of the day, I just don't believe that people should feel pressured to reenlist in the military because they don't see themselves having any kind of chance to make it in the civilian world. We are supposed to reward them for service. We are not supposed to pressure them to stay by taking away their benefits. How exactly does such a thing increase the incentive for new higher quality people to enlist? I want higher quality people in my military. To have that, we need to ensure that they get incentives for serving or else they will all just go into the civilian world since the benefits and pay combined out there are more valuable to them.

The role of these benefits is to attract and retain people within the military. Not offer an easy option for people to get college paid for by spending a few years in the military. The longer the military can retain people the better it is for them. This is no different than the private sector granting benefits to people for longer service. Including more vacation and sick days, better pay, vested retirement accounts. Why should the military be subjected to anything else with their benefits packages? Just because it is govt?

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Genx87
The role of these benefits is to attract and retain people within the military. Not offer an easy option for people to get college paid for by spending a few years in the military. The longer the military can retain people the better it is for them. This is no different than the private sector granting benefits to people for longer service. Including more vacation and sick days, better pay, vested retirement accounts. Why should the military be subjected to anything else with their benefits packages? Just because it is govt?

"Retain" is a funny word. More like "pressure" if we do things McCain's way. Also, the private sector offers people higher education all of the time without requiring people to stick around longer. Why should the military be different?

At the end of the day, you will be sacrificing quality because you are taking away what attracts quality people to the military. That is something which I would rather not do. You will have many less quality officers that way and we need quality officers. Less officers means that people of lesser quality will be commissioned to fill the vacant seats. Not good.

In addition, I don't agree with dumping people out on the street with little to nothing to offer the civilian world after volunteering to serve is what is supposed to be the bravest and most honorable organization our country has to offer. I realize they can reenlist but they shouldn't feel so incredibly pressured. There needs to be a big part of them that wants to be in the military if we are to retain quality instead of just retaining bodies. I got a friend that got called to serve in Iraq while he was in college. He didn't exactly come home to a decent job waiting for him and he didn't want to remain in the military after that due to family. He could have stayed and had a better job but that would have been quite a sacrifice. If he had stayed, he most likely would have been called upon for another tour over there.

Lastly, are we really suffering that much in terms of retention? How badly do we really need more of it than we have now and why?