McCain Doesn't Support Veteran Educational Benefits

[rayboyusmc]

McCain is using the study which states that if we pass the bill that will give the Iraq and Afghanistan vets four years of college, then retention will drop 16 percent.

The same study says the this incentive will raise recruitement 16%. So end strength is not harmed, but our troops are taken care of like after WW II.

I love all those on the right or left who say they support the troops as long as they are in combat but fuck them when they come back.

Wait, he does wear a flag pin. Must be a patriot.

 

[maneal]

Please provide the substance of the study would you? I would be interested to see where it is located...

 

[RetiredGySgt]

McCain is using the study which states that if we pass the bill that will give the Iraq and Afghanistan vets four years of college, then retention will drop 16 percent.

The same study says the this incentive will raise recruitement 16%. So end strength is not harmed, but our troops are taken care of like after WW II.

I love all those on the right or left who say they support the troops as long as they are in combat but fuck them when they come back.

Wait, he does wear a flag pin. Must be a patriot.

A link to a source would be nice too. Or is this, "we all know it where I live"?

As for college I support help with college, but not a free ride. I personally was under the program where I donated a dollar and they matched it with 2. But knowing I wasn't gonna get out and go to school I withdrew even from that.

If they qualify under VA they get college also. I was in that program for a little over a year until I got to sick to continue. Would have gotten me a 4 year degree in computer sciences.

 

[midcan5]

When you marry high up the food chain there's no need to worry about others. McSame is a republican and as such his only allegiance is to himself and his corporate buddies.

Matthew Yglesias (May 25, 2008) - McCain and Veterans (Foreign Policy)

McCain and Veterans 25 May 2008 09:44 am

"It's worth noting that not only did John McCain oppose Jim Webb's bill expanding educational benefits for veterans, but he has a long track record of fairly stingy behavior on veterans' issues. As Hilzoy puts it "McCain has supported basic appropriations for vets. However, when there are two competing proposals, he generally chooses the cheaper one, and often, when only one proposal to increase benefits is available, he opposes it." "


The GI Bill helped us as struggling newlyweds living week to week get an education. And the taxes I pay now should help others in the same position.

 

[jillian]

We already know that McCain isn't great on taking care of the vets. And we know he avoided voting on the last veteran's spending bill.

But I'd be interested in seeing a link to his reliance on that "study", too.

BTW, his name's McCain.

 

[Dirt McGirt]

I'm undecided and will most likely vote Obama but just to be fair.

McCain did not support Webb's bill because he hates the troops. McCain is co-sponsoring a different Educational Incentives Bill for the Soldiers and is currently in the process of getting support from other members of Congress.
United States Senator - Richard Burr

 

[Gunny]

I'm undecided but will most likely vote Obama but just to be fair.

McCain did not support Webb's bill because he hates the troops. McCain is co-sponsoring a different Educational Incentives Bill for the Soldiers and is currently in the process of getting support from other members of Congress.
United States Senator - Richard Burr

Threads like this are partisan jokes. There's only been one thing for sure based on my observation.

No matter which party is in control of Congress nor which party the President belongs to, active duty military benefits are inadequate at the troop level and veteran's benefits just keep on eroding.

It's not Bush ... it wasn't Clinton ... it wasn't Reagan .... Carter didn't even know he had a military .... it's the government machine and when it's time to cut Federal spending the military always takes it in the shorts, one way or the other.

 

[Zoomie1980]

McCain is using the study which states that if we pass the bill that will give the Iraq and Afghanistan vets four years of college, then retention will drop 16 percent.

The same study says the this incentive will raise recruitement 16%. So end strength is not harmed, but our troops are taken care of like after WW II.

I love all those on the right or left who say they support the troops as long as they are in combat but fuck them when they come back.

Wait, he does wear a flag pin. Must be a patriot.

The problem is you raise incentives to get out, even though you offset that by recruits eager to get the benifits, you end up with no experienced NCO corps because no one want to re-up, as it's simply too good a deal to get out.

 

[Dirt McGirt]

The problem is you raise incentives to get out, even though you offset that by recruits eager to get the benifits, you end up with no experienced NCO corps because no one want to re-up, as it's simply too good a deal to get out.

Untrue. The reason why MGIB goes up every year is because only half of the Soldiers who leave service ever use it. They could double the MGIB and it wouldn't decrease the numbers that much. The main reason why many Soldiers are leaving the military is because they either don't want to spend 15 months in a shithole, they got a better job offer elsewhere, or they are med boarded out. MGIB has little impact on the decision to leave the military and increasing it won't make that much of a difference either.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Untrue. The reason why MGIB goes up every year is because only half of the Soldiers who leave service ever use it. They could double the MGIB and it wouldn't decrease the numbers that much. The main reason why many Soldiers are leaving the military is because they either don't want to spend 15 months in a shithole, they got a better job offer elsewhere, or they are med boarded out. MGIB has little impact on the decision to leave the military and increasing it won't make that much of a difference either.

Then why Increase it? If it is unimportant and ineffective, get rid of it. We have an all volunteer military. If the incentives to join and stay are not good enough we would have a lot more problems then we currently do. If the incentives to leave increase then we WILL have more problems.

Any GI Bill should apply to anyone that stays in also, and should cover them if they stay to retirement. And again it should not be a free ride. The only college that is like that requires a commitment for x number of years in the military AFTER getting the education.

 

[Dirt McGirt]

Then why Increase it? If it is unimportant and ineffective, get rid of it. We have an all volunteer military. If the incentives to join and stay are not good enough we would have a lot more problems then we currently do. If the incentives to leave increase then we WILL have more problems.

The MGIB is an incentive to join, not an incentive to leave. The MGIB SHOULD continue to increase since the cost of education and the cost of living also increases. It's not rocket science.

Any GI Bill should apply to anyone that stays in also, and should cover them if they stay to retirement. And again it should not be a free ride. The only college that is like that requires a commitment for x number of years in the military AFTER getting the education.

^ What in the world are you talking about????

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The MGIB is an incentive to join, not an incentive to leave. The MGIB SHOULD continue to increase since the cost of education and the cost of living also increases. It's not rocket science.


^ What in the world are you talking about????

Have you not responded to the thread title, EDUCATION, that would be college, unless you think our troops need to go back to high school.

 

[Dirt McGirt]

Have you not responded to the thread title, EDUCATION, that would be college, unless you think our troops need to go back to high school.

Any GI Bill should apply to anyone that stays in also, and should cover them if they stay to retirement. And again it should not be a free ride. The only college that is like that requires a commitment for x number of years in the military AFTER getting the education.

Do you know how the MGIB works? Do you know what TA is? Do you know what you have to do to qualify for the MGIB? If you do, then again, what in the world are you talking about????

 

[Jon]

Any GI Bill should apply to anyone that stays in also, and should cover them if they stay to retirement. And again it should not be a free ride.

I couldn't agree more. What is it now? Like 3 years of service and you get a free ride through college?

 

[Dirt McGirt]

I couldn't agree more. What is it now? Like 3 years of service and you get a free ride through college?

It's always been 2 or 3 years...and no it isn't a free ride through college.

 

[Dirt McGirt]

Just to let you guys know how it works, because there seems to be some confusion:

Today, when a Soldier joins the Army, that Soldier is afforded the opportunity to sign up for the Montgomery GI Bill. He signs a DD2366 during his initial enlistment stating that he is eligible or ineligible for the MGIB. If he is eligible, he then must elect to accept or decline the MGIB. If he accepts then $100 is automatically deducted from his paycheck for one year and is in most cases, non-refundable. If he declines he does not get MGIB but keeps his $1200. The Soldier then must serve his initial 2 or 3 year enlistment, must receive an honorable discharge on that enlistment, and must leave service with at least a high school diploma, a GED, or 12 SH of college. The Soldier has 10 years to use the MGIB after he/she leaves service. The Soldier gets 36 months of Ch.30 VA benefits and is paid $1101 a month for the full time rate for having the MGIB. Full time rate is determined by the school, usually it's 12 SH. The Soldier can increase that amount by $150 a month if he pays an additional $600 before separating from the military, also called PL 106-419. One can also receive an additional amount for the Army College Fund. A Soldier may also receive 100% Tuition Assistance (TA) up to $250 per credit hour, $4500 per fiscal year while on active duty for college. Any questions?


The program RGS alluded to earlier is VEAP (not an option to new Soldiers) and Ch. 31 voc rehab.

 

[rayboyusmc]

It's not Bush ... it wasn't Clinton ... it wasn't Reagan .... Carter didn't even know he had a military .... it's the government machine and when it's time to cut Federal spending the military always takes it in the shorts, one way or the other.

Disagree, right now the Republican party, those in charge of it, don't want to spend this money on the troops. We can give the ultra rich a tax break, but won't push to take care of them when the return.

The old GI Bill also let you go all the way to retirement and still use your benefits. I just waited too long. It expired 10 years after retirement.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Disagree, right now the Republican party, those in charge of it, don't want to spend this money on the troops. We can give the ultra rich a tax break, but won't push to take care of them when the return.

The old GI Bill also let you go all the way to retirement and still use your benefits. I just waited too long. It expired 10 years after retirement.

Hey moron the Republicans are NOT in charge and have NOT been since January of LAST year, But hey "Thanks for Playing" TM RGS 2008. Exactly when do the Democrats become responsible for legislation? I mean they do control what bills get seen and voted on and what bills ever leave committee.

 

[rayboyusmc]

Hey moron the Republicans are NOT in charge and have NOT been since January of LAST year, But hey "Thanks for Playing" TM RGS 2008. Exactly when do the Democrats become responsible for legislation? I mean they do control what bills get seen and voted on and what bills ever leave committee.

Retired, you are a complete asshole. Not a moron, an asshole.

Bush has had veto power and has used and threatened to use it. The Republicans have used the tactic called Philly Bustering which they condemned when they were in power. There isn't enough of a majority to push things through. Wait till November when there is a Dem in the Whitehouse and they have real power in the house and Senate. Then if they screw up, I, unlike you, will condemn my party's actions.

The last SEVEN FUCKING years your side ruled both house and senate and the whitehouse. They rubber stamped everything Bush wanted. We haven't recovered from that yet.,

Pull your partisan head out of your moronic ass once in a while to see the sun.

Sorry, if I called you names. It seems the only thing you understand.

As to the retention issue, I didn't call names, I fucking looked it up.

McCain's Distortions on the Webb GI Bill
by Jonathan Singer, Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:30:03 PM EST

This past week John McCain failed to show up for the important vote on a measure that would increase benefits for veterans -- a 21st century update to the G.I. bill -- legislation that he opposed in rhetoric but would not officially do so in the congressional record. Today, McCain went further, taking a swing at the legislation, saying that the increased benefits could lower the number of troops serving in the U.S. military.


Sen. John McCain asserted that the G.I. Bill sponsored by Virginia Sen. James Webb will drive soldiers out of the armed services at a time when the country is trying to expand the size of the military.

Speaking at a Memorial Day ceremony, McCain praised Webb as "an honorable man who takes his responsibility to veterans very seriously." And he said the bill, which would increase benefits for veterans after serving one tour, is a way of offering the nation's "deep appreciation" for the veterans who have served.

But McCain insisted that he takes "a backseat to no one in my affection, respect and devotion to veterans." And he predicted that Webb's bill would reduce the military's retention rate by 16 percent.


McCain is correct that the measure could decrease the retention rate. But he is only telling half of the story, and in doing so is clearly distorting the record. Here Time magazine:


Supporters of Webb and Hagel's bill dismiss McCain's concerns about the retention issue. While the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the bill would cause a 16% drop in re-enlistment rates across all four branches of the military, the same study also predicts a 16% uptick in new recruits attracted by the benefit. [emphasis added]

Reading through the CBO report (.pdf), I'm having difficulty ascertaining precisely whether the increase in new recruits would be larger than the potential decrease in retentions, roughly the same, or possibly less. But it would stand to reason that on the whole these numbers should basically balance themselves out, ensuring that the overall troop level is not at all harmed by the measure -- contrary to the rhetoric of McCain.

Taking away this objection, it's hard, then, to understand the reason behind opposing the bill. If it doesn't decrease force strength yet it ensures that the troops who have dedicated and sacrificed so much for their country can afford to receive a top-notch education following their term of service, it's difficult for me to see what, if any, negative impact that this measure would have. In fact, on the House side the costs of the legislation are offset, meaning that the benefits would not be achieved through deficit spending. Accordingly, McCain's basis for opposing this measure sure seem to be rather thin.

Click on the Time link and read more.

MyDD :: McCain's Distortions on the Webb GI Bill

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Retired, you are a complete asshole. Not a moron, an asshole.

Bush has had veto power and has used and threatened to use it. The Republicans have used the tactic called Philly Bustering which they condemned when they were in power. There isn't enough of a majority to push things through. Wait till November when there is a Dem in the Whitehouse and they have real power in the house and Senate. Then if they screw up, I, unlike you, will condemn my party's actions.

The last SEVEN FUCKING years your side ruled both house and senate and the whitehouse. They rubber stamped everything Bush wanted. We haven't recovered from that yet.,

Pull your partisan head out of your moronic ass once in a while to see the sun.

Sorry, if I called you names. It seems the only thing you understand.

As to the retention issue, I didn't call names, I fucking looked it up.



Click on the Time link and read more.

MyDD :: McCain's Distortions on the Webb GI Bill

The partisan hack is you, and you don't even rate to be called an asshole. The Republicans have not controlled the Congress since Jan 2007 and for a year of the previous 6 they also did not control the Senate.

Again you stupid shit. Democrats decide what bills will even become bills, they control the committees and they set the rules for what is and is not even considered and sent to committee. Once in Committee they decide what will and will not leave committee. Been that way in BOTH houses since January 2007.

So again partisan hack, when do they become responsible for THEIR power and their control?