Repubs screwing over our military, vets again

Luddly Neddite

Diamond Member
Sep 14, 2011
63,929
9,959
2,040
House Republicans to Troops: Pay for Your Own Damn GI Bill

iStock
http://www.theroot.com/house-republicans-to-troops-pay-for-your-own-damn-gi-b-1794449073
Just like when Republicans talk about “family values” and then you find out they’ve been having secret sex meet-ups in airport bathrooms or abusing teenage boys, when conservatives say they “support the troops,” they usually mean they’re sending them overseas to fight for oil profits, but now it also means they’re taxing them for their own benefits.
http://www.theroot.com/house-republicans-to-troops-pay-for-your-own-damn-gi-b-1794449073
According to the Military Times, House Veterans Affairs Committee Chairman Phil Roe (R-Tenn.) has drafted legislation that would charge soldiers $100 a month for access to the GI Bill. The bill would deduct a total of $2,400 from each soldier’s paycheck to make them eligible. To be clear, this money would not be used to offset spending, because it would only be a fraction of the total cost. Supporters of the proposal (pronounced “as soles”) say that having soldiers “buy in” would make future budget-makers less likely to cut veterans benefits, which is a lie, for two reasons:
http://www.theroot.com/house-republicans-to-troops-pay-for-your-own-damn-gi-b-1794449073




=====

There's a plan in Congress to start charging troops for their GI Bill benefits

By: Leo Shane III, April 18, 2017 (Photo Credit: Getty Images/iStockphoto)
WASHINGTON — A congressional proposal to make service members buy into their Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits surprised veterans groups on Tuesday, with advocates divided over whether it amounts to a long-term fix for the benefit or an unfair bill for veterans.

“This new tax on troops is absurd,” said Veterans of Foreign Wars National Commander Brian Duffy in a statement. “Ensuring veterans are able to successfully transition back to civilian life after military service is a cost of war, and not a fee that Congress can just pass along to our troops.

“Congress must stop nickeling and diming America’s service members and veterans.”

The plan — draft legislation from House Veterans Affairs Committee Chairman Phil Roe, R-Tenn. — would deduct $2,400 from future service members’ paychecks to establish eligibility for revamped post-military education benefits. This was first reported Tuesday by Task & Purpose.

Currently, the post-9/11 GI Bill offers full tuition to a four-year state college (or the equivalent tuition payout for a private school) plus a monthly housing stipend to any service member who spends at least three years on active duty, and to reservists who are mobilized to active-duty for extended periods. Troops wounded while serving are also eligible.

Unlike the older Montgomery GI Bill benefit, the post-9/11 GI Bill does not require any fees or pay reductions for eligibility. The new proposal would change that, taking up to $100 a month from new enlistees’ paychecks for the right to access the benefit after they leave the ranks.

The money collected would amount to a fraction of the overall cost of the veterans education benefit. Congressional staff estimate the move would bring in about $3.1 billion over the next 10 years, while total GI Bill spending is expected to total more than $100 billion over the same decade.

Supporters of the plan say having service members “buy in” to the benefit would strengthen it against periodic attempts by budget planners to trim veterans education benefits. Last year, veterans advocates sparred over proposed cuts to GI Bill benefits given to the children of troops, and a plan to cap some housing stipends connected to the program.


====


VFW Blasts Proposed GI Bill Enrollment Fee as 'Tax on Troops'



Military.com | 18 Apr 2017 | by Richard Sisk

The Veterans of Foreign Wars ripped the House Veterans Affairs Committee Tuesday for considering a proposal to slap troops with a so-called "enrollment fee" for access to GI Bill education benefits.


"This new tax on troops is absurd," Brian Duffy, National Commander of the 1.7 million-member vets group, said in a release. "Ensuring veterans are able to successfully transition back to civilian life after military service is a cost of war, and not a fee that Congress can just pass along to our troops."


In a statement, the committee didn't directly respond to the VFW charges but said that changes to the GI Bill and to benefits for survivors and spouses would be among a number of proposals considered next week at a hearing. The proposal on a fee for access to the GI Bill was first reported by Task & Purpose.


Rep. Phil Roe (R-Tenn.), the committee's chairman, and other members welcomed feedback from witnesses and veterans service organizations "on whether all, some or none of the proposals under consideration advance through the Committee," the statement said.


=====
=====
Remember when President Obama vetoed this? Well, its back and drumpf would sign it in a flash.

Write your congress.
Do it NOW.
 
This society has no use for vets once they're done and back, same with workers once they're no longer generating profit for the substantial people. This isn't a society, it's a colonial wealth extraction enterprise.
 
Anything to make slavery more profitable for the slave masters.
 
(1) The All-Volunteer "army" is a travesty and a total cultural failure. It has allowed generations of spoiled, irresponsible Americans to avoid even the possibility of assuming the obligations of citizenship. This is nothing against those who do serve, but we NEED a military draft.

(2) Military compensation is quite generous, but the reason why it must be generous is that we have to bribe people to serve. See (1) above. Complaining that some PFC doesn't make enough to support a family...insanity on steroids. If we had a military draft, our PFC's would be single men (and, I suppose, women), as is appropriate, for whom a small stipend would be entirely adequate, given that the Service provides all essentials for living for free.

(3) The taxpayers "owe" injured and disabled veterans every effort to resolve residual medical and emotional issues, and to compensate them for their permanent injuries at a rational rate.

The taxpayers have no obligation to provide free education, free healthcare (other than for service-related conditions), subsidized mortgages, subsidized business loans, or other goodies to veterans. They are compensated when they are in the military service and that's enough; they chose to enlist and serve. Done.

Should the taxpayers, through their elected representatives, elect to help veterans with post-service education, it should be on a supplementary basis. The Vet pays the bulk of it, and the taxpayers help out.

Asking that Vets pay something into the "GI Bill" in order to assume some financial responsibility for post-service education is the way it has been in the past, and it is entirely appropriate.

I got $175 per month under the VN war GI Bill, to do with what I could. The rest of my education was paid by savings, loans, grants, scholarships, employer assistance, and out-of-pocket. When I finished my JD I was debt-free. I was more than happy to get it.
 
The All-Volunteer Military has served America well.

As long as there is no draft (and DSG has made no sensible argument for one), the service personnel, as volunteers, must be compensated appropriately.

The taxpayers have every moral and ethical "obligation to provide free education, free healthcare (other than for service-related conditions), subsidized mortgages, subsidized business loans, or other goodies to veterans. They are compensated when they are in the military service and they have the right to enjoy the post-service benefits conveyed by legislation.

Any 'GI Bill' should never, ever be supplementary.

I did not pay into the GI Bill and earned a bachelor and two graduate degrees, and my contributions to society and in taxation have paid those sums back many, many times.

DSG needs to look at this issue again, because he has it wrong.
 
(1) The All-Volunteer "army" is a travesty and a total cultural failure. It has allowed generations of spoiled, irresponsible Americans to avoid even the possibility of assuming the obligations of citizenship. This is nothing against those who do serve, but we NEED a military draft.

(2) Military compensation is quite generous, but the reason why it must be generous is that we have to bribe people to serve. See (1) above. Complaining that some PFC doesn't make enough to support a family...insanity on steroids. If we had a military draft, our PFC's would be single men (and, I suppose, women), as is appropriate, for whom a small stipend would be entirely adequate, given that the Service provides all essentials for living for free.

(3) The taxpayers "owe" injured and disabled veterans every effort to resolve residual medical and emotional issues, and to compensate them for their permanent injuries at a rational rate.

The taxpayers have no obligation to provide free education, free healthcare (other than for service-related conditions), subsidized mortgages, subsidized business loans, or other goodies to veterans. They are compensated when they are in the military service and that's enough; they chose to enlist and serve. Done.

Should the taxpayers, through their elected representatives, elect to help veterans with post-service education, it should be on a supplementary basis. The Vet pays the bulk of it, and the taxpayers help out.

Asking that Vets pay something into the "GI Bill" in order to assume some financial responsibility for post-service education is the way it has been in the past, and it is entirely appropriate.

I got $175 per month under the VN war GI Bill, to do with what I could. The rest of my education was paid by savings, loans, grants, scholarships, employer assistance, and out-of-pocket. When I finished my JD I was debt-free. I was more than happy to get it.

Nope. You cannot have a free society while maintaining slave armies.
And there is no better way to assure that the rich and powerful can avoid a fair share of service to the country than through conscription. Who do you think controls who gets drafted?

No state has an inherent right to survive through conscript troops and, in the long run, no state ever has. Roman matrons used to say to their sons: “Come back with your shield, or on it.” Later on this custom declined. So did Rome.
R. Heinlein
 
Heinlein was crazy as well as a neo-fascist in his day, in love with the military.
 
(1) The All-Volunteer "army" is a travesty and a total cultural failure. It has allowed generations of spoiled, irresponsible Americans to avoid even the possibility of assuming the obligations of citizenship. This is nothing against those who do serve, but we NEED a military draft.

(2) Military compensation is quite generous, but the reason why it must be generous is that we have to bribe people to serve. See (1) above. Complaining that some PFC doesn't make enough to support a family...insanity on steroids. If we had a military draft, our PFC's would be single men (and, I suppose, women), as is appropriate, for whom a small stipend would be entirely adequate, given that the Service provides all essentials for living for free.

(3) The taxpayers "owe" injured and disabled veterans every effort to resolve residual medical and emotional issues, and to compensate them for their permanent injuries at a rational rate.

The taxpayers have no obligation to provide free education, free healthcare (other than for service-related conditions), subsidized mortgages, subsidized business loans, or other goodies to veterans. They are compensated when they are in the military service and that's enough; they chose to enlist and serve. Done.

Should the taxpayers, through their elected representatives, elect to help veterans with post-service education, it should be on a supplementary basis. The Vet pays the bulk of it, and the taxpayers help out.

Asking that Vets pay something into the "GI Bill" in order to assume some financial responsibility for post-service education is the way it has been in the past, and it is entirely appropriate.

I got $175 per month under the VN war GI Bill, to do with what I could. The rest of my education was paid by savings, loans, grants, scholarships, employer assistance, and out-of-pocket. When I finished my JD I was debt-free. I was more than happy to get it.

The power structure is interested in endless war with no push back from the masses. It learned not to involve society as a whole; that got ugly for ‘em. Too much press. Real press, not the corporate state media we know now. The system learned the draft, and universal exposure, involved too many sons and daughters. Too close to home. Body bags on the news. Napalm. Nope, better off if we have say 1% or so who go. Easy peazy. And get those images off their televisions too. The blood-guts-n-fire-bomb ones. The fireworks from a viewing distance shots are cool though.

These aren’t wars of defense, they’re wars of empire and profit. The system doesn’t want widespread questioning. Way too much of that in “VN” as you put it.

And about that GI Bill thang:

The Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944, also known as the G.I. Bill, was a law that provided a range of benefits for returning World War II veterans (commonly referred to as G.I.s). It was designed by the American Legion, who helped push it through Congress by mobilizing its chapters (along with the Veterans of Foreign Wars); the goal was to provide immediate rewards for practically all World War II veterans. It avoided the highly disputed postponed "cash bonus" payout for World War I veterans that caused political turmoil for a decade and a half after that war.[1] Benefits included dedicated payments of tuition and living expenses to attend high school, college or vocational/technical school, low-cost mortgages, low-interest loans to start a business, as well as one year of unemployment compensation. It was available to all veterans who had been on active duty during the war years for at least 90 days and had not been dishonorably discharged—exposure to combat was not required.[2] By 1956, roughly 8.8 million veterans had used the G.I. Bill education benefits, some 2.2 million to attend colleges or universities and an additional 5.6 million for some kind of training program.[3]

Historians and economists judge the G.I. Bill a major political and economic success—especially in contrast to the treatments of World War I veterans—and a major contribution to America's stock of human capital that encouraged long-term economic growth.[4][5][6]

Canada operated a similar program for its World War II veterans, with a similarly beneficial economic impact.[7] Since the original U.S. 1944 law, the term has come to include other benefit programs created to assist veterans of subsequent wars as well as peacetime service.
G.I. Bill - Wikipedia
 
House Republicans to Troops: Pay for Your Own Damn GI Bill

iStock
http://www.theroot.com/house-republicans-to-troops-pay-for-your-own-damn-gi-b-1794449073
Just like when Republicans talk about “family values” and then you find out they’ve been having secret sex meet-ups in airport bathrooms or abusing teenage boys, when conservatives say they “support the troops,” they usually mean they’re sending them overseas to fight for oil profits, but now it also means they’re taxing them for their own benefits.
http://www.theroot.com/house-republicans-to-troops-pay-for-your-own-damn-gi-b-1794449073
According to the Military Times, House Veterans Affairs Committee Chairman Phil Roe (R-Tenn.) has drafted legislation that would charge soldiers $100 a month for access to the GI Bill. The bill would deduct a total of $2,400 from each soldier’s paycheck to make them eligible. To be clear, this money would not be used to offset spending, because it would only be a fraction of the total cost. Supporters of the proposal (pronounced “as soles”) say that having soldiers “buy in” would make future budget-makers less likely to cut veterans benefits, which is a lie, for two reasons:
http://www.theroot.com/house-republicans-to-troops-pay-for-your-own-damn-gi-b-1794449073




=====

There's a plan in Congress to start charging troops for their GI Bill benefits

By: Leo Shane III, April 18, 2017 (Photo Credit: Getty Images/iStockphoto)
WASHINGTON — A congressional proposal to make service members buy into their Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits surprised veterans groups on Tuesday, with advocates divided over whether it amounts to a long-term fix for the benefit or an unfair bill for veterans.

“This new tax on troops is absurd,” said Veterans of Foreign Wars National Commander Brian Duffy in a statement. “Ensuring veterans are able to successfully transition back to civilian life after military service is a cost of war, and not a fee that Congress can just pass along to our troops.

“Congress must stop nickeling and diming America’s service members and veterans.”

The plan — draft legislation from House Veterans Affairs Committee Chairman Phil Roe, R-Tenn. — would deduct $2,400 from future service members’ paychecks to establish eligibility for revamped post-military education benefits. This was first reported Tuesday by Task & Purpose.

Currently, the post-9/11 GI Bill offers full tuition to a four-year state college (or the equivalent tuition payout for a private school) plus a monthly housing stipend to any service member who spends at least three years on active duty, and to reservists who are mobilized to active-duty for extended periods. Troops wounded while serving are also eligible.

Unlike the older Montgomery GI Bill benefit, the post-9/11 GI Bill does not require any fees or pay reductions for eligibility. The new proposal would change that, taking up to $100 a month from new enlistees’ paychecks for the right to access the benefit after they leave the ranks.

The money collected would amount to a fraction of the overall cost of the veterans education benefit. Congressional staff estimate the move would bring in about $3.1 billion over the next 10 years, while total GI Bill spending is expected to total more than $100 billion over the same decade.

Supporters of the plan say having service members “buy in” to the benefit would strengthen it against periodic attempts by budget planners to trim veterans education benefits. Last year, veterans advocates sparred over proposed cuts to GI Bill benefits given to the children of troops, and a plan to cap some housing stipends connected to the program.


====


VFW Blasts Proposed GI Bill Enrollment Fee as 'Tax on Troops'



Military.com | 18 Apr 2017 | by Richard Sisk

The Veterans of Foreign Wars ripped the House Veterans Affairs Committee Tuesday for considering a proposal to slap troops with a so-called "enrollment fee" for access to GI Bill education benefits.


"This new tax on troops is absurd," Brian Duffy, National Commander of the 1.7 million-member vets group, said in a release. "Ensuring veterans are able to successfully transition back to civilian life after military service is a cost of war, and not a fee that Congress can just pass along to our troops."


In a statement, the committee didn't directly respond to the VFW charges but said that changes to the GI Bill and to benefits for survivors and spouses would be among a number of proposals considered next week at a hearing. The proposal on a fee for access to the GI Bill was first reported by Task & Purpose.


Rep. Phil Roe (R-Tenn.), the committee's chairman, and other members welcomed feedback from witnesses and veterans service organizations "on whether all, some or none of the proposals under consideration advance through the Committee," the statement said.


=====
=====
Remember when President Obama vetoed this? Well, its back and drumpf would sign it in a flash.

Write your congress.
Do it NOW.
That's why repub voters are rubes
 
JakeStarkey: The most compelling reason for a military draft is to engage the GENERAL PUBLIC in the issues of whether to commit to any war or war-like undertaking. (It should go without saying that an honest draft would have no exceptions, other than real disability). As long as the soldiers are all-volunteers, 90% of the population basically doesn't give a damn, especially when there is not even a tax boost to pay for it. If the decision to go into Iraq or Afghanistan had involved sending the adult-children of politicians, corporate leaders, and wealthy scions into harm's way, there is a very good chance that neither adventure would have gotten off the ground. Other similar and smaller decisions are made almost daily, with the general public basically not giving a shit about the wellbeing of our troops who are sent into harm's way.

In addition, as stated above, we have right now a couple generations of American youth which has reached "adulthood" while CONTRIBUTING ESSENTIALLY NOTHING TO THEIR COUNTRY - no service and no federal income tax. Some of the idiotic postings on this very thread reveal that they consider that they OWE NOTHING to their country, and that the little snowflakes consider military service tantamount to illegal slavery. Is there an electronic Dope Slap that can be administered?

It is not an insult to those who have served and continue to serve in our military to say that military service (or a civilian equivalent) should be universal - not everyone serving, but everyone having the same statistical chance of being "called."

And as I said above, other than compensation for injuries and other real effects of service, the taxpayers owe veterans nothing but gratitude - no cash or benefits-in-kind. They are nice, but not an obligation.

I served in the Army from 8/68 through 4/71, with the last 16 months in RVN, so I do have a dog in this fight.
 
JakeStarkey: The most compelling reason for a military draft is to engage the GENERAL PUBLIC in the issues of whether to commit to any war or war-like undertaking. (It should go without saying that an honest draft would have no exceptions, other than real disability). As long as the soldiers are all-volunteers, 90% of the population basically doesn't give a damn, especially when there is not even a tax boost to pay for it. If the decision to go into Iraq or Afghanistan had involved sending the adult-children of politicians, corporate leaders, and wealthy scions into harm's way, there is a very good chance that neither adventure would have gotten off the ground. Other similar and smaller decisions are made almost daily, with the general public basically not giving a shit about the wellbeing of our troops who are sent into harm's way.

In addition, as stated above, we have right now a couple generations of American youth which has reached "adulthood" while CONTRIBUTING ESSENTIALLY NOTHING TO THEIR COUNTRY - no service and no federal income tax. Some of the idiotic postings on this very thread reveal that they consider that they OWE NOTHING to their country, and that the little snowflakes consider military service tantamount to illegal slavery. Is there an electronic Dope Slap that can be administered?

It is not an insult to those who have served and continue to serve in our military to say that military service (or a civilian equivalent) should be universal - not everyone serving, but everyone having the same statistical chance of being "called."

And as I said above, other than compensation for injuries and other real effects of service, the taxpayers owe veterans nothing but gratitude - no cash or benefits-in-kind. They are nice, but not an obligation.

I served in the Army from 8/68 through 4/71, with the last 16 months in RVN, so I do have a dog in this fight.
The power structure is interested in endless war with no push back from the masses. It learned not to involve society as a whole; that got ugly for ‘em. Too much press. Real press, not the corporate state media we know now. The system learned the draft, and universal exposure, involved too many sons and daughters. Too close to home. Body bags on the news. Napalm. Nope, better off if we have say 1% or so who go. Easy peazy. And get those images off their televisions too. The blood-guts-n-fire-bomb ones. The fireworks from a viewing distance shots are cool though.

These aren’t wars of defense, they’re wars of empire and profit. The system doesn’t want widespread questioning. Way too much of that in “VN” as you put it.

And about that GI Bill thang:

The Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944, also known as the G.I. Bill, was a law that provided a range of benefits for returning World War II veterans (commonly referred to as G.I.s). It was designed by the American Legion, who helped push it through Congress by mobilizing its chapters (along with the Veterans of Foreign Wars); the goal was to provide immediate rewards for practically all World War II veterans. It avoided the highly disputed postponed "cash bonus" payout for World War I veterans that caused political turmoil for a decade and a half after that war.[1] Benefits included dedicated payments of tuition and living expenses to attend high school, college or vocational/technical school, low-cost mortgages, low-interest loans to start a business, as well as one year of unemployment compensation. It was available to all veterans who had been on active duty during the war years for at least 90 days and had not been dishonorably discharged—exposure to combat was not required.[2] By 1956, roughly 8.8 million veterans had used the G.I. Bill education benefits, some 2.2 million to attend colleges or universities and an additional 5.6 million for some kind of training program.[3]

Historians and economists judge the G.I. Bill a major political and economic success—especially in contrast to the treatments of World War I veterans—and a major contribution to America's stock of human capital that encouraged long-term economic growth.[4][5][6]

Canada operated a similar program for its World War II veterans, with a similarly beneficial economic impact.[7] Since the original U.S. 1944 law, the term has come to include other benefit programs created to assist veterans of subsequent wars as well as peacetime service.
G.I. Bill - Wikipedia
 
House Republicans to Troops: Pay for Your Own Damn GI Bill

iStock
Just like when Republicans talk about “family values” and then you find out they’ve been having secret sex meet-ups in airport bathrooms or abusing teenage boys, when conservatives say they “support the troops,” they usually mean they’re sending them overseas to fight for oil profits, but now it also means they’re taxing them for their own benefits.
According to the Military Times, House Veterans Affairs Committee Chairman Phil Roe (R-Tenn.) has drafted legislation that would charge soldiers $100 a month for access to the GI Bill. The bill would deduct a total of $2,400 from each soldier’s paycheck to make them eligible. To be clear, this money would not be used to offset spending, because it would only be a fraction of the total cost. Supporters of the proposal (pronounced “as soles”) say that having soldiers “buy in” would make future budget-makers less likely to cut veterans benefits, which is a lie, for two reasons:




=====

There's a plan in Congress to start charging troops for their GI Bill benefits

By: Leo Shane III, April 18, 2017 (Photo Credit: Getty Images/iStockphoto)
WASHINGTON — A congressional proposal to make service members buy into their Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits surprised veterans groups on Tuesday, with advocates divided over whether it amounts to a long-term fix for the benefit or an unfair bill for veterans.

“This new tax on troops is absurd,” said Veterans of Foreign Wars National Commander Brian Duffy in a statement. “Ensuring veterans are able to successfully transition back to civilian life after military service is a cost of war, and not a fee that Congress can just pass along to our troops.

“Congress must stop nickeling and diming America’s service members and veterans.”

The plan — draft legislation from House Veterans Affairs Committee Chairman Phil Roe, R-Tenn. — would deduct $2,400 from future service members’ paychecks to establish eligibility for revamped post-military education benefits. This was first reported Tuesday by Task & Purpose.

Currently, the post-9/11 GI Bill offers full tuition to a four-year state college (or the equivalent tuition payout for a private school) plus a monthly housing stipend to any service member who spends at least three years on active duty, and to reservists who are mobilized to active-duty for extended periods. Troops wounded while serving are also eligible.

Unlike the older Montgomery GI Bill benefit, the post-9/11 GI Bill does not require any fees or pay reductions for eligibility. The new proposal would change that, taking up to $100 a month from new enlistees’ paychecks for the right to access the benefit after they leave the ranks.

The money collected would amount to a fraction of the overall cost of the veterans education benefit. Congressional staff estimate the move would bring in about $3.1 billion over the next 10 years, while total GI Bill spending is expected to total more than $100 billion over the same decade.

Supporters of the plan say having service members “buy in” to the benefit would strengthen it against periodic attempts by budget planners to trim veterans education benefits. Last year, veterans advocates sparred over proposed cuts to GI Bill benefits given to the children of troops, and a plan to cap some housing stipends connected to the program.


====


VFW Blasts Proposed GI Bill Enrollment Fee as 'Tax on Troops'



Military.com | 18 Apr 2017 | by Richard Sisk

The Veterans of Foreign Wars ripped the House Veterans Affairs Committee Tuesday for considering a proposal to slap troops with a so-called "enrollment fee" for access to GI Bill education benefits.


"This new tax on troops is absurd," Brian Duffy, National Commander of the 1.7 million-member vets group, said in a release. "Ensuring veterans are able to successfully transition back to civilian life after military service is a cost of war, and not a fee that Congress can just pass along to our troops."


In a statement, the committee didn't directly respond to the VFW charges but said that changes to the GI Bill and to benefits for survivors and spouses would be among a number of proposals considered next week at a hearing. The proposal on a fee for access to the GI Bill was first reported by Task & Purpose.


Rep. Phil Roe (R-Tenn.), the committee's chairman, and other members welcomed feedback from witnesses and veterans service organizations "on whether all, some or none of the proposals under consideration advance through the Committee," the statement said.


=====
=====
Remember when President Obama vetoed this? Well, its back and drumpf would sign it in a flash.

Write your congress.
Do it NOW.
I paid $1200 dollars for my GI Bill back when I was in. The new Post 9/11 bill pays out more than the old one does. Depending on how long you served after 9/11 it pay up to 100% tuition gives a yearly book stipend and pays BAQ at a E-5 with dependents rate that even in my small ass home town is over a $1000 dollars a month.

$2400 dollars is a fucking deal.
 
I don't know what kind of craziness on the left causes them to use a "family values" argument in a discussion about Military Veterans. I thought homosexual contacts in bathrooms was a part of the democrat party agenda. It's possible that left wingers can't read too good either. As a matter of fact Congressman Roe's bill is part of a benefits package that would offer a Veteran the option to put $200 related to the G.I. bill in a non taxable savings account.
 
JakeStarkey: The most compelling reason for a military draft is to engage the GENERAL PUBLIC in the issues of whether to commit to any war or war-like undertaking. (It should go without saying that an honest draft would have no exceptions, other than real disability). As long as the soldiers are all-volunteers, 90% of the population basically doesn't give a damn, especially when there is not even a tax boost to pay for it. If the decision to go into Iraq or Afghanistan had involved sending the adult-children of politicians, corporate leaders, and wealthy scions into harm's way, there is a very good chance that neither adventure would have gotten off the ground. Other similar and smaller decisions are made almost daily, with the general public basically not giving a shit about the wellbeing of our troops who are sent into harm's way.

In addition, as stated above, we have right now a couple generations of American youth which has reached "adulthood" while CONTRIBUTING ESSENTIALLY NOTHING TO THEIR COUNTRY - no service and no federal income tax. Some of the idiotic postings on this very thread reveal that they consider that they OWE NOTHING to their country, and that the little snowflakes consider military service tantamount to illegal slavery. Is there an electronic Dope Slap that can be administered?

It is not an insult to those who have served and continue to serve in our military to say that military service (or a civilian equivalent) should be universal - not everyone serving, but everyone having the same statistical chance of being "called."

And as I said above, other than compensation for injuries and other real effects of service, the taxpayers owe veterans nothing but gratitude - no cash or benefits-in-kind. They are nice, but not an obligation.

I served in the Army from 8/68 through 4/71, with the last 16 months in RVN, so I do have a dog in this fight.
Engage the general public?! Who do you thinks on the front lines?! Maybe if trumps kids were, he would think differently.
 
House Republicans to Troops: Pay for Your Own Damn GI Bill

iStock
Just like when Republicans talk about “family values” and then you find out they’ve been having secret sex meet-ups in airport bathrooms or abusing teenage boys, when conservatives say they “support the troops,” they usually mean they’re sending them overseas to fight for oil profits, but now it also means they’re taxing them for their own benefits.
According to the Military Times, House Veterans Affairs Committee Chairman Phil Roe (R-Tenn.) has drafted legislation that would charge soldiers $100 a month for access to the GI Bill. The bill would deduct a total of $2,400 from each soldier’s paycheck to make them eligible. To be clear, this money would not be used to offset spending, because it would only be a fraction of the total cost. Supporters of the proposal (pronounced “as soles”) say that having soldiers “buy in” would make future budget-makers less likely to cut veterans benefits, which is a lie, for two reasons:




=====

There's a plan in Congress to start charging troops for their GI Bill benefits

By: Leo Shane III, April 18, 2017 (Photo Credit: Getty Images/iStockphoto)
WASHINGTON — A congressional proposal to make service members buy into their Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits surprised veterans groups on Tuesday, with advocates divided over whether it amounts to a long-term fix for the benefit or an unfair bill for veterans.

“This new tax on troops is absurd,” said Veterans of Foreign Wars National Commander Brian Duffy in a statement. “Ensuring veterans are able to successfully transition back to civilian life after military service is a cost of war, and not a fee that Congress can just pass along to our troops.

“Congress must stop nickeling and diming America’s service members and veterans.”

The plan — draft legislation from House Veterans Affairs Committee Chairman Phil Roe, R-Tenn. — would deduct $2,400 from future service members’ paychecks to establish eligibility for revamped post-military education benefits. This was first reported Tuesday by Task & Purpose.

Currently, the post-9/11 GI Bill offers full tuition to a four-year state college (or the equivalent tuition payout for a private school) plus a monthly housing stipend to any service member who spends at least three years on active duty, and to reservists who are mobilized to active-duty for extended periods. Troops wounded while serving are also eligible.

Unlike the older Montgomery GI Bill benefit, the post-9/11 GI Bill does not require any fees or pay reductions for eligibility. The new proposal would change that, taking up to $100 a month from new enlistees’ paychecks for the right to access the benefit after they leave the ranks.

The money collected would amount to a fraction of the overall cost of the veterans education benefit. Congressional staff estimate the move would bring in about $3.1 billion over the next 10 years, while total GI Bill spending is expected to total more than $100 billion over the same decade.

Supporters of the plan say having service members “buy in” to the benefit would strengthen it against periodic attempts by budget planners to trim veterans education benefits. Last year, veterans advocates sparred over proposed cuts to GI Bill benefits given to the children of troops, and a plan to cap some housing stipends connected to the program.


====


VFW Blasts Proposed GI Bill Enrollment Fee as 'Tax on Troops'



Military.com | 18 Apr 2017 | by Richard Sisk

The Veterans of Foreign Wars ripped the House Veterans Affairs Committee Tuesday for considering a proposal to slap troops with a so-called "enrollment fee" for access to GI Bill education benefits.


"This new tax on troops is absurd," Brian Duffy, National Commander of the 1.7 million-member vets group, said in a release. "Ensuring veterans are able to successfully transition back to civilian life after military service is a cost of war, and not a fee that Congress can just pass along to our troops."


In a statement, the committee didn't directly respond to the VFW charges but said that changes to the GI Bill and to benefits for survivors and spouses would be among a number of proposals considered next week at a hearing. The proposal on a fee for access to the GI Bill was first reported by Task & Purpose.


Rep. Phil Roe (R-Tenn.), the committee's chairman, and other members welcomed feedback from witnesses and veterans service organizations "on whether all, some or none of the proposals under consideration advance through the Committee," the statement said.


=====
=====
Remember when President Obama vetoed this? Well, its back and drumpf would sign it in a flash.

Write your congress.
Do it NOW.


Despicable. This is another in a long list of tactics Republicans are using to shift the tax burden from the wealthy to the poor and middle class. To look at our servicemembers as a revenue source for the government is beyond the pale. All service people should not have to worry about housing or medical care the entire time they are in the military. If they see deployment to a dangerous are they should have guaranteed housing and medical for life.

I mean shit the Republicans are just fucking snakes that sell snake oil. There is something in their DNA that once they have power they spend every waking moment figuring out how to screw the poor and middle class.
 
Read the freaking bill instead of jumping to conclusions besed on spin and left wing propaganda disguised as news. It's a good thing. It seems that Congressman Roe's bill will afford Vets who don't use the G.I. Bill for education THE OPTION to bank $200 per month in a tax exempt savings account.
 
Last edited:

Good, they should do this.

The Post 9-11 GI Bill was never intended to be a permanent replacement for the Montgomery GI Bill. In fact, prior to the 2011 overhaul of the GIB, you had to be vested in the Montgomery GI Bill in order to receive the 9-11 benefits. This was removed when the program was expanded to cover those who did not qualify for Montgomery.

Paying into your own college benefits is nothing new, it has been that way for over 40 years (and not having to pay into them has only been around for 6). So I fail to see how this is a problem. We are now in the post 9-11 era, deployments are way down.

And it is voluntary. If you do not want it, do not pay into it.
 

Forum List

Back
Top