McCain Doesn't Support Veteran Educational Benefits

[Dirt McGirt]

No I think we should provide support for our troops by making sure they have experienced comrades to serve with. Like I have said, keep spewing your donkey shit without understanding what you are talking about.

Again, please do explain what NCTS and IRR are. Please do it for everyone to see and admit your wrongness.

 

[jreeves]

Again, please do explain what NCTS and IRR are. Please do it for everyone to see and admit your wrongness.

So you support the backdoor draft huh?

 

[Dirt McGirt]

So you support the backdoor draft huh?

Now you're wrongly referring to a 7 or 8 year obligation that a Soldier knowingly signs up for as "the backdoor draft". LMAO.

But seriously, do explain what IRR and NCTS is. I want to hear how we can lose experienced Soldiers with IRR and NCTS in place.

 

[jreeves]

Now you're wrongly referring to a 7 or 8 year obligation that a Soldier knowingly signs up for as "the backdoor draft". LMAO.

But seriously, do explain what IRR and NCTS is. I want to hear how we can lose experienced Soldiers with IRR and NCTS in place.

So let me get this right, you don't think we should be retaining soliders who want GI bill benefits. But you think we should instituting a back door draft.

 

[Dirt McGirt]

So let me get this right, you don't think we should be retaining soliders who want GI bill benefits.

WTF are you talking about??? Do you know anything about the MGIB???? All Soldiers who want GI Bill benefits are offered those benefits upon their initial enlistment if they are eligible. If they accept them then they pay their money into the MGIB, if they decline it then they don't get them. Period. Initial enlistment is the only time they are offered those MGIB benefits (unless they fall under PL 101-510). Obviously, you didn't know that.

But you think we should instituting a back door draft.

A Soldiers initial obligation to the military is 7 years (NCTS is 8 in most cases). If a Soldier serves three years and gets out then I have no problem with that. I also have no problem with the Soldier being called back to duty or retained on active duty if they are still under their initial 7 year obligation.

When a Soldier has no Active Duty Service Obligation remaining and are stop lossed or forced to stay on duty that is what is commonly known in liberal speak as "a backdoor draft". Obviously, you didn't know that either.

 

[jreeves]

WTF are you talking about??? Do you know anything about the MGIB???? All Soldiers who want GI Bill benefits are offered those benefits upon their initial enlistment if they are eligible. If they accept them then they pay their money into the MGIB, if they decline it then they don't get them. Period. Initial enlistment is the only time they are offered those MGIB benefits (unless they fall under PL 101-510). Obviously, you didn't know that.

A Soldiers initial obligation to the military is 7 years (NCTS is 8 in most cases). If a Soldier serves three years and gets out then I have no problem with that. I also have no problem with the Soldier being called back to duty or retained on active duty if they are still under their initial 7 year obligation.

When a Soldier has no Active Duty Service Obligation remaining and are stop lossed or forced to stay on duty that is what is commonly known in liberal speak as "a backdoor draft". Obviously, you didn't know that either.

I was referring to the expanison of benefits under the GI bill.
The Associated Press: Congress eyes dramatic expansion of GI bill
The Pentagon has said that it's open to boosting college aid, even substantially, for veterans but wants the commitment to extend to at least six years, instead of three, before the full benefit kicks in.

Blue Dogs Resist Unfunded GI Bill - The Washington Independent - U.S. news and politics - washingtonindependent.com
Conservative Republicans oppose the policy, arguing that the benefits are too generous; while conservative-leaning House Democrats -- the Blue Dogs -- oppose the process, maintaining that the 10-year, $52-billion cost should be offset rather than borrowed, as party leaders have proposed.


I applaud the blue-dog democrats for having common sense.

 

[Dirt McGirt]

I was referring to the expanison of benefits under the GI bill.
The Associated Press: Congress eyes dramatic expansion of GI bill
The Pentagon has said that it's open to boosting college aid, even substantially, for veterans but wants the commitment to extend to at least six years, instead of three, before the full benefit kicks in.

Blue Dogs Resist Unfunded GI Bill - The Washington Independent - U.S. news and politics - washingtonindependent.com
Conservative Republicans oppose the policy, arguing that the benefits are too generous; while conservative-leaning House Democrats -- the Blue Dogs -- oppose the process, maintaining that the 10-year, $52-billion cost should be offset rather than borrowed, as party leaders have proposed.


I applaud the blue-dog democrats for having common sense.

Funny, your initial reasons for opposing this bill were retention. Now you're dancing around and citing fiscal reasons. A 10 year, $52 billion cost is nothing when you put the costs of the war into perspective. And let's face it, this bill is exclusively for the Soldiers, most of whom have served in Iraq and Afghanistan. Why can't you just admit that you support the war but not the troops?

 

[jreeves]

Funny, your initial reasons for opposing this bill were retention. Now you're dancing around and citing fiscal reasons. A 10 year, $52 billion cost is nothing when you put the costs of the war into perspective. And let's face it, this bill is exclusively for the Soldiers, most of whom have served in Iraq and Afghanistan. Why can't you just admit that you support the war but not the troops?

No I support giving them the expansion but it should be done with common sense. The government shouldn't just print more money to finance it either, Congress should have to cut spending in other areas to finance it.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So providing educational benefits to veterans is a leftist liberal agenda? I disagree, but since you're willing to repeat those claims over and over, I'm sure the liberals on the board are validated when they say conservatives don't give a **** about our troops.

All of you guys arguing against educational benefits for our troops are looking like complete asses. Think about what you guys are saying: "We don't want to increase educational benefits for our troops because we don't want to hurt our military." Complete nonsense.

We can keep the experienced NCO's and raise their educational benefits at the same time. They've been raising benefits for years now, both in reenlistment bonuses and increases to the MGIB. As it stands now, the MGIB needs another increase to cover the cost of gas, rising tuition prices, and the increase in the cost of living.

No One is arguing against benefits and you either know that or are not worth the time to respond to. The argument is what and how we should do it. The thread title claims McCain is against something when in fact he is actually working on his own proposal as to how we should do it. But hey "Thanks for playing" TM RGS 2008

 

[Dirt McGirt]

No One is arguing against benefits and you either know that or are not worth the time to respond to. The argument is what and how we should do it. The thread title claims McCain is against something when in fact he is actually working on his own proposal as to how we should do it. But hey "Thanks for playing" TM RGS 2008

Do you have alzheimer's? Take a look at who the first person was to link to McCain's bill in this thread and get back to me. There's no question in my mind that this thread's intention was intended to be a partisan dig at the Repubs. The problem is, some of you guys responded in such a manner that made you look like you didn't support ANY educational benefits whatsoever. Kudos to the threadstarter, he really played you guys.

 

[manu1959]

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 **** them when they come back.

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

is there a program in place now?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

is there a program in place now?

Yes.

 

[manu1959]

Yes.

and what is it?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

and what is it?

I believe the Montgomery plan is currently the one in use. Already discussed in this thread.

Further while on active duty, duty allowing, service members get tuition assistance to take courses on their own time, including aboard ship and by computer.

 

[editec]

WE ought to be giving our veterans the same benefits we gave the WWII veterans.

Initiating a truly honestly done universal draft isn't such a bad idea either.

Of course we all know that the elite's children will not be forced to serve, or if they are, they'll all get the cushie billets (and those dubious medals they all seem to get), just as they always did.

But still, making the entire nation bear the brunt of going to war probably would keep this nation from acting like the empire-building bullies we've been for the last half century.

 

[rayboyusmc]

The bill that McCain is against is one that I think the vets deserve. It has precedence in the original GI Bill put in place after WWII.

That bill created a huge college educated middle class that was instrumental in the success we experienced after WW II.

I don't buy that it will deplete the services of career military. Those that want to serve the full 20 or 30 are going to no matter what the benefits are when they get out.

As I posted, what will deplete US of our career military are the constant deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. If you have a family, you have a choice. It isn't great.

 

[editec]

When people suggest that better veterans benefits will deplete the military, what they are saying (sotto voce) is that contrary to the myth that everyone in the service is there out of loyalty and patiotism, most of them are servicing because it's a job.

I think, incidently, that in most cases, that is exactly why people join the service.