quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer

DomKen, basicly I'm not focusing on a single reason, McCain like most human beings often have a list of reasons for approving of or disapproving of a bill. The press focuses on one or two reasons and ignore the rest.

Retention idea has some merit because this version front loads the benifits, thus giving less incentive to re enlist. It's a basic fact but can be argued how much the effect is etc.

Transferability also a basic disagreement he cited

Add to that pork and riders, and not citing where the money will come from and you have a list of
5 perfectly viable reasons to dislike the bill. Five reasons can make enough reason to vote against a bill even if you approve of the general idea.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer

After a relatively short enlistment. They are not graduated so that those who stay longer than one term of service get more. That's front loaded. Full benifits only require 36 months active duty.
You end up with some benifit even at the 12 month point. (40% benifit for subsection 8)

But even as such the front loading is not eough on it's own for me to go against it. Combine all 5 arguments and there is a great case to oppose, combine 4 of them the case is good, down at 3 of them the arguments start to be minor.

`(A) commencing on or after September 11, 2001, serves an aggregate of at least 36 months on active duty in the Armed Forces (including service on active duty in entry level and skill training); and

`(B) after completion of service described in subparagraph (A)--

`(i) continues on active duty; or

`(ii) is discharged or released from active duty as described in subsection (c).

`(2) An individual who--

`(A) commencing on or after September 11, 2001, serves at least 30 continuous days on active duty in the Armed Forces; and

`(B) after completion of service described in subparagraph (A), is discharged or released from active duty in the Armed Forces for a service-connected disability.

`(3) An individual who--

`(A) commencing on or after September 11, 2001, serves an aggregate of at least 30 months, but less than 36 months, on active duty in the Armed Forces (including service on active duty in entry level and skill training); and

`(B) after completion of service described in subparagraph (A)--

`(i) continues on active duty for an aggregate of less than 36 months; or

`(ii) before completion of service on active duty of an aggregate of 36 months, is discharged or released from active duty as described in subsection (c).

`(4) An individual who--

`(A) commencing on or after September 11, 2001, serves an aggregate of at least 24 months, but less than 30 months, on active duty in the Armed Forces (including service on active duty in entry level and skill training); and

`(B) after completion of service described in subparagraph (A)--

`(i) continues on active duty for an aggregate of less than 30 months; or

`(ii) before completion of service on active duty of an aggregate of 30 months, is discharged or released from active duty as described in subsection (c).

`(5) An individual who--

`(A) commencing on or after September 11, 2001, serves an aggregate of at least 18 months, but less than 24 months, on active duty in the Armed Forces (excluding service on active duty in entry level and skill training); and

`(B) after completion of service described in subparagraph (A)--

`(i) continues on active duty for an aggregate of less than 24 months; or

`(ii) before completion of service on active duty of an aggregate of 24 months, is discharged or released from active duty as described in subsection (c).

`(6) An individual who--

`(A) commencing on or after September 11, 2001, serves an aggregate of at least 12 months, but less than 18 months, on active duty in the Armed Forces (excluding service on active duty in entry level and skill training); and

`(B) after completion of service described in subparagraph (A)--

`(i) continues on active duty for an aggregate of less than 18 months; or

`(ii) before completion of service on active duty of an aggregate of 18 months, is discharged or released from active duty as described in subsection (c).

`(7) An individual who--

`(A) commencing on or after September 11, 2001, serves an aggregate of at least 6 months, but less than 12 months, on active duty in the Armed Forces (excluding service on active duty in entry level and skill training); and

`(B) after completion of service described in subparagraph (A)--

`(i) continues on active duty for an aggregate of less than 12 months; or

`(ii) before completion of service on active duty of an aggregate of 12 months, is discharged or released from active duty as described in subsection (c).

`(8) An individual who--

`(A) commencing on or after September 11, 2001, serves an aggregate of at least 90 days, but less than 6 months, on active duty in the Armed Forces (excluding service on active duty in entry level and skill training); and

`(B) after completion of service described in subparagraph (A)--

`(i) continues on active duty for an aggregate of less than 6 months; or

`(ii) before completion of service on active duty of an aggregate of 6 months, is discharged or released from active duty as described in subsection (c).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer

So the chart would look like this:
category 1 36 month + or (catagory 2 30 days and service connected disablity) 100% of cost category 3 30 -35 months 90% of cost category 4 24-29 months 80% of cost category 5 18-23 months 70% of cost category 6 12-17 months 60% of cost category 7 6-11 months 50% of cost category 8 90 days to 6 months 40% of cost
Taken directly from the text of the original source. Cross check at your leisure.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer

So the chart would look like this:
category 1 36 month + or (catagory 2 30 days and service connected disablity) 100% of cost category 3 30 -35 months 90% of cost category 4 24-29 months 80% of cost category 5 18-23 months 70% of cost category 6 12-17 months 60% of cost category 7 6-11 months 50% of cost category 8 90 days to 6 months 40% of cost
Taken directly from the text of the original source. Cross check at your leisure.

How is that different from existing policy? The Mongomery GI Bill gives you full benefit after 36 months and 80% after 24 months. So where is the big change?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer

DomKen, basicly I'm not focusing on a single reason, McCain like most human beings often have a list of reasons for approving of or disapproving of a bill. The press focuses on one or two reasons and ignore the rest.

Retention idea has some merit because this version front loads the benifits, thus giving less incentive to re enlist. It's a basic fact but can be argued how much the effect is etc.

Transferability also a basic disagreement he cited

Add to that pork and riders, and not citing where the money will come from and you have a list of
5 perfectly viable reasons to dislike the bill. Five reasons can make enough reason to vote against a bill even if you approve of the general idea.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer

So the chart would look like this:
category 1 36 month + or (catagory 2 30 days and service connected disablity) 100% of cost category 3 30 -35 months 90% of cost category 4 24-29 months 80% of cost category 5 18-23 months 70% of cost category 6 12-17 months 60% of cost category 7 6-11 months 50% of cost category 8 90 days to 6 months 40% of cost
Taken directly from the text of the original source. Cross check at your leisure.

How is that different from existing policy? The Mongomery GI Bill gives you full benefit after 36 months and 80% after 24 months. So where is the big change?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer

So the chart would look like this:
category 1 36 month + or (catagory 2 30 days and service connected disablity) 100% of cost category 3 30 -35 months 90% of cost category 4 24-29 months 80% of cost category 5 18-23 months 70% of cost category 6 12-17 months 60% of cost category 7 6-11 months 50% of cost category 8 90 days to 6 months 40% of cost
Taken directly from the text of the original source. Cross check at your leisure.

How is that different from existing policy? The Mongomery GI Bill gives you full benefit after 36 months and 80% after 24 months. So where is the big change?

I provide actual citations you provide only you word that it is the same policy, Cite your contention for benifits with as little as 90 days active service, or did you stop intentionally at the 24 month point, and ignore the several catagories under that.

And again my original contention was front loading all the benifits in the first period of enlistment. The contention that it would not help RE enlistment stands since there is no greater benifit provided for longer service. How much extra does an enlistee get if he reups for another 4 years $0.00

quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer

My appologies then Sir, obviously took offense at something that was not intended.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer

DomKen, so I'm complaining that they didn't fix something that maybe should be fixed (and was cited by McCain as one of the reasons he opposed the bill).

My contentions through this whole exchange has been that there are legitimate reasons that one could oppose this specific bill without opposing the expanssion of the benifits.

The added pork, the non transferability, the non related riders, of course the idea that it will likely reduce Re enlistments, and last and likely the most believable and unassailable reason for opposing the bill, the fact that there is no provission for where the heck the money for it is going to come from (THIS time a Democratic renig on the promise of phiscal responsibility and all bills having to state where the fiunding will come from, thank you Mrs Pelosi that makes them the phiscal equivolent of the Republicans from before the mid term elections)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

You can twist and spin all you want but I went to college on the Montgomery GI Bill, in the early 90's when the benefit actually did pay for most of my expenses, and now you're saying guys serving right now don't deserve the same benefit.

You can call it front loading by your definition, which is an unusual definition since the benefit begins at zero and increases over time, but I fail to see how you can argue that that is somehow bad for retention unless you're actually going to argue that it was bad for retention since WWII. You might want to look into retention rates over the decades before trying that though.

BTW I'm still repulsed by your claims troops seeing service today don't deserve the same level of benefits that my father and I got.