Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Senate to vote on new GI Bill despite McCain's auspicious opposition ?!?.


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Senate to vote on new GI Bill despite McCain's auspicious opposition ?!?. Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Senate to vote on new GI Bill despite McCain's ausp... - 5/23/2008 9:37:06 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
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.


The benefits are not front loaded. The benefits are simply increased to be sufficient to fully pay for college.

(in reply to Archer)
Profile   Post #: 61
RE: Senate to vote on new GI Bill despite McCain's ausp... - 5/23/2008 11:09:09 AM   
Archer


Posts: 3207
Joined: 3/11/2005
Status: offline
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.



(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 62
RE: Senate to vote on new GI Bill despite McCain's ausp... - 5/23/2008 11:14:37 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
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.

One more time. The Webb GI Bill does not change when a serviceman becomes eligible for educational benefits. It just changes the dollar values to reflect the actual cost of a college education.

(in reply to Archer)
Profile   Post #: 63
RE: Senate to vote on new GI Bill despite McCain's ausp... - 5/23/2008 11:23:38 AM   
Archer


Posts: 3207
Joined: 3/11/2005
Status: offline

Opppsss sorry I may have been reading the wrong Act.

Have to check again

I was on the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2007 (Introduced in Senate)

Is that the right bill?

Actually I am correct SB 22
Text of bill citation in next post





< Message edited by Archer -- 5/23/2008 11:30:03 AM >

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 64
RE: Senate to vote on new GI Bill despite McCain's ausp... - 5/23/2008 11:30:52 AM   
Archer


Posts: 3207
Joined: 3/11/2005
Status: offline
The text of the bill itself says you are in error

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:1:./temp/~c110NGKdlL:e3702:

(1) An individual (including an individual as a Reserve) who--
        `(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).


< Message edited by Archer -- 5/23/2008 11:32:25 AM >

(in reply to Archer)
Profile   Post #: 65
RE: Senate to vote on new GI Bill despite McCain's ausp... - 5/23/2008 12:02:42 PM   
Archer


Posts: 3207
Joined: 3/11/2005
Status: offline
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.

< Message edited by Archer -- 5/23/2008 12:04:56 PM >

(in reply to Archer)
Profile   Post #: 66
RE: Senate to vote on new GI Bill despite McCain's ausp... - 5/23/2008 1:03:49 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
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?

(in reply to Archer)
Profile   Post #: 67
RE: Senate to vote on new GI Bill despite McCain's ausp... - 5/23/2008 4:05:52 PM   
farglebargle


Posts: 10715
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Albany, NY
Status: offline

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?



SHHHH! Don't introduce reality.


_____________________________

It's not every generation that gets to watch a civilization fall. Looks like we're in for a hell of a show.

ברוך אתה, אדוני אלוקינו, ריבון העולמים, מי יוצר צמחים ריחניים

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 68
RE: Senate to vote on new GI Bill despite McCain's ausp... - 5/23/2008 5:57:20 PM   
Alumbrado


Posts: 5560
Status: offline
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.


Which allows candidates from both parties to claim that their opponents voted 'for' something evil or 'against' something wholesome.


And the sheeple keep falling for it.

(in reply to Archer)
Profile   Post #: 69
RE: Senate to vote on new GI Bill despite McCain's ausp... - 5/23/2008 6:15:04 PM   
Archer


Posts: 3207
Joined: 3/11/2005
Status: offline
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







(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 70
RE: Senate to vote on new GI Bill despite McCain's ausp... - 5/23/2008 6:22:13 PM   
Archer


Posts: 3207
Joined: 3/11/2005
Status: offline
Not my point at all, it allows politicians to vote against something based on their mind and us to evaluate if those reasons were valid.

In this case I listed 5 reasons combined that make what I consider a valid no vote.
Even though the overall goal is a worthy one.

But thanks for the bullcrap sheeple evaluation.

Unlike some I took a look at not just the media's hype about one reason given to vote against it but then looked at several other factors and statements that added up to 5 reasons. Compared the claims against the text of the original source document. If that puts me in the sheeple fence then I'd hate to see where most people end up.



(in reply to Alumbrado)
Profile   Post #: 71
RE: Senate to vote on new GI Bill despite McCain's ausp... - 5/23/2008 6:27:28 PM   
Alumbrado


Posts: 5560
Status: offline
You might want to read what I actually said.   There is no reasonable way to attach the sheeple comment to your assertion, so you are reacting to something that simply isn't there. The sheeple are those who are claiming that McCain hates veterans.

Both parties use the tactic of loading bills with irrelevant riders, and both parties play the mudslinging campaign game of 'my opponent voted against orphans, and voted to set crack dealers free!'.

In spite of that, those representatives who do vote have to see through the verbage and decide based on several factors, including political expediency, whether or not to go on record for or against, as you quite correctly pointed out.

< Message edited by Alumbrado -- 5/23/2008 6:47:08 PM >

(in reply to Archer)
Profile   Post #: 72
RE: Senate to vote on new GI Bill despite McCain's ausp... - 5/23/2008 7:50:43 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
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

http://www.gibill.va.gov/GI_Bill_Info/rates/CH30/ch30rates100107.htm
after 3 years rate is 1101/month. after 2 years 894/month which is slightly over 80%. Presumably the discrepancy is due to rounding to whole dollars. Anyone discharged for medical reasons is treated as having served 3 years. As no enlistment of less than 2 years is possible the various oddball rates only apply to reservists and you can find those numbers by following the links on the above page.

You're complaining about something that long predates the Webb GI Bill.

(in reply to Archer)
Profile   Post #: 73
RE: Senate to vote on new GI Bill despite McCain's ausp... - 5/23/2008 11:12:36 PM   
Archer


Posts: 3207
Joined: 3/11/2005
Status: offline
My appologies then Sir, obviously took offense at something that was not intended.

(in reply to Alumbrado)
Profile   Post #: 74
RE: Senate to vote on new GI Bill despite McCain's ausp... - 5/23/2008 11:24:31 PM   
Archer


Posts: 3207
Joined: 3/11/2005
Status: offline
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)

(in reply to Archer)
Profile   Post #: 75
RE: Senate to vote on new GI Bill despite McCain's ausp... - 5/24/2008 5:19:18 AM   
Alumbrado


Posts: 5560
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer

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


No apologies needed, I've already assessed you as a reasonable person from your posting history, and figured it was the Internet skewing communication.

(in reply to Archer)
Profile   Post #: 76
RE: Senate to vote on new GI Bill despite McCain's ausp... - 5/24/2008 9:38:59 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
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)


Do you really think moving goalposts is an appropriate form of debate? I told you at least 3 times that there was no "front loading" of benefits in the Webb GI Bill and you continued trying to argue there was. Now you're claiming the problem was with the earlier laws that should now be changed. So now what was good enough for previous generations of vets is too good for the young men and women serving today? That's repugnant.

(in reply to Archer)
Profile   Post #: 77
RE: Senate to vote on new GI Bill despite McCain's ausp... - 5/24/2008 11:39:46 AM   
Archer


Posts: 3207
Joined: 3/11/2005
Status: offline
The problem is what I'm calling front loading is not what you consider front loading what we have is not moving goalposts but a simple inability to agree on what front loading means. I attempted to give my view you simply dismissed the view without addressing what would constitute front loading in your mind.
The fact that the old program was also front loaded (defined in my book as) all benifits earned in the first 36 months was not as big a problem when you front load $400 vs front loading $40,000.

What's repugnant is that you want to twist and turn things I'm saying into things I have not said.

1. all for the idea of a GI bill
2. all for the ability for a soldier (generic) to build those benifits
3. System I would prefer would be transferable to family (with some way to address it not being able to  be taken away from the soldier in a divorce)
4. System I would prefer would have a slightly increased benifit for the same 36 months period but then be increased to the new full payment level with an additional re enlistment (reward those who re enlist), and maybe even extending the length of time benifits get paid with a third enlistment period. (extend it to grad school maybe).

But then again I guess I'm hopeing against any reasonable expectation that your reason will kick in, and you'll not resort to demonizing me for things I have not said.
(see your bullcrap about what was good enough for...)



(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 78
RE: Senate to vote on new GI Bill despite McCain's ausp... - 5/24/2008 12:41:47 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to Archer)
Profile   Post #: 79
RE: Senate to vote on new GI Bill despite McCain's ausp... - 5/24/2008 5:12:22 PM   
farglebargle


Posts: 10715
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Albany, NY
Status: offline

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.


Given the unprecedented bullshit they're tolerating, I'd suggest a larger benefit is due, myself.



_____________________________

It's not every generation that gets to watch a civilization fall. Looks like we're in for a hell of a show.

ברוך אתה, אדוני אלוקינו, ריבון העולמים, מי יוצר צמחים ריחניים

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 80
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Senate to vote on new GI Bill despite McCain's auspicious opposition ?!?. Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109