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

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

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Archer -> RE: Senate to vote on new GI Bill despite McCain's auspicious opposition ?!?. (5/24/2008 9:48:33 PM)
Sorry but it is you who have the real talent for twisting someone elses words into nothing resembling what they said. to go from: 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). to:your claims troops seeing service today don't deserve the same level of benefits that my father and I got. Takes an astoinding level of talent for adjusting the truth.

DomKen -> RE: Senate to vote on new GI Bill despite McCain's auspicious opposition ?!?. (5/24/2008 10:47:31 PM)
That's what you're saying Archer. My dad fought in Korea. His enlistment ran 3 years. He went to college on the GI Bill. He bought the house I grew up in with a VA home loan. I served a single enlistment in the USN and went to college on the GI Bill. You're saying you don't want people like my father and I to get the same benefits we got. Why should they receive less? How can you justify this argument? Do you just not care about those young people? Do you just not care about people trying to better themselves who volunteer to serve this nation? From my perspective it certainly sounds like you are caught in a corner trying to support McCain on something he was simply wrong about and you can't bring yourself to simply say 'you're right, I'm wrong.' farglebargle, you're absolutely right. I served in a time of relative peace and those who see combat certainly deserve better than what I received.

Archer -> RE: Senate to vote on new GI Bill despite McCain's auspicious opposition ?!?. (5/25/2008 8:40:46 AM)
Since we're laying out our veteran penises to measure, Dad USAF (Ret) Me Army Vet Brother USMC vet Sister (former navy wife) STep Father (WWII & Korea combat vet) What part of INCREASED benifit translates to less than?

DomKen -> RE: Senate to vote on new GI Bill despite McCain's auspicious opposition ?!?. (5/25/2008 10:19:37 AM)
Are we really back to this? The reason for the Webb GI Bill is that the Montgomery GI Bill has not kept up with the cost of college. When I used it in the early 90's it paid for most of my expenses including school and rent. I worked part time to cover food and incidentals. Now it doesn't come close to doing that. The Webb GI Bill will simply do away with figuring COLA and having issues with the rate of increase in college tuuition being higher than the rate of inflation. Webb pegs the benefit to the cost of a public university education of the vets state of residence. So it does mean that opposing Webb does mean a much lower benefit for present day vets than it did for me and for preceding generations. Which puzzles me, if you're supposedly making an informed decision about the Webb GI Bill shouldn't you at least know what the situation is and what the bill is supposed to do? It looks more and more like knee jerk support for McCain without having bothered to check into the facts.

Archer -> RE: Senate to vote on new GI Bill despite McCain's auspicious opposition ?!?. (5/25/2008 3:44:52 PM)
Well lets look at your asertion that the benifits are less than those for all veterans past. 1952 veterans didn't get as much as their WWII veteran brothers 1966 version was protested almost instantly as not covering all the costs like they did for the 1944 version. In fact the 1966 version was $100 a month for all expences you're not going to tell me that $100 a month covered all their living expences as well as tuition books and fees are you? In 1967, a single veteran’s benefits were raised to $130 a month; in 1970 they rose to $175; in 1972 the monthly allowance rose to $220; in 1974 it rose to $270, $292 in 1976, and then $311 a month in 1977. Doesn't seem that it went all that far at anytime since 1944, until maybe the revamp in 1984 to the Mongomery GI Bill. So your assertation that it was supposed to cover all expences of college seems to conflict with the historic record. Not saying that in some states The Montgomery GI Bill didn't cover it all in fact in most places it did, and although fewer, in some places it still does. I contend that your personal story of what it covered likely had more to do with the state system you were in than the ammount you had earned in benifits Inflation of college costs has been an unfortunate side effect of government needs based programs. Financial aid like Pell Grants (which servicemen are often elligable for and even get extra points towards qualifying for (unless that changed while I wasn't looking) caused colleges to start raising their rates because if the government is paying for it then they want as much as the federal law allows for in the various programs. My contention was far less knee jerk than a matter of busting chops for the demigogery of attacking McCain for not supporting the bill. 1. Will it hurt re-enlistment as he contends? (More predict yes than predict no) 2. Would transferability be a good idea (debateable but an honest reason to disagree) 3. Was the bill also loaded with pork and other non related riders as it passed? (Confirmed yes, certainly we've seen it said a thousand times that unrelated riders and pork are a huge reason for an honest man to disagree with a bill) 4. Does the bill have any fiscal problems such as it's not set up as a pay as you go item? (Confirmed yes, sorry but a ballaced budget and reduced public debt would do a lot of good for alot of people veterans included so it has to be a very respected reason to disagree with a bill) A subject that you yourself have complained about in other proposals.

Irishknight -> RE: Senate to vote on new GI Bill despite McCain's auspicious opposition ?!?. (5/25/2008 3:48:24 PM)
Archer, please don't try to confuse Ken with facts. He might have to accuse you of not serving because you aren't a carbon copy of him.

DomKen -> RE: Senate to vote on new GI Bill despite McCain's auspicious opposition ?!?. (5/25/2008 4:41:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer Well lets look at your asertion that the benifits are less than those for all veterans past. 1952 veterans didn't get as much as their WWII veteran brothers 1966 version was protested almost instantly as not covering all the costs like they did for the 1944 version. In fact the 1966 version was $100 a month for all expences you're not going to tell me that $100 a month covered all their living expences as well as tuition books and fees are you? In 1967, a single veteran’s benefits were raised to $130 a month; in 1970 they rose to $175; in 1972 the monthly allowance rose to $220; in 1974 it rose to $270, $292 in 1976, and then $311 a month in 1977. Doesn't seem that it went all that far at anytime since 1944, until maybe the revamp in 1984 to the Mongomery GI Bill. You stepped in it now. I had a heck of a time finding a reference online for college tuition in 1967 but I did finally find one. A public university in Ohio had an annual tuition in 1967 of $190. So that 130/month certainly could have covered tuition, books etc. with a part time job thrown in. Exactly like the GI Bill did for me in 1992. quote: So your assertation that it was supposed to cover all expences of college seems to conflict with the historic record. Should have done the actual research before making claims like that. quote: Not saying that in some states The Montgomery GI Bill didn't cover it all in fact in most places it did, and although fewer, in some places it still does. You made the assertion. Show me a public college system where the Montgomery GI Bill and reasonable part time job will cover costs. Use those 1967 figures you stepped in so adroitly above as your yardstick. IOW which state has a yearly annual tuition of $1611? quote: I contend that your personal story of what it covered likely had more to do with the state system you were in than the ammount you had earned in benifits I certainly didn't shop for college based on cost. quote: Inflation of college costs has been an unfortunate side effect of government needs based programs. Financial aid like Pell Grants (which servicemen are often elligable for and even get extra points towards qualifying for (unless that changed while I wasn't looking) caused colleges to start raising their rates because if the government is paying for it then they want as much as the federal law allows for in the various programs. Prove that assertion. quote: My contention was far less knee jerk than a matter of busting chops for the demigogery of attacking McCain for not supporting the bill. 1. Will it hurt re-enlistment as he contends? (More predict yes than predict no) 2. Would transferability be a good idea (debateable but an honest reason to disagree) 3. Was the bill also loaded with pork and other non related riders as it passed? (Confirmed yes, certainly we've seen it said a thousand times that unrelated riders and pork are a huge reason for an honest man to disagree with a bill) 4. Does the bill have any fiscal problems such as it's not set up as a pay as you go item? (Confirmed yes, sorry but a ballaced budget and reduced public debt would do a lot of good for alot of people veterans included so it has to be a very respected reason to disagree with a bill) A subject that you yourself have complained about in other proposals. 1) It will help recruitment which always helps with retention. Claims to the contrary have no data to support the claim. 2) Maybe but the system hasn't had it and there has been no demand for it even though has been allowed for some time. That McCain shoved it into his bill does not impress me. 3) The bill was the Iraw war funding measure. Any pork in it kind of disappears into insignifigance compared to the 12 billion a month to enrich KBR. 4) The bill is estimated to cost 24 billion over 10 years. Iraq costs 12 billion a month. Bring the troops home two months faster and the GI Bill is paid for.

Archer -> RE: Senate to vote on new GI Bill despite McCain's auspicious opposition ?!?. (5/25/2008 7:04:29 PM)
http://www.libraryspot.com/know/tuition.htm Almost all of them in 2004, according to this site had tuition under the $10,000 a year range (1,100/ month X 9 months a year) Room and board combined are usually about the same as tuition, so anytime the listed tuition is in the $5,000 range for tuition the max benifit would cover all three. http://www.stateline.org/live/ViewPage.action?siteNodeId=136&languageId=1&contentId=60914 Students paid an average of $5,491 for tuition and fees in 2005 State college tuition and fees are lowest in Florida, averaging $3,100 at four-year public colleges, and highest in Pennsylvania, averaging $8,410. The report includes a state-by-state list of average college tuition and fees charged at two-year public colleges, four-year state colleges and private four-year colleges for both the 2004-05 and 2005-06 school years. 43% of all college students go to a school with a published tuition between $3000 and 5,999, that expands to 60% when you limit it to State colleges. (Trends in college pricing 2005 put out by The College Boards) Figure 7 pg 13 Tuition and fees averaged by region show that tuition and fees in the Sout, Southwest and West regions of the country are all three under $5,000 in 2005. If doubled to account for room and board then in these regions the average state college is still within the $10,000 benift level.

Griswold -> RE: Senate to vote on new GI Bill despite McCain's auspicious opposition ?!?. (5/25/2008 7:20:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 Isn`t McCain the pro-military,pro-soldier, pro-veteran guy? I heard that somewhere.... http://www.marine-corps-news.com/2008/05/historic_gi_bill_vote_tomorrow.htm http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/15/1025436.aspx A Vote Vets advert. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcDMD0B7r88 Like everything else in life, there's much more to this story than that McCain (and others) object to this bill. Of course, that doesn't make it in to the press accounts.

Owner59 -> RE: Senate to vote on new GI Bill despite McCain's auspicious opposition ?!?. (5/25/2008 8:16:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Griswold quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 Isn`t McCain the pro-military,pro-soldier, pro-veteran guy? I heard that somewhere.... http://www.marine-corps-news.com/2008/05/historic_gi_bill_vote_tomorrow.htm http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/15/1025436.aspx A Vote Vets advert. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcDMD0B7r88 Like everything else in life, there's much more to this story than that McCain (and others) object to this bill. Of course, that doesn't make it in to the press accounts. Very true,there`s always more to any story.One should always look at the opposition`s views,to get a real education on an issue. It`s not just this one time though. As I see it,there`s a long time established pattern of McCain voting against the interests of veterans and soldiers. His resistance to Viet Nam MIA/POW inquiries still have me wondering also. That`s why I questioned his reputation as pro military. To be fair,he was one of only a few republicans to criticize Ronald Dumbsfeld and w/out McCain,would still be Secretary of Defense.

DomKen -> RE: Senate to vote on new GI Bill despite McCain's auspicious opposition ?!?. (5/25/2008 8:29:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer http://www.libraryspot.com/know/tuition.htm Almost all of them in 2004, according to this site had tuition under the $10,000 a year range (1,100/ month X 9 months a year) Room and board combined are usually about the same as tuition, so anytime the listed tuition is in the $5,000 range for tuition the max benifit would cover all three. http://www.stateline.org/live/ViewPage.action?siteNodeId=136&languageId=1&contentId=60914 Students paid an average of $5,491 for tuition and fees in 2005 State college tuition and fees are lowest in Florida, averaging $3,100 at four-year public colleges, and highest in Pennsylvania, averaging $8,410. The report includes a state-by-state list of average college tuition and fees charged at two-year public colleges, four-year state colleges and private four-year colleges for both the 2004-05 and 2005-06 school years. 43% of all college students go to a school with a published tuition between $3000 and 5,999, that expands to 60% when you limit it to State colleges. (Trends in college pricing 2005 put out by The College Boards) Figure 7 pg 13 Tuition and fees averaged by region show that tuition and fees in the Sout, Southwest and West regions of the country are all three under $5,000 in 2005. If doubled to account for room and board then in these regions the average state college is still within the $10,000 benift level. So IOW, no the benefit available today is no where near the benefit available in 1967 despite your claims to the contrary. Why use so many words to say so?

Alumbrado -> RE: Senate to vote on new GI Bill despite McCain's auspicious opposition ?!?. (5/25/2008 10:36:55 PM)
quote: You stepped in it now. I had a heck of a time finding a reference online for college tuition in 1967 but I did finally find one. A public university in Ohio had an annual tuition in 1967 of $190. So that 130/month certainly could have covered tuition, books etc. with a part time job thrown in. Exactly like the GI Bill did for me in 1992. "the story is the same for the average selective private institution in the nation. ....Between 1966–67 and 1979–80 tuition remained roughly 26 to 28 percent of median family income." http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ffp0005.pdf Median household income 1967...$7,143 http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/h05.html Times 27%....$1928 per year... to go to college. GI Bill 1967... VA paid the veteran directly, out of which he or she paid tuition, fees, books, and other training costs. At first, a single veteran received up to $100 a month. Later legislation increased this rate as the following table shows: Year in Which Rate Increased \ Rate for Single Veteran 1967 $130....(times 12.... $1560 a year). http://www.medalofhonor.com/GIBill.htm

DomKen -> RE: Senate to vote on new GI Bill despite McCain's auspicious opposition ?!?. (5/25/2008 11:45:49 PM)
Even I'm not going to say that the GI Bill should pay for all of the tuition at a private university. Although it does look like from those numbers that it would have been possible to do it, in 1967, with the GI Bill and some moderate grants and scholarships.

farglebargle -> RE: Senate to vote on new GI Bill despite McCain's auspicious opposition ?!?. (5/26/2008 8:40:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Even I'm not going to say that the GI Bill should pay for all of the tuition at a private university. Although it does look like from those numbers that it would have been possible to do it, in 1967, with the GI Bill and some moderate grants and scholarships. Why shouldn't it? Don't these "Private Universities" give a shit about the USA? One would think they would be glad to have Veterans as part of their Alumni. It's not like an extra student or two really costs anything additional in the way of expenses. If there are 200 people in a lecture hall, they can make room for a few vets.

DomKen -> RE: Senate to vote on new GI Bill despite McCain's auspicious opposition ?!?. (5/27/2008 3:19:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Even I'm not going to say that the GI Bill should pay for all of the tuition at a private university. Although it does look like from those numbers that it would have been possible to do it, in 1967, with the GI Bill and some moderate grants and scholarships. Why shouldn't it? Don't these "Private Universities" give a shit about the USA? One would think they would be glad to have Veterans as part of their Alumni. It's not like an extra student or two really costs anything additional in the way of expenses. If there are 200 people in a lecture hall, they can make room for a few vets. I was talking strictly from a financial viewpoint. Morally I'm of the firm belief that everyone should be able to get as much education as they can succesfully complete paid for by the tax payers. But the obvious good of socialized medicine is still opposed here so I'm just going to have to wait for socialized education.

Alumbrado -> RE: Senate to vote on new GI Bill despite McCain's auspicious opposition ?!?. (5/27/2008 3:27:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Even I'm not going to say that the GI Bill should pay for all of the tuition at a private university. Although it does look like from those numbers that it would have been possible to do it, in 1967, with the GI Bill and some moderate grants and scholarships. Well, we are delving into the misty past here, but I seem to remember being told that I couldn't have any grants to go with my GI bill. And scholarships are usually not based on what one was doing in the service. Like many people, I went at night, first to a private school for my undergrad, then to state universities for graduate school, and I needed to work to cover living expenses in the 70s and 80s. Overall, I don't think that the even the older GI Bill has been intended to cover going to school full time for quite a while.

farglebargle -> RE: Senate to vote on new GI Bill despite McCain's auspicious opposition ?!?. (5/27/2008 5:11:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen I was talking strictly from a financial viewpoint. Morally I'm of the firm belief that everyone should be able to get as much education as they can succesfully complete paid for by the tax payers. But the obvious good of socialized medicine is still opposed here so I'm just going to have to wait for socialized education. I never intended the TAXPAYER fund this. I think that Universities, both public and private, have a duty to make X-number-of-slots available cost-free for veterans, above and beyond whatever GI Bill benefits exist.

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 4 [5]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.492188E-02