|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
|
Member |
Why would Bush and McCain be against this bill? If I am not mistaken, I believe the Senate has the votes to over turn the Presidents veto. Good news for all military.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/27/gi.bill.argument...html?iref=newssearch |
||
|
|
Basic Training |
Now that you have CNN's point of view,
read this: President Bush wants to veto the measure, and his case is helped, if only because the Democrats attached $10 billion in additional domestic spending to the package. Ironically, the spending, which includes the extension of unemployment benefits and aid to the Gulf States, is what helped to bring some of the Republican stragglers like Sen. John Sununu, R-N.H., on board at the last minute, in part because of their vulnerabilities in the fall elections.  |
|||
|
Experienced Member |
Yes, of course, Bush has always been SOOOOO against earmarks. That's why he didn't veto a single bill for about 6 years, no matter how many add-ons were attached to it, huh? A veto over-ridden, at last. And, another lame duck is born. |
|||
|
|
Member |
McCain says the bill would hurt military retention by 16 percent and be a disincentive for service members to become noncommissioned officers, which he called "the backbone of all the services." Too bad McCain didn't say anything about the "$10 billion in additional domestic spending" as his reason to vote against. In any case, I would much rather see my tax dollars go towards aid to the Gulf states then building roads, schools, bridges, hospitals, etc... in Iraq. |
|||
|
|
Basic Training |
With the Illinois veteran's grant, which pays 100% tuition, and the (hopefully) expanded GI bill, I'm going to do very well in college
Good news for me. |
|||
|
|
Basic Training |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by mboccia:
McCain says the bill would hurt military retention by 16 percent and be a disincentive for service members to become noncommissioned officers, which he called "the backbone of all the services." QUOTE] It was also reported that the new benefits would attract about 16% new service members, so not much to argue there. And I'm still waiting to hear how any veteran benefits are a bad thing that would deserve a veto from the POTUS. |
|||
|
Experienced Member |
|
|||
|
Member |
I do see the point of retention. While I'm sure it will attract more to join, it won't attract more to stick around. There needs to be balance. You can't have nothing but people who do 3 years and haul a$$. Eventually, the middle will move up and eventually out.
I just don't see the current GI Bill as being sooooo bad. My wife's entire degree was covered by it. Don't know, just see giving BAH and free ride to a state's most expensive school as not really financially viable. I'd wonder if AD BAH rates could potentially be affected by this? I don't have a problem with an increase in the monthly benefit in Webb's. I like McCain's bill that allows for passing the benefits off to your kids. |
|||
|
Experienced Member |
Styx,
Shouldn't the decision to stay be based on job satisfaction and desire vs. less benefits? I'm not against a carrot and stick mentality but there needs to be a real carrot at the end. Tuition is rising everywhere. Our folks in the military deserve a viable education plan. |
|||
|
|
Member |
I don't disagree at all. I read both Webb's and McCain's bills. Both have good things in them. My main problem with Webb's bill is offering BAH. The current GI Bill could easily cover tuition and associated expenses. As I said, my wife's education is being covered in its entiretly by the current GI Bill. I have absolutely no problem with increasing the monthly payout, just see the need for balance. I like the part of in McCain's bill that the longer you stick around, the better your benefits are. Its truly hard to argue that the current system is a bad deal. Initial investment is $1200 and the return is a college degree. |
|||
|
|
Highly Experienced Member |
I have stated that our elected officials have lost sight of what is important and this is an example. Helping military members get education earned by service is a good thing (yet the right stands against it). The left, knowing it is a good thing, attaches a huge spending bill to pony on the back of a good thing. This is a case where both sides are showing their stripes.
The Republicans lost sight of helping those that served the nation. I don’t care why they are doing it but they are screwing up. The Democrats are exploiting the military by attaching more funding to the good bill. Why do they feel it necessary to exploit the military to get more funding through? I wish these idiots would stop playing games and do what is best for the nation. Stop attaching funding to good bills. Obviously, if they feel the need to attach it to a good bill, it probably is crap. Those that are worried about the 16% decrease in retention should stop being greedy with the lives of others and do the right thing! Stop voting for fools that play these stupid games with the lives of loyal service members!  |
|||
|
|
Highly Experienced Member |
Speaking of showing their colors...This type of poitical scenario just ticks me off! Until a line item veto is eventually upheld...these jokers will be playing political games with our tax dollars. Neither side is willing to allow a line item veto because both want to be able to use these bills to further their agendas, by attaching pork projects.... to either kill a bill they don't want or to gain something they couldn't otherwise get passed. |
|||
|
| Previous Topic | Next Topic | powered by eve community |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
|||
| Site | Military.com Forums | ||
| Servlet | eve1da047 | ||
| Version | 1.2.22 build 9062 | ||
| Module | Forums 4.0.3 | ||
| Stylesheet | "Front Door" | ||
| Wordlet Set | "Default Wordlet Set" | ||
|
sc