This was posted at the website of the conservative Heritage Foundation in response to the new GI Bill:

Veterans for Welfare

quote:

I canceled my VFW lifetime membership, because I now see that organization is “Veterans For Welfare”.

Stop the expansion of the federal welfare state, stop the federal dollar domination of the academy that is fueling sky-rocketing tuitions.

Let me tell you a dirty little secret. This is not the “next greatest generation”. After years of warfare, wee are still barely scratching mere hours of World War II combat casualties.

That guy is a complete and total douchebag... And I'm glad everyone who responded to his tripe thinks the same.

Of course we haven't scratched the surface of WWII casualties... We can start with the fact that we've only got a tiny fraction of the number of soldiers serving in the first place.

That "officer" is a toolbag.

Another reaganite, equating veterans to welfare recipients, what an idiot! Hopefully, he or she will not file for any veteran's benefits.....

quote:

Originally posted by Golgoth:
Another reaganite, equating veterans to welfare recipients, what an idiot! Hopefully, he or she will not file for any veteran's benefits.....

I don't think you're being fair to Reagan, there is no record of him saying anything like that. Who knows if "Publius" is even a veteran.

Yeah it was a former NG Officer that F'd up the Education benefits around 1985 I think, the MGIB is named after him.....here is a link to his bio:

http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=M000865

VEAP before 1985 was a LOT better then you have now. It's what put me through college. I did not need to work my last 2 years in college because of the funds I had available to me (I did work though).

quote:

Originally posted by ErichG2:
Yeah it was a former NG Officer that F'd up the Education benefits around 1985 I think, the MGIB is named after him.....here is a link to his bio:

http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=M000865

VEAP before 1985 was a LOT better then you have now. It's what put me through college. I did not need to work my last 2 years in college because of the funds I had available to me (I did work though).

The GI Bill before 1977 was a LOT better than either VEAP or the MGIB. I even saw the quality of new troops who enlisted after the cut-off go down . . .

All I can say is, thank God for Jim Webb. I donated money to his campaign, and I am so glad I did.

quote:

Originally posted by BabySupine:

The GI Bill before 1977 was a LOT better than either VEAP or the MGIB. I even saw the quality of new troops who enlisted after the cut-off go down . . .

All I can say is, thank God for Jim Webb. I donated money to his campaign, and I am so glad I did.

Thats true.

I'm still scratching my head over how this Rep Montgomery weakened VEAP and then labled it a improvement or "New GI Bill" though.

Happy for the new one but MGIB was a fraud.

Now all they have to do is make the retirement benefits portable.

quote:

Originally posted by ErichG2:


Now all they have to do is make the retirement benefits portable.

Do you mean in addition to survivor's benefits, or being able to pass them to your kids?

Webb is very pro-veteran, I have been watching the Senate and House proceedings since I have been out of work. His greatest opponents were the old reaganites..........

quote:

barely scratching mere hours of World War II combat casualties

Would those cheap ba$tards feel better about diverting some millions from the latest 10 year billion dollar procurement boondoggle (to be later canceled) if more men and women were slaughtered? Or would this mean a favorite contractor would have to actually have to compete to win a services contract?

Too long drinking from the neo-con well, or just too much outrage that ordinary people might just crawl out of their "place" utilizing educational benefits?

I don't know what the heck does the following statement mean "This is note the “next greatest generation”. After years of warfare, wee are still barely scratching mere hours of World War II combat casualties." Does that mean that Publius justification is: more casualties = more benefit? Maybe Publius needs to do a spellcheck before he/she publish the writing.

I don't think GI Bill is a welfare. I see it as a benefit just like if somebody work for a company that pays tuition for its employees. The only difference is that companies only pay tuition while employees work for them.

However, I understand that Publius' writing is a response of Webb GI Bill. I think the new GI Bill will benefit more for those who go to school with high tuition and high cost of living. That means taxpayers subsidize a veteran living & going to school in San Francisco more than a veteran living & going to school in small town with low tuition & cost of living.

There is another thing that I don't like about this bill.

I think The Yellow Ribbon program in the new GI Bill is a dumb idea. For example: a dental school accepts 50 new students. Each student must pay $30,000/year. A veteran is entitled to get $15,000/year (for the sake of simplicity). That means he is short $15,000. But, if the school has the Yellow Ribbon program, the school gives $7,500 scholarship and VA matches $7,500. So the veteran gets: $15,000 + 7,500 + 7,500 = $30,000. The big question is: does the school REALLY wants to take a $7,500 loss? The school can simply let the other 49 students to bear the cost. Do school professors/administrators/maintenance/janitors want to take a pay cut? The school can simply raise tuition $153/year ($7,500/49 students) to other students.

The current MGIB is enough to pay off my tuition, unless if I decide to go to a medical school or graduate school.

My whole point is, I am tired of the demogogues running their mouths about welfare. Welfare is SSI, AFDC, Foreign Aide, Presidential Libraries,
medical care for non-citizens and the like. I hate demogogues who run their mouths equating veterans and welfare. Lets talk about paying people to have sex and refusing to pay for the product of their lust, that is the sickest and most repugnant type of welfare I can imagine. What service do those who enjoy lust, and are supported by the taxpayers for that lust, render to the community? I despise any piece of crap that uses the word veteran and welfare in the same sentence, they are defecation to say the least.....anyone who dislikes provisions of the bill, I will stand aside and listen to the particulars, but a veteran is not, nor ever will be, a welfare recipient, because they use veterans benefits........the demagogues be damned...........

quote:

Originally posted by Golgoth:
My whole point is, I am tired of the demogogues running their mouths about welfare. Welfare is SSI, AFDC, Foreign Aide, Presidential Libraries,
medical care for non-citizens and the like. I hate demogogues who run their mouths equating veterans and welfare. Lets talk about paying people to have sex and refusing to pay for the product of their lust, that is the sickest and most repugnant type of welfare I can imagine. What service do those who enjoy lust, and are supported by the taxpayers for that lust, render to the community? I despise any piece of crap that uses the word veteran and welfare in the same sentence, they are defecation to say the least.....anyone who dislikes provisions of the bill, I will stand aside and listen to the particulars, but a veteran is not, nor ever will be, a welfare recipient, because they use veterans benefits........the demagogues be damned...........

Well, I have to say that Washington is ran by special interests. Medicare beneficiaries lobbies for more Medicare benefits. Social security beneficiaries lobby for more SS benefits. Foreign countries lobbies for more aid. Union lobbies for union-friendly law. Farm companies & farmers lobby for subsidy. And, of course, veteran organization lobbies for more benefits.

If you ask each one of them, they all say that they deserve the benefit (farmers produce food, union protects workers' right, veterans serve, etc.) Who usually have to pay in the end? All taxpayers and/or consumers.

You are right, we pay for all of it.

quote:

Originally posted by BabySupine:

Do you mean in addition to survivor's benefits, or being able to pass them to your kids?

I meant the 20 year pension. How many actually stay in 20 years? Is it fair to those that leave at 8,10 and 15 years to leave without a accrued pension?

From this "Life VFW member", my post in Barberton help many veteran's, current and past.We use fund's obtained through legal gambling,and monies received in the canteen. If our post and other honorable post's around the country chose to not help deserving Veteran's,how would this action "help"? Maybe I'm missing something but, I fail to see the positive effect doing nothing "helps".JMHO

A "mid-career junior officer...paid the taxable equivalent of $169,000" in one year??

I call BS.

Oh, and on a side note, when examined in a troop-to-task measurement related to enemy contact (not as a function of time), the number of combat deaths is historically low comparing OIF/OEF to previous wars. However, the overall number of casualties is not. In fact, the number of amputees is one of the highest. And that is not factoring in the number of mental disorders induced by combat stress.

In their book, The Wages of War: When America's Soldiers Came Home: From Valley Forge to Vietnam, Simon & Schuster (March 1989), Richard Severo & Lewis Milford note that after every war from the American Revolution to Viet-Nam, eventually someone (usually a Congressman) will say in a speech or on the floor of the House of Representatives that veterans shouldn't receive pensions, benefits, assistance, etc. because "they should be proud that they were given the chance to serve their country" and that any veteran who asks for assistance is an ungrateful, unpatriotic person.

"History repeats itself - that's what's wrong with history" - Clarence Darrow

quote:

Originally posted by ErichG2:

quote:

Originally posted by BabySupine:

Do you mean in addition to survivor's benefits, or being able to pass them to your kids?

I meant the 20 year pension. How many actually stay in 20 years? Is it fair to those that leave at 8,10 and 15 years to leave without a accrued pension?

IN some cases you get a severance. If you want the retirement then retire. Nobody forces anyone to do 20+. Besides they have TSP.

Sounds like Dr Chu. Another idiot neocon from the current administration. First vets are a drag on national security, now this. Sounds like they want tampon soldiers, use and flush. SAD.

quote:

Originally posted by dmuhler:
Sounds like Dr Chu. Another idiot neocon from the current administration. First vets are a drag on national security, now this. Sounds like they want tampon soldiers, use and flush. SAD.

Tell us more about Dr. Chu. Is he the evil mastermind behind a small Army, stop-loss, 15 month tours in Iraq and "personality disorder" discharges?

He is evil incarnate. Head of personnel.