First of all who does support the expansion of Educational Benefits for those men and women that have served in the military beginning on Sept. 11, 2001.

Senator James Webb of Virginia has introduced legislation that some have named the new G.I. Bill. The bill is co-sponsored by Republicans Chuck Hagel, John Warner and Sen. Lautenberg as well as other republicans.

On the democrats side those in support are both of the candidates for POTUS, Senators Obama and Clinton as well as the Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi.

The folks in the "not supporting the troops" is President Bush, and Senator McCain who is running for POTUS.

President Bush says no to the new G.I. Bill stating that it is "too generous", that would be a problem to administer and may cause combat veterans to leave the service and retention will go down the drain.

It may not be as difficult to administer as the greenbacks that can not be found that were shipped to Iraq. Where did the cash disappear to?

Too generous, excuse me! Some of these men and women are barely scraping by during their deployment and certainly when they suffer a disability, come home and face the ever-so-slow DVA for benefits. It sure would be nice to at least be able to get retrained in a new field, or more education for their present field and able to earn more money. Semper Fidelis. Blackcoat.

"Politicians tend to talk very, very big about supporting our men and women in uniform. But time and again - whether it's about providing armor for their safety or an education for their future - we find that talk is very, very cheap." Bob Herbert who is a columnist for the New York Times

quote:

Bob Herbert who is a liberal columnist for the New York Times

Fixed it for you.

Democrats: Don't support the troops or the military (now and by historical record)... so they bring up a bill they know is over-budget, keep adding admendments to make it unpassable, so that it that hasn't a chance of passing.

Republicans: Do support the troops (now and by historical record). And have said what budget amount they will support.

Everything else is partisan BS, put up by liberals who "deliberately" played politics with the bill, by making it unpassable, ONLY (repeat) ONLY to have electioneering rhetoric.

Everyone has discussed this ad nauseam and sees it for what it is. Politics by liberals and nothing else.

quote:

White House renews veto threat against troop funding bill
By ANDREW TAYLOR – 6 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — Congress appears increasingly unlikely to meet its goal of approving President Bush's war funding request before Memorial Day as divisions deepened among Democrats and the White House issued a fresh veto threat.

With only two full weeks remaining before the Memorial Day recess, the measure has yet to pass either the House or the Senate.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., pulled the bill from the schedule Wednesday night after conservative-to-moderate"Blue Dog" Democrats revolted over Democratic leaders' insistence on including in the war funding bill an unrelated provision to sharply increase education benefits for veterans under the GI Bill.

The new GI Bill — designed to give Iraq war veterans enough help to finance a four-year stint at a public college — would cost $51 billion over 10 years. It runs afoul of a rule designed to prevent new benefit programs from causing the deficit to spiral.

Even these "blue dog" democrats see the hidden liberal agenda. Hell, don't trust me... here is what many Democrats think of this liberal strategy.

quote:

The Democratic rebels are the House's top supporters of "pay as you go" budget rules that require that new benefit programs be financed with offsetting spending cuts or new taxes so as not to cause the budget deficit to increase. The war funding bill is an emergency appropriation, but the veterans education funding is a new mandatory benefit program that's supposed to be subject to the budget rule.

"It's the principle involved of not putting a mandatory program of any kind on an emergency supplemental," said Rep. John Tanner, D-Tenn.

And

quote:

The process for trying to pass the war funding bill involves complicated parliamentary maneuvering that is designed to allow anti-war Democrats to vote against the war funding but still ensure that it makes it through Congress and onto Bush's desk. On the other hand, it makes it more difficult to negotiate a final bill because there's no House-Senate conference committee.

Do we all see an agenda here by liberals, that really has nothing to do with caring for veterans?

Goals of these liberals

• Stop the war funding
  
• Deny veterans fair benefits, by making it unpassible
  
• Gain political mileage in an election year

Read the whole truth on this liberal agenda, covered by the AP

quote:

Originally posted by ipscone:

quote:

Bob Herbert who is a liberal columnist for the New York Times

Fixed it for you.

Democrats: Don't support the troops or the military (now and by historical record)... so they bring up a bill they know is over-budget, keep adding admendments to make it unpassable, so that it that hasn't a chance of passing.

Republicans: Do support the troops (now and by historical record). And have said what budget amount they will support.

Everything else is partisan BS, put up by liberals who "deliberately" played politics with the bill, by making it unpassable, ONLY (repeat) ONLY to have electioneering rhetoric.

Everyone has discussed this ad nauseam and sees it for what it is. Politics by liberals and nothing else.

quote:

White House renews veto threat against troop funding bill
By ANDREW TAYLOR – 6 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — Congress appears increasingly unlikely to meet its goal of approving President Bush's war funding request before Memorial Day as divisions deepened among Democrats and the White House issued a fresh veto threat.

With only two full weeks remaining before the Memorial Day recess, the measure has yet to pass either the House or the Senate.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., pulled the bill from the schedule Wednesday night after conservative-to-moderate"Blue Dog" Democrats revolted over Democratic leaders' insistence on including in the war funding bill an unrelated provision to sharply increase education benefits for veterans under the GI Bill.

The new GI Bill — designed to give Iraq war veterans enough help to finance a four-year stint at a public college — would cost $51 billion over 10 years. It runs afoul of a rule designed to prevent new benefit programs from causing the deficit to spiral.

Even these "blue dog" democrats see the hidden liberal agenda. Hell, don't trust me... here is what many Democrats think of this liberal strategy.

quote:

The Democratic rebels are the House's top supporters of "pay as you go" budget rules that require that new benefit programs be financed with offsetting spending cuts or new taxes so as not to cause the budget deficit to increase. The war funding bill is an emergency appropriation, but the veterans education funding is a new mandatory benefit program that's supposed to be subject to the budget rule.

"It's the principle involved of not putting a mandatory program of any kind on an emergency supplemental," said Rep. John Tanner, D-Tenn.

And

quote:

The process for trying to pass the war funding bill involves complicated parliamentary maneuvering that is designed to allow anti-war Democrats to vote against the war funding but still ensure that it makes it through Congress and onto Bush's desk. On the other hand, it makes it more difficult to negotiate a final bill because there's no House-Senate conference committee.

Do we all see an agenda here by liberals, that really has nothing to do with caring for veterans?

Goals of these liberals

• Stop the war funding
  
• Deny veterans fair benefits, by making it unpassible
  
• Gain political mileage in an election year

Read the whole truth on this liberal agenda, covered by the AP

You can spin it anyway that you want. The fact is that President Bush and Senator McCain do not, and I repeat, do not want the new G.I. Bill to pass if it comes to a vote. Read the dumb as/s excuse that they put forth. Too expensive, gimme a break. Troops will get out, cause a troop shortage in the war zone, and take advantage of a benefit, gimme another break.

Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Future president Obama, Hillary Clinton are in favor of a bill that will benefit the Veterans and this country.

The rest of your rhetoric is just that, political name calling rhetoric at it's best for some. For me it is rhetoric at it's worst.

Support the troops you say. Not. Supporting the troops includes supporting Veterans, especially those that are taking part in combat.

Leave the politics and name calling out of the loop and you may wind up with a fair argument. Have a good day. Semper Fidelis. Blackcoat.

quote:

You can spin it anyway that you want.

The spin was in the first post with a skewed article by a liberal. I posted a "news" source. You quoted a "liberal opinion oped". Talk about spin.

But it really doesn't matter what I believe. My point was what the media is saying, along with "blue dog" Democrats who see through this liberal agenda (and are also fed up with liberals).

quote:

The fact is that President Bush and Senator McCain do not, and I repeat, do not want the new G.I. Bill to pass if it comes to a vote.

Wrong! They want a bill that is good for America and the troops. But the vote is irrelevant, since Bush says he will veto the Democrat, agenda driven bill.

But it was Democrats who "pulled it from the schedule". They can't afford to have a vote, they will lose. They need this to be in the news longer.

quote:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., pulled the bill from the schedule Wednesday night

See, Nancy Pelosi pulled the bill.

quote:

Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Future president Obama, Hillary Clinton are in favor of pushing a bill that will benefit the Veterans and this country that has no chance of passing...by design.

Do I have to keep fixing your spin, with reality? They are putting up a bill, they know will fail, in hopes of getting something they can "claim" speaks against Republicans but all of America (including a fari amount of Democrats) see this for what it is. Cheap political tricks by liberals.

Your version is just spin. The media explanation of what's going on, and "blue dog" democrats see the actual truth.

PS: The latest Gallup poll shows that Obama has slipped to 6% behind McCain. And his support is still falling. 20%+ (of democrats) say if he's the nominee, they will vote for McCain. And keep in mind that Clinton supporters are closer to McCain than Obama (obama is so far to the left, he has to move right to be in the same area as Jessi Jacson).

Look at some of the Senators sponsoring this proposed bill. James Webb is a former Vietnam Marine Platoon Commander, and not to mention Navy Cross Winner. He also served under Reagan in the Dept. of the Navy. Chuck Hagel, another Vietnam Veteran who was Reagan's Deputy Administrator of Veteran Affairs. John Warner, another former Marine. I think those three right there know a little bit about what they are talking about.

Plus I do not think that this will hurt retention at all. Retention rates are higher than ever now. I was shocked at the number of re-enlistments in my Battalion (to include myself ).

Maybe but it could be that they just herd part of the bill and jumped on it for that. I know when I first herd about it I thought the same until hearing more then just the initial report, that the presidant wants to veto bennifits increse, and started listening and reading more about it. I see it along the same as ipscone explained it.

Is there any other PORK attached to the bill ?

Let's see, it would cost 5.1 billion over 10 years. That only two months in Iraq. Seems like a bargin.

I also saw that some powerful republicans were supporting the bill, I guess they are traitors.

You people that blame the democrats for not supporting the troops are full of it. Ips, no matter what dems do you will find something wrong with it. You are not objective.

I said that respectruly so don't get you panites in a wad.

There is nothing wrong with the current GI Bill.

come on top. the times are a changing..

quote:

Originally posted by 1stSgtD0811:
There is nothing wrong with the current GI Bill.

Gotta disagree with you there,

Reserve gi bill is like $330
The REAP (Reserve education assistance program) though is $660 to $880 depending on the amount of deployments the veterans been through.

College is expensive nowadays, Im paying about $1700 per semester for a county college and that's without the external costs of books ($100 per book), gas to get there and back, and supplies (pens, paper)
When I transfer to a 4-year school it's between $6k to 30K a year depending on if it's public or private university.

I dont get how Ive been deployed once, and am about to get deployed again, and when I get back I am not going to get the same amount of benefits as active duty Marines.

While I didnt join for the college money, its going to be hard for me to stay in the reserves when I have to juggle full-time school, a full-time job, and drill weekends (with any other Marine Corps Schools and AT's) when with this bill I could just go to school and be in the reserves.

The current Montgomery GI Bill is WOEFULLY INADEQUATE AND DOES NOT MEET THE NEEDS OF OUR CURRENT VETERANS! Quite frankly, it SUX! How do I know? I have used part of it AND IT DOES NOT PAY NEARLY ENOUGH TO BE ABLE TO RENT AN APARTMENT AND PAY FOR SCHOOL AT THE SAME TIME. I fully realize that the comment that I am about to make will definitely raise some eyebrows, but I am going to say it anyway. To civilian employers, I am no different than any other individual holding only a high school diploma with regards to finding a decent paying job. I might as well have been in jail or working bulls**t miniumum wage jobs for the five years that I was in the Marine Corps. Sad but true folks!

quote:

Originally posted by WingVet:
The current Montgomery GI Bill is WOEFULLY INADEQUATE AND DOES NOT MEET THE NEEDS OF OUR CURRENT VETERANS! Quite frankly, it SUX! How do I know? I have used part of it AND IT DOES NOT PAY NEARLY ENOUGH TO BE ABLE TO RENT AN APARTMENT AND PAY FOR SCHOOL AT THE SAME TIME. I fully realize that the comment that I am about to make will definitely raise some eyebrows, but I am going to say it anyway. To civilian employers, I am no different than any other individual holding only a high school diploma with regards to finding a decent paying job. I might as well have been in jail or working bulls**t miniumum wage jobs for the five years that I was in the Marine Corps. Sad but true folks!

I am not going to claim to know you regarding your background related to your time in the USMC.

What I am going to say is that it has been my experience while working for the Dept. of Labor, Division of Employment in Colorado that Veterans are way ahead of the civilian job seeker.

I worked strictly with Veterans, Disabled Veterans in job search, writing of resumes, job training, testing, College workstudy program, Disabled Veterans Outreach Programs.

Please do not sell yourself short when comparing your background and experience to that of a person of your age in the civilian world. Semper Fidelis. Blackcoat.

quote:

Originally posted by 1stSgtD0811:
There is nothing wrong with the current GI Bill.

Maybe, just maybe there is nothing wrong with the current GI Bill related to your needs and education that you are seeking.

There are some Veterans, Disabled Veterans that have little rank, big bills, disabled, and a wife, that look at the Montgomery GI Bill as inadequate. Semper Fidelis. Blackcoat.

I am in favor of a fully and adaquately funded GI bill. There are a lof of unneeded welfare programs such as farm subsidies for large and corporate farmers and subsidizing illegeals that can and should be elimated.

quote:

Originally posted by Blackcoat:

quote:

Originally posted by 1stSgtD0811:
There is nothing wrong with the current GI Bill.

Maybe, just maybe there is nothing wrong with the current GI Bill related to your needs and education that you are seeking.

There are some Veterans, Disabled Veterans that have little rank, big bills, disabled, and a wife, that look at the Montgomery GI Bill as inadequate. Semper Fidelis. Blackcoat.

I just helped my Nephew enlist in the Marine Reserves, they gave him 40,000 that comes out to 1111.11 a month for 36 months.

Any Vet with 30% or more of a disability rating pretty much gets a free ride to school.

as to Disabled Vets they are already covered as are their spouses and kids:

Section 301 of Public Law 109-461 adds a new category to the definition of “eligible person” for DEA benefits . The new category includes the spouse or child of a person who:

* VA determines has a service-connected permanent and total disability; and
* at the time of VA's determination is a member of the Armed Forces who is hospitalized or receiving outpatient medical care, services, or treatment; and
* is likely to be discharged or released from service for this service-connected disability.

Persons eligible under this new provision may be eligible for DEA benefits effective December 23, 2006, the effective date of the law.

For more information contact your local VA office. See HERE.

DEA provides education and training opportunities to eligible dependents of veterans who are permanently and totally disabled due to a service-related condition, or who died while on active duty or as a result of a service related condition. The program offers up to 45 months of education benefits. These benefits may be used for degree and certificate programs, apprenticeship, and on-the-job training. If you are a spouse, you may take a correspondence course. Remedial, deficiency, and refresher courses may be approved under certain circumstances.

quote:

Originally posted by Blackcoat:

There are some Veterans, Disabled Veterans that have little rank, big bills, disabled, and a wife, that look at the Montgomery GI Bill as inadequate. Semper Fidelis. Blackcoat.

There should not be any disabled vets looking at the current gi bill as inadequate as they are fully covered and their spouses are partially covered.

quote:

Originally posted by jimnsc:
I am in favor of a fully and adaquately funded GI bill. There are a lof of unneeded welfare programs such as farm subsidies for large and corporate farmers and subsidizing illegeals that can and should be elimated.

I hear what your saying...Here in this state. the Republicans control everything..Hell!! they have been giving the illegals the right too drive..as long as they have a state issued permit...and this has been going on for years..and some have been complaining about some one else doing what has already been done...

The US military currently offers all disabled veterans "Vocational Rehabilitation." It is designed to provide a "seamless transition from military service to a successful rehabilitation and on to suitable employment," according to the US Department of Veterans Affairs' Web site.

Chapter 31 benefits are available to most veterans with disabilities. It covers problems as severe as amputations and mental problems, as well as other issues such as sight impairment and hearing loss.

"It pays for your tuition, your books, you have an allowance for supplies...and a $500 cost of living stipend every month on top of that," said Schneider, who is also a work-study student at the Office of Veterans Affairs on campus.

Disabled veterans can accept the program in addition to the G.I. Bill, a sum of money to which all veterans who complete their service are entitled.

$500.00 most houses or apartments rent for $900 to around $1,450 around here..Hell its even higher in the city. s hit...i'm going outside and dodge traffic....

mouse you would complain no matter what.