RE: http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,165937,00.html

how can some of these bills hurt retention when they will stop loss you anyway.......

I was stop lossed for 367 days past my orginial 8 year MSO.

I would love to see the G.I. Bill expanded, but, how are we going to pay for it with Iraq and Afghanistan?

quote:

Originally posted by FortLewis2002:
I would love to see the G.I. Bill expanded, but, how are we going to pay for it with Iraq and Afghanistan?

NOT POSTING AS A MOD HERE.....

This expanded GI Bill would pay for itself via increased income taxes from veterans that get a degree. For the money thats paid out, the government gets back like 3-4 times or more in return in increased income taxes.

I agree with FormerEmbassyMarine, the argument that this impacts retention is a red herring argument. If anything it would improve the Officer Corps as a lot of experienced enlisted that wanted to become officers would find it easier to get a degree, especially coupled with the new Civilian Leave proposal to go and persue a college education that the Navy is looking at.

I just think it is stupid to try and block someone from leaving the service via scare tactics at ETS or shortchanging benefits.

I always thought the old VEAP / College Fund program was pretty good that I got my degree with and when the MGIB first came out.....thought it was a ripoff in comparison to VEAP.

They could make a change that would help retention. Allow soldiers to transfer ther GI bill to spouses/children while they stay on active duty. The GI Bill is due for an icrease though personally I think $1500 a month would be about right.

quote:

Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), soon to be the Republican Party's nominee for president, told reporters on his campaign plan that he is working with others to find an alternative to S. 22 that won't harm service retention rates.

And as long as he keeps insisting on that, he is giving a campaign GIFT to the Democrats, both of whom want this Bill. McCain is just not a very smart guy. Sorry, but I don't get this guy's attitude on US.

I mean seriously... if GW himself says this is good enough for him? Then McCain is stupid NOT to get on board, and we Veterans especially don't need ANY "stupids" in the White House.

Quote; "Defense officials fear Webb's GI Bill not only would be costly in dollars but it would threaten the viability of an all-volunteer force by enticing thousands of members to leave service after a single tour to use education benefits, particularly if the option is another wartime tour." enquote
-------------------------------------------
There you have it. Politicians think its not fair for someone to serve just one year in a combat zone and collect GI bill benefits. They want our soldiers to stay 'longer' to carry on the fight so thier precious privileged children wont have to serve as cannon fodder to support thier own selfish reasons for war.

This is the secret of the whole damn government.

Seems like Webb did all the legwork on this and the headline from Military.com emphasizes Bush. What gives?

Guys,

You need to read the article again. President Bush is NOT supporting Sen Webb's bill. He is supporting an alternate bill that is cheaper.

Our troops need to know now that their GI education benefits will provide the same quality education as our Veterans from WWII received, ‘when this mission is accomplished’. As a disabled veteran I received my VA educational benefits at age 32, but the VA was grossly under-funded so I was very over medicated by the VA when in college, and this greatly defeated the purpose of a quality education. Unless the veteran is physically disabled, waiting until ‘this mission is accomplished’ to receive their GI bill education; would also give our troops more incentive to re-enlist, while giveing the VA the time needed to become fully funded and provide proper medical care without having to over medicate our new generation of Veterans. This is an easy and needed solution.

What the political wonks fear is what they created - an all volunteer force that can think with their feet. Additionally, if her bill does not address the inadequacies shown towards the VEAP era folks, it is a waste of time - at least Webb's bill does partially.

I agree, if you stop lossing your soldiers then you should not be worried about retention. If the Military offered something better then they do they would not have to worry about retetion. I don't know what these people in Washington are thing, but it cost a lot of money to go to school and if my wife did not have a good job I could not go. So because I did not reenlist I sould not get any more money to take care of my family this is crazy they morronis in DC have no idea what the real people of America wait. I have buddys that have been stoped lossed for 15 months and they are worried about retention cazy just plan old crazy.

When in the history of America have we demanded/attempted to coerce our service members into multiple combat tours before now? Benefits should raise, to what extent is beyond my comment without in depth reserve, but it may hurt retention?

Improved benefits for education will raise income of departing service members, thus increasing taxes collected and improving the economy and work force (not to mention reinvigorating college education for those not blessed with the money to match rising rates)

People would only collect this after their contract, 1-2 combat tours is plenty to ask of anyone, especially in a combat MOS. You can never repay the 12-15 months to begin with, let alone deny education advances because it "may" slow down the likelihood they will take an additional 1-2 combat tours.

I just dont know why anyone is against this type of action, though there is room for lots of debate on the specifics of enactment. People would leave with a greater appreciation of the military, and any loss in retention would be gained in recruitment in my opinion.

Improved society educationally and workforce wise, increased recruitment, decreased retention, increased public opinion of the military (especially from former members who will no longer feel as shafted) in the end equates to improvements in my opinion.

I'm curious why we see all of these stories about the MGIB being updated, and none covering the ACF and the fact that countless soldiers were misled for over ten years (April 1st, 1993 - September 30th, 2004) to believe they were going to be paid this incentive amount on top of thier MGIB benifits. USAREC Message 98-080 proves it was intentional, and yet DFAS refuses to honor favorable ARBA decisions in these cases. I just don't understand how new measures matter when they aren't honoring the ones already made.

If you want to stop the service's loss, then extend the GI BIll to LIFE, not 10-years. I think it is a rip off to limit this important benefit to 10-years, when a young man or woman may be separating from the service with special family obligations or such... let the veteran use it whenever it is practical... FOR LIFE!!! WHY PUT A TIME LIMIT ON IT? Scotty/Sioux City

How can someone not support a bill that enables Service Members to not only better themselves by pursuing a higher education but to also better the status quo? A good number of miltary members who cannot afford to go to college are enticed and persuaded by the "money for college" recuting tool to join the military. Some of them stay in and some leave after their first enlistment and alot of the two don't even use their GI Bill benifits after paying $1200.00 into it. So where does this money end up? I've heard a lot of " How are we going to pay for this?" type of comments on other posts and I have a better question : If you do the math, how much money will the Govt pay someone over the course of a 20-30 year career, plus retirement benifits as opposed to funding someone's education for 4-6 years and paying them a monthly stipend for housing expenses? It's not even close.

THIS TURNED OUT MUCH LONGER THAN I ANTICIPATED- SORRY.

I started my career as a GRUNT. I am now commissioned, preparing for my second deployment. There are many areas where veterans benefits should be improved. Increasing the MGIB and adding liberal provisions is a good start (no pun intended).
I would like to complete post-grad schooling. As with many other soldiers, it is impossible for me to go back to school. My wife cares for our 3 small children (and me). Before we had children, she had to work in order to supplement the scraps I received for pay as lower enlisted and a junior NCO. We have PCS'd 7 times in 9 1/2 years! Not to mention the times she and my kids moved back home because of deployments (3 times, now)... She didn't have time to complete her last year of college. Sen Webb's proposal would greatly improve my ability to continue my education. But I would gladly sacrifice my education, if I could transfer my existing benefits to my wife.

I know that many soldiers would pop smoke at the end of their contract to go to school, but that is their choice. If they served honorably, the DOD should thank them for their service and help them reintegrate into civilian society. Instead, the DOD dangles a carrot in front of you and hopes you don't see the pitfall they're leading you into...

As someone mentioned earlier, this may serve to increase recruitment in the Officer ranks. Personally, I plan to return to the Army after earning an advanced degree. This could serve as a minor selling point, given the Army's problem retaining junior Officers.

I do not believe these benefits should be extended to all those who serve just 3 months! Three months in the Army is a joke! Back at the Reception Battalion on Sand Hill (Ft Benning), we "recruits" used to judge who was tougher by who had more DAYS in the Army (SCOFF "You've only been in for 3 days," SCOFF "I've been in for 6"). Then at my first duty assignment it was, "I have more jumps than you've got LES's". Now I look back and laugh. Some of my E-4s were in elementary school when I enlisted! Three months is nothing- unless those three months are in a combat zone. Though all service members have the potential to deploy, I feel that only those that HAVE deployed should receive added entitlements.

And I'm gone...

did i read this right? you have to be a vet that served after sept 11 2001?

This is a pretty sad state of affairs. The President who claims to support the troops only backs a watered down version of the GI Bill which appears to increase college benefits for full time students on active duty. So no one will get anything. The only reason he (the President) supports that is because the Republicans have a terrible record of supporting Vets and the dEmocrats are beating them to the punch. They (Republicans) are only good for sending others to fight, standing in front of the flag and saying that they support the troops, meanwhile opposing any additional Veteran Benefits as "Handouts" and buying more F-35's.

Sorry Republicans this Vet is voting for the party thats gonna help him well played, one more vote for the Dems, Mine!

I am just have just gotten out after 8 years in the army to be a mommy and am now pursuing my education for a more "kid friendly" career through the GI Bill. People can argue the logistics of either bill, but I find the whole hurting retention argument nauseating and feel that others are jumping on that band wagon as a cop out so they won't have to put forward the initial money.

Honestly, if a Soldier wants to remain a Soldier they will. If someone is set on getting out they will as well. The bill isn't going to carry that much of an impact. The decision to get out is a personal one made by a Soldier or a Soldier and His/Her family.

By using retention as an argument for a less generous bill, they are in fact demeaning the individual Veterans and their service. If the Army is having a retention problem, then perhaps they should give more incentives to stay, rather then oppressing Veterans as they try to become successful members of our society. The ploy seems to be "Don't make the world out side the army look too inviting, its scary out there". It is intimidation, plain and simple. Thats my view on it at least.