RE: http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,166871,00.html

McCain is a shame.

I just can't understand why McCain would back a less effective GI Bill than one proposed by his political opponents. Additionally, both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton support Webb's S. 22. This will surely hurt McCain's run for the office. It doesn't even make good political sense (i.e. I can see no reason why he wouldn't connect himself with Webb's bill based purely on more votes he would receive from servicemen and their families).

If Webb's S. 22 passed into law, it would be an answer to prayers and a much overdo blessing.

His motive was probably retention...I doubt McCain even looked at most of Graham's counter legislation. I don't see what the problem is with Webb's idea to cover benefits for the most expensive public colleges per state. Many of us don't have a choice as far as where we live, so the "disparity" between the cost of living and a military salary are painfully apparent. There should be at least some effort from the GI bill improvments to counter this, especially when the salary/BAH benefits can rarely cover the differences between the states in cost of living.

Bush and his gang (which now includes Senator McCain) think they can get by with just giving lip service to the concerns of veterans. They flatter and fawn and wave the flag; but when it comes down to putting some money where their mouths are, they are either Missing in Action or become suddenly concerned over the mushrooming budget deficits.

They hope nobody will notice their hypocrisy; but all the insincere "Thank You"s they shower on our brave troops can't cover up their niggardliness.

they keep saying the biggest difference is transferability, but news about the GOP version doesn't seem to say anything about increase in benefits for reservists who have been activated. so is there planned benefit increase for reservists? and if not why doesn't their plan catch any flak for that?

Will someone please tell me, I read all this and fail to see where it covers and helps ALL veterans not just the ones of the latest conflicts/wars, I mean just for the sake of it all the way back to WWII to current day. I also read where they have a reach out plan to find the lessers in rual areas & less fortunate.
Anyone know please tell me.

quote:

Originally posted by ricardoLmartinez:
RE: http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,166871,00.html

McCain is a shame.

Anyone who is getting out after 4 years is out the door before the ink on the DD 214 is even dry.
Retention... whatever. Most of us from the 90's joined the Guard or Reserve after our Active enlistment to bolster funding of our educations. That brings fresh bodies and solid active duty training to the Guard and Reserve units, which were stagnant and not-mission capable before 9/11. This was critical for all of the activations for OIF and OEF. So the Retention mantra is total Bull.
HR 5740 is what our Vets deserve, and they most certainly have earned it!!!

quote:

Originally posted by a1mc:
Will someone please tell me, I read all this and fail to see where it covers and helps ALL veterans not just the ones of the latest conflicts/wars, I mean just for the sake of it all the way back to WWII to current day. I also read where they have a reach out plan to find the lessers in rual areas & less fortunate.
Anyone know please tell me.

From what I've read, the WWII and Korea vets fall under different legislation. I am unsure of the Viet Nam vets. Peacetime vets since the 80's fall under MGIB. This new legislation is to afford the vets of OIF and OEF the opportunities for a legitimate shot at college, similar to that afforded to the WWII vets. The cost of college has skyrocketed, and the MGIB doesn't cover enough without working a full-time job. That's a pain if you're young and single, what about the vets with bills to pay and mouths to feed? HR 5740 is the answer. I don't know about you, but I did a tour in Iraq in '04 and I think our men and women deserve a fair shot at an education if they so choose.

quote:

Originally posted by 11492913:
they keep saying the biggest difference is transferability, but news about the GOP version doesn't seem to say anything about increase in benefits for reservists who have been activated. so is there planned benefit increase for reservists? and if not why doesn't their plan catch any flak for that?

It doesn't. McCains bill (S.22)is horrible. HR 5740 is the right thing to do, and our vets deserve it.

quote:

Originally posted by 17784329:
His motive was probably retention...I doubt McCain even looked at most of Graham's counter legislation. I don't see what the problem is with Webb's idea to cover benefits for the most expensive public colleges per state. Many of us don't have a choice as far as where we live, so the "disparity" between the cost of living and a military salary are painfully apparent. There should be at least some effort from the GI bill improvments to counter this, especially when the salary/BAH benefits can rarely cover the differences between the states in cost of living.

HR 5740, the original bill proposed to improve education benefits. It has bipartisan support, has passed in the house, and is now being held up in the senate. S 22 is a sham and a disgrace. McCain should be ashamed.