Re: {OT:} McCain against the new "21st Century GI Bill"

Your hero John McNasty the Dubya clone says he will filibuster the new

> GI Bill. He says it is too generous. I guess we know who doesn't > support or respect the troops.

He's supporting them by encouraging them to pick themselves up by their own bootstraps, assuming they have arms or legs with which to do this.

Reply to
JoeSpareBedroom
Loading thread data ...

In message news:b9ae2020-eecb-4c10-a02d- snipped-for-privacy@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com, " snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com" burned some brain cells writing:

At what exact dollar value would *YOU* describe the bill as "too generous"?

Answer right here:

$____________________

Reply to
Klark Kent

formatting link
May 13, 2008 Paul Rieckhoff Congress: Money for War, But No Money for the Troops?

Posted May 12, 2008 | 11:25 PM (EST)

When it comes to hypocritical "Support the Troops" rhetoric, I thought I'd seen it all. But I was wrong. This week, a small group of Democrats are using back door dealings to torpedo the widely-supported new GI Bill. For anyone new to the issue, here's the bottom line up front:

In 1944, FDR signed the original GI Bill, which gave every veteran a chance to go to college. It paid for tuition, fees, and books, and gave veterans a living stipend. The GI Bill helped the "Greatest Generation" readjust to civilian life, it helped pull us out of a post- war recession, and it helped build the middle class. Every dollar spent on educational benefits under the original GI Bill added at least seven dollars to the national economy.

Today, 1.7 million troops have come home from Iraq and Afghanistan, but the GI Bill no longer covers anything like the cost of college. So a bipartisan coalition of veterans now serving in the Senate introduced a new GI Bill, modeled on the World War II legislation. This bill recently got added to the war funding bill currently in Congress.

In the real world, two things are obvious:

1) If you send troops to war, caring for the veterans who come home is an unavoidable and necessary cost of that war. 2) The GI Bill is a proven program, and a smart financial investment that pays for itself.

It just makes sense. That's why the 300-plus Senators and Representatives from both parties and all the major veterans organizations in America have endorsed the legislation.

In Washington, however, it seems like nothing is ever easy. A couple of Congressmen, including Rep. John Tanner (D-TN), Jim Cooper (D-TN), and Allen Boyd (D-FL), all members of the Blue Dog Coalition, have gotten together to OPPOSE paying for the GI Bill this week. (If you live in their districts, you can urge them to support the GI Bill by clicking here.)

As Representative Tanner quipped, "Some of us oppose creating a new entitlement program in an emergency spending bill, whether it's butchers, bakers or candlestick makers." Really? Does the Congressman usually explain major policy decisions by quoting Mother Goose?

Seriously, though--by saying that the GI Bill shouldn't be in the war funding bill, Representative Tanner is supporting the war, but not the warriors. That kind of thinking used to only appear in parodies. Moreover, these Representatives insist on referring to the GI Bill as a "new entitlement" - even though we've had a GI Bill for more than 60 years. But the most remarkable logical pirouette they've offered so far is that they oppose the GI Bill because they are "fiscal conservatives."

Our government has been paying for basically the entire war "off- budget"--the equivalent of racking up billions in credit card debt. Everyone thinks this is a bad way of doing business. But it's not the whole supplemental that these Congressmen are threatening to vote against; it's just the GI Bill. For those of you playing along at home, here's what that looks like:

This circle is the spending bill we're talking about. The big red part? That's spending that is A-OK with these Congressmen (more than $180 billion). It's that tiny blue sliver that represents the GI Bill, and that's the dealbreaker for these folks ($780 million).

It's absurd. Anyone who can find the money to fund the war has no excuse for voting against the tiny fraction of money needed for veterans' education benefits. The fiscal conservative argument seems even more ludicrous once you realize that even five years of spending on the GI Bill would only cost as much as nine weeks of war in Iraq.

While their arguments seem asinine to anyone outside the Beltway, they are putting a serious speedbump in the way of the new GI Bill. Do I think sanity will prevail on this issue? I hope so. One of the leaders of the Blue Dogs is Representative Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin (D-SD), a dedicated supporter of veterans. She may be able to get her troops in line. If not, I'd love to see those members of Congress find a way to explain to their constituents in an election year that they voted for a $170-billion war bill, and then also voted to nickel-and-dime the troops who are fighting that war.

As President Roosevelt said, the GI Bill "gives emphatic notice to the men and women in our armed forces that the American people do not intend to let them down." Please help us show these members of Congress that Americans' support for our troops is no different today than it was 60 years ago. You can join us at

formatting link

In THIS instance, I'd have to agree with you, edspyhill! NOTE--that does NOT make me a LIEbrawl!!!!!

Reply to
Sharx35

In message news:fRmWj.12$ snipped-for-privacy@fe107.usenetserver.com, "JoeSpareBedroom" burned some brain cells writing:

At what dollar value or other objective criterion do you personally draw the line between "too generous" and "insufficient" regarding this legislation?

Reply to
Klark Kent

Why the Marines all the time, why not the Army, Navy, or Air Force. They are ALL part of our armed forces.

Reply to
dbu

In message news: snipped-for-privacy@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com, " snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com" burned some brain cells writing:

Not an answer. There are dollar figures at which you believe the price tag crosses the threshold from "inappropriately low" to "appropriate", and from "appropriate" to "inappropriately high". Identify them.

Below $________________ is too low.

Above $________________ is too high.

Reply to
Klark Kent

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.