"McBush" Opposed to New G.I. Bill

@anniepa (27242)
United States
May 25, 2008 3:42pm CST
You've probably all already heard that John McCain and President Bush are both opposed to the new G.I. Bill which would expand educational benefits to our veterans. This bill, introduced by Senator Jim Webb, had over 50 sponsors in the Senate from both parties so why would famed war hero and GOP Presidential nominee John McCain and President and Commander-In-Chief George W. Bush actually OPPOSE this bill when they claim it's the REST OF US who don't support our troops? Apparently it's only those relatively few of our troops who have risked and in far too many cases given their lives who deserve these educational benefits, according to Bush and McCain, those who have chosen to make a CAREER in the military. It's not enough for a young man or woman to serve 1, 2, 3, even 4 tours of duty in Iraq or Afghanistan; it's not enough for them to put in their time or even have that time extended by the "Stop Loss" loophole and be away from their families, sometimes even missing the births of their children not to mention so many important milestones in their children's lives - those sacrifices aren't enough! Nope, McBush believes only those who spend more time in the military, those who choose to make it a career are worthy of this benefit - it's "too expensive" to offer it to those worthless troops who only spend a few short years serving their country, they're only concerned with retention. OK, let's discuss it; what do you all think, is this any way to support our troops? I think NOT! Annie
1 person likes this
4 responses
@bobmnu (8160)
• United States
26 May 08
In researching this bill I noticed that this was first introduced during the 2007 congressional session and it was not allowed out of committee (Democrats took control of congress in 2006) If it were such a good bill why didn't they pass it last year? Why was the bill held until the President needed war funding? Are the congressional leaders playing politics with our troops? According to the Congressional Budget Office http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/92xx/doc9212/s22.pdf This bill will cost the government 51.6 Billion in additional educational expenses over a 10 year period and reduce re enlistments by 16%. Then there is indirect spending increases of 1.1 Billion in the cost to administer the program. The bill also leaves 2 big holes in the program as seen by many of the soldiers. The first is the time limit of 36 months of benefits when it takes between 48 and 56 months to receive a BA Degree. The second complaint I read about was that graduate school was excluded from the program. many of the servicemen and women in today's military are college graduates and would like to continue their education once they leave the military or while in the military. This bill would not allow for graduate school. If you are looking to help the men and women in the National Guard and reserves it requires that they serve two tours to qualify (36 months of Active Duty) Finally why has there not been more discussion on this bill. It has been in congress for 2 years and is rushed through without much debate. I have talked to many service men and women and there are things they would like to see offered that were not discussed. I have two sons in the military and would love to see them get more benefits but lets make it a benefit that they can use and want. Also make it a benefit that will not hurt the military and its ability to function. To me this seemed like a poison bill that was attached to the war funding and it would make the president sign a very large increase in the the National budget and it still may not do what it is intended to do. This issue it too important to pushed through hidden in another bill that must pass. Lets have an open and honest discussion on the merits of the bill.
2 people like this
@anniepa (27242)
• United States
26 May 08
I'm not really concerned about the budget, considering all the money we're throwing away in other ways I think our veterans deserve a piece of the pie, and I'm certainly not concerned with the reenlistment rate dropping, which that can only be guessed at. I'd say multiple tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan without an sufficient break in between would be the biggest cause of a drop in reenlistments, but that's just my silly idea. I agree with you about the other complaints, they should definitely be discussed further but in my opinion anyone who serves their country for any amount of time deserves to be rewarded for doing so, particularly those who have been sent to fight. Annie
@bobmnu (8160)
• United States
28 May 08
This bill is a typical political bill. Here is a problem College costs are going up lets throw more money at it and then we are done with it. One of the problems I have with this bill is that it singles out one group of service men and ignores many others. What about the troops that were activated for Bosnia, for Somalia, or the ones that have been called up other conflicts before 9/11? What does the bill do for families where the parent has a BA degree and has served in Iraq? They get nothing except the felling I got scr*wed again. Passage of this bill ends the discussion of veterans benefits for a long time. This bill was using the troops as a political pawn to make the President look bad or to blame him for the budget busting. I would like to see the Democrat party get over their childish ways and do something that is good for the country instead of trying to make us into a Socialist workers paradise with a working class and an elite ruling class.
@anniepa (27242)
• United States
30 May 08
I just learned something I didn't know before; the same study McCain cites for showing this bill would cause a 16% decrease in retention also shows it would cause a 16% increase in enlistments - this isn't exactly difficult math! Let's ask McCain to be honest for once in his life! Annie
@skinnychick (6907)
• United States
28 May 08
A veteran is a veteran and they deserve far more than this country can or will ever give them. Didn't they crap on the troops when they came back from Vietnam as well?? Obviously, this is a way to push people away from the military instead of trying to get them to serve our country. They are both just hypocrites. Since when are they worried about expensive?? They haven't seemed to worry about our expensive gas prices...
1 person likes this
@bobmnu (8160)
• United States
28 May 08
Senator McCain in voicing his opposition to this bill asked why single out one group of service men? This bill only applies to those troops activated after 9/11. A Viet Nam vet trying to get retrained would not get the increased benefits. Reserve Units called up for peace keeping in Bosina would not get increased benefits. This was political Grandstanding by both parties and they should be voted out of office.
1 person likes this
• United States
29 May 08
Isn't American politics all about Grandstanding?? We should just get rid of them all and start fresh with those against this sort of thing. Those who would actually do something for the people. It's a nice fantasy anyway.
1 person likes this
@Bd200789 (2994)
• United States
26 May 08
That is horrible. I can't understand why McCain doesn't support it. They ALL deserve those benefits. They risked their lives over and over again, so they deserve something.
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27242)
• United States
27 May 08
That's my point exactly! Straight to the point, they deserve it, they ALL deserve it - PERIOD! Thanks! Annie
@FireHorse (294)
• United States
25 May 08
It seems quite odd to me that the politicians that say they support the troops and call those who oppose their own war efforts traitorous refuse to support the troops with an education or even simple armor to protect themselves. Yet they are willing to spend Billions (that's right, billions with a B!) on missile systems even the Pentagon says we don't need and won't spend a few million on benefits for our own troops. It really makes me wonder where the loyalty of our own government lies. Where is THEIR patriotism?
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27242)
• United States
25 May 08
Remember, though, this bill had overwhelming support from members of both parties so it's not the entire government who has no loyalties for our troops. It's certainly something for members of the military, veterans and their families to take note of that the President and the Republican who wants to be President are both against it. Annie