GI Bill 2008 - Page 2

Kytro · 05-07-2008, 05:02 AM

Originally Posted by kombayn

I agree as well. Even if they are the aggressors in the foreign war, they feel what they are doing is right and it prevents a draft. I just give high regards to the men and women who serve and place their bodies on the line staring down death everyday.

Even if they are aggressors? Last time I checked feeling you were doing the right thing does not make it the right thing, and staring down death each day to do the wrong think isn't heroic, it is stupid.

I'm not going to say everyhing the US does in Iraq is wrong, but merely being solider isn't enough to make you the good guy, there are plent of soliders worldwide who believe they are doing the right thing even as they rape and pillage.

kinggovernor · 05-07-2008, 10:09 AM

Originally Posted by A_C_E

But you can't really compare ROTC to education post-enlistment, can you?

I don't know enough about how the system works to make that call one way or the other, but they appear on the surface to be very different circumstances.

The GI Bill isn't post-enlistment, I have been going to school during most of my enlistment. This education is valued by the Marine Corps, it has helped to get me promoted, its part of my training as a Marine. ROTC is training as well.

kinggovernor · 05-07-2008, 10:09 AM

Originally Posted by Kytro

Even if they are aggressors? Last time I checked feeling you were doing the right thing does not make it the right thing, and staring down death each day to do the wrong think isn't heroic, it is stupid.

I'm not going to say everyhing the US does in Iraq is wrong, but merely being solider isn't enough to make you the good guy, there are plent of soliders worldwide who believe they are doing the right thing even as they rape and pillage.

that is why we have the Law of War in this country.

DosEquis · 05-07-2008, 12:03 PM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

You are forgetting an important part of this, the history this country has of taking care of its veterans. Throughout our history when service members are called into wartime service, the levels of pay and service has risen.

I assume you were talking about unions when you mentioned another group? Going to war is no where near comparable to making cars and to try to make a comparison is laughable. Military service is not like any other job on the planet, it is not part of the "free market".

I didn't sign up for the Marine Corps for the money, you can make more at McDonald's. We, as the military, have performed an extraordinary service since 9/11 and we deserve the type of benefits of other veterans that performed an extraordinary service like in WWII.

Military is most certainly subject to free market conditions. If it didn't offer benefits to sign up we would need a draft. You might not have signed up specifically for money but you most certainly expect to get paid, as well you should expect to get paid. People join to not only serve their country, but to utilize the current educational benefits that come with it. You know why they join, I don't need to list the reasons. You do not make less in the military than you do at McDonalds. If you didn't join and serve for money, why are you trying to advocate for that very thing?

kinggovernor · 05-07-2008, 12:17 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

Military is most certainly subject to free market conditions. If it didn't offer benefits to sign up we would need a draft. You might not have signed up specifically for money but you most certainly expect to get paid, as well you should expect to get paid. People join to not only serve their country, but to utilize the current educational benefits that come with it. You know why they join, I don't need to list the reasons. You do not make less in the military than you do at McDonalds. If you didn't join and serve for money, why are you trying to advocate for that very thing?

I made roughly 22k in my year long deployment to Iraq. I worked 16-22 hours a day, every day. You would make more money at McDonald's.

I am advocating for more benefits because of the extraordinary sacrifices that we have made for this country. Just like the WWII veterans did.

DosEquis · 05-07-2008, 02:10 PM

Ok, im done debating just for debating sake. Sorry, I agree with you for the most part

kinggovernor · 05-07-2008, 02:42 PM

The House is voting tomorrow on the bill

kinggovernor · 05-07-2008, 02:46 PM

YouTube Video

Kytro · 05-07-2008, 04:55 PM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

that is why we have the Law of War in this country.

I was not saying US solider rape and pillage (at least not commonly) - merely that risking your life fighting a war does not automatically make one a hero or mean you are doing the right thing.

Fighting to protect your nation isn't the same thing as fighting a war of aggression for dubious reasons, which is what Iraq is. Beliving it is the right thing to do does not make it so.

nbiggershaft · 05-07-2008, 06:24 PM

A agree about 90%. They should cover completely costs equivalent of a state college. Going to Harvard is a bit more expensive nowadays than after WW2, there is no reason to shell out that much per marine.

nbiggershaft · 05-07-2008, 06:27 PM

Originally Posted by thewise1

Just out of curiosity, what does $70k get you in terms of a study program and degree?

about 70 years of tuition for what I pay

kinggovernor · 05-07-2008, 06:53 PM

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

A agree about 90%. They should cover completely costs equivalent of a state college. Going to Harvard is a bit more expensive nowadays than after WW2, there is no reason to shell out that much per marine.

they wouldn't have to, Ivy Leagues are very selective (well they did let ACE in

). Most Marines that I know attend community colleges or states schools, I am one of a very few that attend a somewhat elite private university.

nbiggershaft · 05-07-2008, 07:12 PM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

they wouldn't have to, Ivy Leagues are very selective (well they did let ACE in ). Most Marines that I know attend community colleges or states schools, I am one of a very few that attend a somewhat elite private university.

just curious, if you knew you were going to face high costs, why not do ROTC and have most of it covered?

kinggovernor · 05-07-2008, 07:16 PM

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

just curious, if you knew you were going to face high costs, why not do ROTC and have most of it covered?

that is another story. I tried but Marine Corps NROTC are extremely limited. They usually have 50-75 people competing for 1-2 scholarships, I tried but I didn't get it.

six6ftr · 05-08-2008, 01:56 PM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

that is another story. I tried but Marine Corps NROTC are extremely limited. They usually have 50-75 people competing for 1-2 scholarships, I tried but I didn't get it.

Have you looked at BOOST or MECEP? I will admit that there will be a large amount of competition due to the limited amount of seats being offered.

kinggovernor · 05-08-2008, 02:22 PM

Originally Posted by six6ftr

Have you looked at BOOST or MECEP? I will admit that there will be a large amount of competition due to the limited amount of seats being offered.

yea my unit offered a direct commisioning program but I got a great job offer and I will be getting out.

kinggovernor · 05-18-2008, 11:05 PM

Newsday.com

House OKs increase in GI Bill education benefits
BY KRISTEN M. DAUM

May 16, 2008

WASHINGTON - An overwhelming majority of the House voted yesterday to sharply increase education benefits for Iraq-Afghanistan veterans under the GI Bill - and to pay for it with a tax surcharge on the wealthy.

Thirty-two Republicans joined with Democrats on a 256-166 vote to provide up to four years' full tuition at a level charged by the most expensive in-state public university, a monthly housing allotment based on local cost of living, and an annual $1,000 book stipend.

For a veteran on Long Island, these benefits could be as much as $27,360 a year.

Currently, veterans can receive up to $1,251 a month for tuition and housing.

But the benefits increase, part of a multibillion-dollar emergency spending bill for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, still faces an uncertain future. President George W. Bush has vowed to veto the bill over the non-war spending, the tax surcharge and restrictions on his ability to conduct the Iraq war.

Like many Republicans, Rep. Peter King (R-Seaford) disliked the tax surcharge. Nonetheless, he voted for the increased education benefits, saying that "the needs of the GI Bill of Rights outweigh the costs of the tax."

King added that although the war-spending bill is almost assuredly dead once it hits Bush's desk, it's still a big step in improving veterans benefits for a post- 9/11 generation.

Rep. Tim Bishop (D-Southampton), however, was sharply critical of Bush's veto threat.

"If he vetoes a bill that gives back a fraction of what our troops have given us, then I say, 'Shame on him,'" Bishop said.

The revision to GI benefits caused a rift among Democrats last week - so much so that it delayed debate until yesterday - because some Democrats didn't like that there was no plan to pay for the better benefits, which Congress estimates would cost up to $50 billion over 10 years.

Democratic leaders and party members struck a deal behind closed doors this week that, in turn, upset Republicans - because it creates a 0.5 percent tax on individuals making more than $500,000 a year or couples making more than $1 million a year.

Republicans and business groups said the plan also amounts to a tax hike on small businesses that pay taxes at the same rates as individuals.

The Senate will probably take up its version of the latest war-spending bill next week. Senators in both parties, however, have been balking at the one-half of a percentage point increase in tax rates.

Copyright © 2008, Newsday Inc.

JaJae · 05-19-2008, 12:50 AM

Congratulations.

kinggovernor · 05-19-2008, 01:02 AM

Originally Posted by JaJae

Congratulations.

we aren't there quite yet, but there are 58 cosponsors in the Senate

kombayn · 05-19-2008, 03:23 PM

Originally Posted by Kytro

I was not saying US solider rape and pillage (at least not commonly) - merely that risking your life fighting a war does not automatically make one a hero or mean you are doing the right thing.

Fighting to protect your nation isn't the same thing as fighting a war of aggression for dubious reasons, which is what Iraq is. Beliving it is the right thing to do does not make it so.

I don't hold against a person who is following orders to get their paycheck. That's what it's all about. Being able to get paid, save the money and support their family. I don't see what the big deal behind that is. I agree with you that the Iraq War is terrible war of aggression but I don't sit here and blame soldiers. It's not their fault, they volunteered because of the benefits they get and I still find it admirable that they risk their life everyday in the face of bullets, while private contracting military personnel such as Blackwater USA hide in building and snipe people off left & right.