Why does Bush & McCain Hate their soldiers?

[The Painter]

You people disgust me. If you want the truth you could look it up, but you won't bother. You'd rather believe the BS.

 

[jj]

Come on JJ. You know that what they are doing is offering a big incentive to get out. Maybe its not intentional, but it seems to be an oversight of Everest proportions if so.

I would be glad to see some service time limits installed. But I am not ever likely to argue against money for education.

 

[jj]

You people disgust me. If you want the truth you could look it up, but you won't bother. You'd rather believe the BS.

Somehow or other, we might all understand your disgust if you bothered to explain more than the fact that you hold everyone else in contempt.

 

[Daylight]

The democrats are trying to gut the military by offering full ride scholarships after one enlistment. The McCain proposal is you get more tuition assistance the longer you serve (and is still an upgrade to the existing benefit).

I see no other reasoning for the democrat proposal that made it into the bill. Its a weird elephant in the room I don't see anywhere in the media.

So lets see, I join for one enlistment. The Republicans than stop/loss me into serving 12 years with no way out except death. Since it's only one enlistment, I get nothing.

Don't you just love the republican way of thinking?

 

[Puppycow]

Corplinx is objectively correct. Neither side is saying it out loud, but a practical effect of this (not necessarily the intention, although I'm too cynical about politics to imagine that they didn't know it) is to incentivise the decision not to reenlist. A reenlistment bonus is an incentive to reenlist, but the GI bill is something you can't take full advantage of until you get out.

But! This is because Bush has been stubborn about the war. He didn't listen to the Baker Commission. So war opponents had to figure out this indirect way to force an exit. Bush is keeping this war going against the popular will.

 

[Puppycow]

Prediction: A lot of GIs are going to want to get out to take advantage of this new GI bill, but they won't be allowed to because they are going to be stoplossed.

 

[pgwenthold]

In all his time in the Senate, has John McCain ever supported a Veterans Benefits bill?

I know there is a long list of Vet bills that he has voted against.

 

[Darth Rotor]

"the democrats" wish to "gut" the military?

That is what the Clinton administration achieved, yes, but there was enough gut left to recover.

Whether or not current Democrats wish to "gut" the military depends upon whose district has the most defense bases, establishments, and industries. Joe Lieberman is remarkably hawkish for a Dem, but then, he represents the old Arsenal of Democracy, Connecticut. Lots of high tech defense industries there.

However, for the record, two of the biggest defense drawdowns and force reductions were undertaken by Ike and Nixon.

DR

 

[Darth Rotor]

So lets see, I join for one enlistment. The Republicans than stop/loss me into serving 12 years with no way out except death. Since it's only one enlistment, I get nothing.

Wrong. The idea is you don't get a full ride. They are not repealing the GI bill as it stands now, wherein after one enlistment you can pile up 30,000+ of tuition benefits.

That's not nothing, but it isn't a full ride.

On the other hand, the explosion of federally funded college loans in the past thirty years have done two things (not going to derail on the default rate, which made some of them "grants" in effect.)

1. It made the supply and demand relationship between tuition and ability to pay skew costs upward.

2. It made the GI bill "less special" in comparison to the time when federally backed student loans were available. The nice thing about GI Bill is it's not a loan. My dad went to college on the GI bill, but it didn't pay all his costs. He had to earn some more money elsewhere (he came from a poor family) to make up the difference. He worked.

DR

 

[Daylight]

Wrong. The idea is you don't get a full ride. They are not repealing the GI bill as it stands now, wherein after one enlistment you can pile up 30,000+ of tuition benefits.

That's not nothing, but it isn't a full ride.

DR

Just one stop/loss should qualify you for a full ride, at any school.

 

[jj]

Wrong. The idea is you don't get a full ride. They are not repealing the GI bill as it stands now, wherein after one enlistment you can pile up 30,000+ of tuition benefits.

So, if you're in for one enlistment, but you're stoplossed into 12 years, you should only get credit for one enlistment?

How about "years served, voluntarily or not", perhaps?

On the other hand, the explosion of federally funded college loans in the past thirty years have done two things (not going to derail on the default rate, which made some of them "grants" in effect.)

That's a different issue, and let's say that I have some problems with the way that "defaulted' loans were handled, too. I'm one of those whackos who fully paid off their student loans. But I paid off early, just because it was a pain sending that check in every month.

So I got a phone call "why didn't you make the last payment on your loan".

Yes, really. Their "standard" for "full payment" was "did the person make their last payment".

But be that as it may, people who are stoplossed should get GI bill credit for their whole service, not how many times they enlisted.

 

[Darth Rotor]

So, if you're in for one enlistment, but you're stoplossed into 12 years, you should only get credit for one enlistment?

The Montgomery GI Bill, as passed, had a cap. You can reach it in one enlistment, or multiple, or one with extensions, but there was a cap mandated by Congress.

That is how it works.

How about "years served, voluntarily or not", perhaps?

The stop loss issue was rare when it was signed back into law, after a number of years of
NO GI BILL (when I was in my fist 10 years). Congress simply got rid of it at one point.

Now, how should it work? Good questions, depends on a lot of things, but I'd like to see a cap increase of 10-20K for each combat tour, not each enlistment, (why give the REMFs a reward on the backs of the infantry?) or something similar.

The stop loss issue is reasonably old public law.

That's a different issue, and let's say that I have some problems with the way that "defaulted' loans were handled, too. I'm one of those whackos who fully paid off their student loans. But I paid off early, just because it was a pain sending that check in every month.

Tnank you, my fellow citizen, my brother did likewise with his college loans: paid off early.

But be that as it may, people who are stoplossed should get GI bill credit for their whole service, not how many times they enlisted.

You may be missing a few details on stop loss. Some is for a few months, some longer, but a reenlistment is typically four to six years. The stop loss happens at the end of an enlistment, intended to keep a unit together for an operational necessity.

I don't have all the answers, but to pretend that stop loss is the same as a full reenlistment is to misundertand what is going on.

The other issue is the stoploss of National Guard and Reserve personnel who were activated.

DR

 

[Darth Rotor]

Just one stop/loss should qualify you for a full ride, at any school.

I see. One stoploss for one soldier, who had one tour in Iraq, should be more benefit to a guy with three tours who happened to get out between his unit's deployment cycle?

And "Any School?" screams of someone who little understands college tuition variance across the country. Congress writes appropriation laws with any eye to projected costs, and endowed the GI Bill funding line with a dollar value, back when Montgomery GI Bill was passed, for the usual good and sufficient reason: fiscal restraints.

I don't think you have thought this through. If there is to be a bonus to the GI Bill benefit, I'd suggest it be based on the number of combat tours to push up the cap. O

Focusing on stop loss rather misses the point.

DR

 

[Rolfe]

Good: I go in with severe pain in my neck, lower back, lower legs, left shoulder, right collar bone and arm, and I get treatment.

Bad: The doctor requires me to decide which ONE I want to be treated.

Good: I get all my prescriptions for a $10 co-pay.....

Oh, stop now. That last is good????

Our prescription charges for the general population have just been cut to £5 (about $10) on the way to being abolished. Prescriptions are already free for children, the elderly, pregnant women and certain other groups which I think include the chronically ill/disabled. They've been free in Wales for everyone for a couple of years already.

And they wouldn't even ask a homeless wino which one of his problems he wanted treated.

I know this isn't the thread to start talking about the NHS again, but almost every thread I open where our "special relations" are talking about healthcare has me thanking God fasting.

Rolfe.

 

[Aardvark422]

Now, how should it work? Good questions, depends on a lot of things, but I'd like to see a cap increase of 10-20K for each combat tour, not each enlistment, (why give the REMFs a reward on the backs of the infantry?) or something similar.

It seems incredibly unfair to tie tuition benefits together with combat deployments. If something like that were to happen, would my husband, in the service now for 9 years, signing up for another 3 next week, get less than someone else who has been in for less time, but more Iraq duty, just because my husband has been here in the states the last three years training helicopter pilots? Or does that qualify him as REMF, even though he is working longer, harder hours here than when he was deployed?

I would probably support benefits that were based on time in service, regardless of the number of enlistments, but to say here's something for this guy because I think his service was harder than that guy, is wrong.

 

[Bob Klase]

Now, how should it work? Good questions, depends on a lot of things, but I'd like to see a cap increase of 10-20K for each combat tour, not each enlistment, (why give the REMFs a reward on the backs of the infantry?) or something similar.

I'll agree that it depends on a lot of things. But many (if not most) REMFs are not in the rear because they want to be.

In my first deployment for Desert Shield I was part of a task force. I didn't volunteer to be part of the task force and a number of people who did volunteer were not sent. My second deployment for Desert Shield/Storm was in one company out of the battalion's 3. There were plenty of volunteers from the other 2, but they stayed in Germany simply because they happened to be in that company instead of mine.

Many stayed in Germany because they were needed there more than in the gulf (my sister's husband fought for weeks to be deployed and never was).

When the current war started a small task force was sent from my daughter's unit. She volunteered to go- her command wouldn't consider sending her because there were plenty of other people to pick from and she was a single mother.

And you know as well as me that most of the ones that deserve the term REMF are mid-high ranking in positions that have some control over whether they go. The majority of the rear echelon has no say in the matter and those are mostly the ones that will benefit the most from the GI bill after 4-8 years of service. And we both know how well the infantry would fare without a rear echelon.

ETA: An additional thought- most in a position to actually avoid a combat tour by choice are likely in for a career. Few that I knew would want to be the guy that spends the next 10-15 years as the one that's not wearing a combat patch.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I'll agree that it depends on a lot of things. But many (if not most) REMFs are not in the rear because they want to be.

In my first deployment for Desert Shield I was part of a task force. I didn't volunteer to be part of the task force and a number of people who did volunteer were not sent. My second deployment for Desert Shield/Storm was in one company out of the battalion's 3. There were plenty of volunteers from the other 2, but they stayed in Germany simply because they happened to be in that company instead of mine.

Many stayed in Germany because they were needed there more than in the gulf (my sister's husband fought for weeks to be deployed and never was).

When the current war started a small task force was sent from my daughter's unit. She volunteered to go- her command wouldn't consider sending her because there were plenty of other people to pick from and she was a single mother.

And you know as well as me that most of the ones that deserve the term REMF are mid-high ranking in positions that have some control over whether they go. The majority of the rear echelon has no say in the matter and those are mostly the ones that will benefit the most from the GI bill after 4-8 years of service. And we both know how well the infantry would fare without a rear echelon.

ETA: An additional thought- most in a position to actually avoid a combat tour by choice are likely in for a career. Few that I knew would want to be the guy that spends the next 10-15 years as the one that's not wearing a combat patch.

Good points all, Bob. The pretense that there is a perfectly fair way to handle this, as some of the posters above wish, needs to be exposed.

The statutory cap on GI Bill per head is a law that Congress can change. I suspect they'll override the veto, but we'll see.

DR

 

[Darth Rotor]

It seems incredibly unfair to tie tuition benefits together with combat deployments.

That is not what I am talking about. The base GI Bill benefit is still 30,000.

If something like that were to happen, would my husband, in the service now for 9 years, signing up for another 3 next week, get less than someone else who has been in for less time, but more Iraq duty, just because my husband has been here in the states the last three years training helicopter pilots? Or does that qualify him as REMF, even though he is working longer, harder hours here than when he was deployed?

A point well missed. Helicopter pilots in Iraq, and in Afghanistan, ARE NOT REMFS. I suspect you know that, via your husband. Pilots get flight pay, training pilots or otherwise engaged, whether we are in a war or not.

I would probably support benefits that were based on time in service, regardless of the number of enlistments, but to say here's something for this guy because I think his service was harder than that guy, is wrong.

The DoD and Congress disagree with you, and have for about fifty years.

Submariners get hazard pay and sub pay. Pilots get flight pay. EOD guys get pro pay. There are a whole series of reenlistment bonuses that are tied to an MOS/NEC, like SAR swimmer, that give greater incentive to reenlist than another MOS. Certain regions of the world get you hazardous duty pay. Here's one: was got a month's worth of hazardous pay for some time spent in Greece, in 1996, because I was sent to Athens and 17 November terror organization was still alive and well.

As to combat recompense, combat is harder than about anything else that happens in the military. What is going on in Iraq is combat, a very difficult kind, and more, much much more. There are marines and soldiers going back to Iraq for their fourth year long tours. It is apparent that the folks in Congress are trying to come up with a better way of saying "thank you" to those folks in this bill.

Maybe not. Might all be posturing.

Tell ya what. Let's go back about twenty years ago, when the GI Bill was no longer an option, and there was this thing called the VEAP, that if you put 2700 dollars into you'd be able to use 8100 worth of benefits after you got out. That was it. One enlistment, two, or three.

Where were you then with your formulae? Where was anyone?

Well, some folks went to work and tried to do something.

The Montgomery GI Bill, when it was passed after a lot of years of hard work, upped the benefit to 30,000. That was a nice change, but IIRC, one had a contribution to make to get the max.

If Congress wants to up the potential benefit to more than that, fine.

If it wants to boost the cap for certain factors, that is fine too. You get combat pay and hazardous duty pay when in combat, not when back in the States. You get a tax relief if in a combat zone, not if you are home in the states. The method and logic is already in place to support boosting a cap (again, a suggestion) based on the same sorts of factors the DoD already uses to boost pay or allowances.

If not, so be it, Congress controls the purse strings.

I remember when the GI Bill was discontinued. It didn't make any of my sailors happy, I can promise you.

DR

 

[Aardvark422]

That is not what I am talking about. The base GI Bill benefit is still 30,000.

My understanding of what you said earlier was that you would like an increase in the GI Bill per combat tour. How is that not tying tuition benefits with combat deployments?

A point well missed. Helicopter pilots in Iraq, and in Afghanistan, ARE NOT REMFS. I suspect you know that, via your husband. Pilots get flight pay, training pilots or otherwise engaged, whether we are in a war or not.

You're right, pilots in combat areas are NOT REMF's. That wasn't what I said.

If it wants to boost the cap for certain factors, that is fine too. You get combat pay and hazardous duty pay when in combat, not when back in the States. You get a tax relief if in a combat zone, not if you are home in the states. The method and logic is already in place to support boosting a cap (again, a suggestion) based on the same sorts of factors the DoD already uses to boost pay or allowances.

I guess my point was there are already many different incentives, and breaks, for military members in combat - tax relief, flight pay, separation pay, sea pay, hazardous duty pay - don't take tuition benefits and also base on it combat service. It's not fair to those serving that have no choice in whether they serve in Iraq/Afghanistan or not. Base the GI Bill on time in service, fine, but not on where that time was spent.

 

[Daylight]

I see. One stoploss for one soldier, who had one tour in Iraq, should be more benefit to a guy with three tours who happened to get out between his unit's deployment cycle?

And "Any School?" screams of someone who little understands college tuition variance across the country. Congress writes appropriation laws with any eye to projected costs, and endowed the GI Bill funding line with a dollar value, back when Montgomery GI Bill was passed, for the usual good and sufficient reason: fiscal restraints.

I don't think you have thought this through. If there is to be a bonus to the GI Bill benefit, I'd suggest it be based on the number of combat tours to push up the cap. O

Focusing on stop loss rather misses the point.

DR

To set you straight, my thoughts are anyone serving a single combat tour should get a full ride.

Yes Darth, any school. In fact, combat vets should get priority over other applicants. They earned it. If you want to go to Harvard, and you put your life on the line, you’re in. Fully paid by the government.

Projected costs? Fiscal Restraints? Isn’t it always funny how some Republicans (you know, the deferment types and the Mom where did I leave my F-102 types) can start a war on false pretenses, one that hemorrhages money out every orifice (remember the 9.8 billion they lost?), funnel money to friends (you have to love no-bid contracts) that when we get to the part about compensating the guys that do the job, the true heroes, we have to worry about Projected costs and Fiscal Restraints? Is it any wonder the Republicans are known as the “lie and die” party?