• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Why does Bush & McCain Hate their soldiers?

SteveGrenard

Philosopher
Joined
Oct 6, 2002
Messages
5,528
....not only is the President threatening to veto these benefits for returning vets, McCain has also opposed them. Why? For two figures who claim to support our troops can anyone offer a valid rationale for their paradoxical position?


“Sadly, President Bush has threatened to veto the (GI) bill. Senator John McCain, who hopes to take his place, not only opposed it, but when given the opportunity to support his fellow veterans on the eve of Memorial Day weekend, didn’t even show up to vote nor express his concerns,” Boccieri says. ” … vetoing this measure will send a clear message that politics has defeated patriotism.”

The address was released after Barack Obama chided McCain Thursday during a Senate debate on the GI bill.

“I respect Senator John McCain’s service to our country. … but I can’t understand why he would line up behind the president in opposition to this GI bill. I can’t believe he believes it is too generous to our veterans,” Obama said Thursday. “I could not disagree with him and the president more on this issue. There are many issues that lend themselves to partisan posturing but giving our veterans the chance to go to college should not be one of them.”
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/23/dems-turn-up-heat-on-mccain-over-military-commitment/
 
Last edited:
Because the GI bill is a benefit that you get after you leave military service. It is therefore an economic incentive not to reenlist.

McCain was in favor of a more modest upgrade of the GI Bill.

BTW, I went to college on the GI Bill. I also got other forms of tuition assistance.
 
I was reading about this earlier. Bush claims to have rejected the bill because it did not allow GI bill benefits to transfer to family members of the soldiers.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,358225,00.html

You forgot to mention that McCain wants the size of the benefit tied to length of service:

Adding, there are many other proposals before the House and Senate and the President “specifically supports” one “proposed by Senators Graham, Burr, and McCain because it allows for the transferability of education benefits and calibrates an increase in education benefits to time in the service.”

www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,358225,00.html

You forgot to mention the objection to providing college benefits to vets based on one enlistment. And what family memebers are we talking about? Children and spouses or all members of a family? And what about housing? Medical care beyond what the VA can provide?

So if someone will translate enlistments for each branch into years and the size of the benefit related to those years we could figure out how long a length of service a soldier would have to serve to come home and be able to go college on the GI Bill. Conceivably it could be five years to each year of college or 20 years of service for a four year degree. What's the proposed ratio? In years?

And then there's the stop-loss program which doesn't involve re-enlistment at all. Someone could remain in long after their enlistment has expired based on stop-loss. Will there be credit for this? I read that McCain wanted multiple enlistments to qualify for benefits.
 
Last edited:
Bush hates any reminder of his dishonorable service, and McCain is still suffering from PTSD?
 
You all know those "Rolling Thunder" biker dudes?

Apparantly they like Bush so much they made him an honorary member.

bushbiker.jpg
 
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.
 
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.
"the democrats" wish to "gut" the military? Isn't that treason? Does that mean McCain who also supports scholarships also wants to "gut" the military? Or just "gut" the military a little less?
 
"the democrats" wish to "gut" the military? Isn't that treason? Does that mean McCain who also supports scholarships also wants to "gut" the military? Or just "gut" the military a little less?

You can read up on the original GI tuition benefit on wikipedia and learn its history. Giving people full rides to college after one short enlistment means less retention. The counter-argument might be that this would increase signups. I am not sure if the military wants more new people versus having less retention and experience.

I would like to propose that we give each military person 1 million dollars whenever their enlistment ends. What's the problem with that, don't you love our soldiers?
 
"the democrats" wish to "gut" the military? Isn't that treason? Does that mean McCain who also supports scholarships also wants to "gut" the military? Or just "gut" the military a little less?

Neither... it is just a nonsense way to attack Democrats for actually supporting the troops, something Bush and McCain refuse to do in any meaningful way. Just look at the Republican support for the program.
 
Neither... it is just a nonsense way to attack Democrats for actually supporting the troops, something Bush and McCain refuse to do in any meaningful way. Just look at the Republican support for the program.

It's amazing. When the Republicans support the troops, they're supporting the troops. When the Democrats support the troops, they're "trying to decrease retention".

Talk about doublespeak!
 
It's amazing. When the Republicans support the troops, they're supporting the troops. When the Democrats support the troops, they're "trying to decrease retention".

Talk about doublespeak!

Worse... when the Republicans DON'T support the troops, they call it "supporting the troops".
 
Neither... it is just a nonsense way to attack Democrats for actually supporting the troops, something Bush and McCain refuse to do in any meaningful way. Just look at the Republican support for the program.

Is ignoring the thread and blurting out irrational nonsense instead of responding to anyone's points a skill you had to learn or were you just born that way?
 
Why does Bush & McCain Hate their soldiers?


Because:

1) They're Americans, not Iraqis.
2) They don't own oil-producing real estate.
3) They're not wealthy enough to make significant campaign donations.
4) ... ?
 
Hi

... clip ...

... Medical care beyond what the VA can provide?

... clip ...


Ummm... no such thing, actually.

For all that the V.A.'s primary response is to cut off the problem and fit you with a wooden one (not too successful an approach with my spine and neck or my friend's heart) the care is broad and comprehensive in nature. I wouldn't suggest it as a model for a national health care system, right, but for an essentially free service, it's really pretty good.

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.

Bad: I do the $10 co-pay for prescriptions that would cost me $2 on the open market.

Good: The V.A. hospitals are frequently associated with the finest teaching hospitals in the country, swapping staff and personnel as well as facilities and other resources.

Bad: Often being treated like someone's term paper.

In my case, and in the cases of most of the X.G.I.s I know, the good far outweighs the bad, but you'd have to have been in the military to think so. A civilian would feel quite harshly put upon by the attitude of the whole thing, while soldiers and sailors are kind of used to being told where to go, what to do, and when to get there, only to discover that they're in the wrong place doing the incorrect thing a day late.
 
Last edited:
It's amazing. When the Republicans support the troops, they're supporting the troops. When the Democrats support the troops, they're "trying to decrease retention".

Talk about doublespeak!

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.
 
Ummm... no such thing, actually.

There is such a thing for military and military families. Its called Tricare and is administered by Health Net Federal Services....

https://www.hnfs.net/


My hospital has also treated disabled vets under the program which were referred by the nearest VA hospital.

Good: The V.A. hospitals are frequently associated with the finest teaching hospitals in the country, swapping staff and personnel as well as facilities and other resources.

Bad: Often being treated like someone's term paper.

Not only staff or personnel are sometimes swapped, but patients are also referred out to the
private nearby hospital when the VA does not have the facilities to diagnose or treat them.

Under Healthnet/TRICARE all military and vets are treated the same in my hospital -- like any other private, insured patient would be treated, Forgive me for being taken aback by your perception.
 
Last edited:
Why does Bush & McCain Hate their soldiers?

Because:

1) The soldiers are Americans, not Iraqis.
2) The soldiers don't own oil-producing real estate.
3) Soldiers should not be paid enough to make significant campaign contributions to the opposition.
4) Education, housing, and health care are luxuries that should be reserved for only the very wealthy.
5) Providing health care to Iraqi citizens is sound policy.
6) Providing health care to disabled American veterans is socialism.
7) ... ?
 
Last edited:
Good: I get all my prescriptions for a $10 co-pay.

Bad: I do the $10 co-pay for prescriptions that would cost me $2 on the open market.


Only 'bad' if you choose to pay $10 instead of $2. I've never had a problem getting the doctor to write me a prescription for things I can go buy cheaper than the cop-pay. If Walgreen's sells it for $2, I get it for $2.
 

Back
Top Bottom