Comments on: How The GI Bill Changed America

Sunday Morning: Legislation For Servicemembers Returning From WWII Now Updated For A New Generation Of Vets

[elsa12-2009]

My husband was in the service vetnum no one helped him and he can not use, the vet doctors and he thinks he got MS from Vetnum? I wish there was help out there for him

[mobd1]

Your story about the G.I. Bill was very informative, but missed an element. Many colleges, both public and private, have taken it upon themselves to offer benefits to military men and woman. One example is Grand Canyon University which offers a tuition discount that matches the G.I. Bill for both its Ground Campus and its On-Line Degree programs.
Sincerely,
Matt D
Peoria, AZ

[deanbooth]

How could you do a story on the new GI Bill and not mention that John McCain voted against it? Perhaps you thought it would make him look bad -- sorry, the facts are the facts. If the 2008 election is to be about issues, you have to inform your viewers about the candidates'' positions, and the GI Bill story was a clear opportunity to point out a difference between the candidates

[element51]

sidvicious....You truly are an insensitive prickk. Your comment that Iraq vets would make good cops because they''re used to shooting people in the back shows the most dis-respect I have seen to date. You think you''re cute but with every post you show just what a wise-arse you are. You remind me of another jerk who used to post who called himself Donnie 9 or something like that. His posts were also juvenile and rude. You make fun of me for saying that my parents couldn''t afford to send me to school and what you don''t know is that my father was a WW2 veteran who lost both legs in a plane crash. I didn''t make that statement to get sympathy, it was just a fact. Why don''t you grow up and join the rest of the adults who are posting here and keep your snide little remarks to yourself.?

[klm68a]

Race was, unfortunately, a major factor in granting FHA-backed mortgage loans. Blacks couldn''t get loans to buy houses in certain areas.

This is largely responsible for the de facto racial segregation that persists today, that created economically-disadvantaged, largely black urban centers surrounded by relatively affluent, largely white suburbs.

The effect has been a federal subsidy of $300,000 for the wealth of the average white family, largely in the form of home values. Because education is funded based on local property values, the disparity persists.

Our nation missed a great opportunity for justice and equality. This doesn''t mean that individual white people did anything wrong in taking out FHA-backed loans. But it does mean that we benefited (I''m white and my father went to school on the GI bill).

I think that implies that whites have a responsibility to work against the institutionalized impacts of racism -- responsibility not necessarily in the sense of guilt, but in the sense of obligation.

See the link below for more information on this part of our history.

http://www.pbs.org/race/000_About/002_04-background-03.htm

[jumkey]

Well, thank you bajajohn1.

Now I regret savaging rowdywicca.

My apologies.

[element51]

SgtRDS-E4...I got out in 1966 and the benefit was a little less than you got. And it was to pay for tuition, books, rent, food, pretty much the same. I was lucky enough to get a job in a liquor store at 1.15 per hour. But I worked nights and went to school days and was able to do some school work, reading, between customers. I had one day a week off, Sunday, and used it to write papers and things like that. There were times when I just wanted to give up but my Dad threatened to kick my arse if I did so I managed to finish. I''m so glad I did because I had a very rewarding career. Didn''t get rich but never expected to. The greatest thing is when I run into one of my old students and they thank me for being so hard on them. There''s no greater reward than when someone tells you that you made a difference in their life.

[jumkey]

Awww Jumkey, you left out the part where he was grateful for what he got and used it wisely! And you left out the part that he was willing to work to help get his education! And the part where he doesn''''t expect everything to be given freely, and that he served 9 years to get that benefit.

See what happens Jumkey when you pick over somebody''''s statement? Makes a big difference doesn''''t it.

Posted by RowdyWicca

No, I don''t see. All I see is you spinning and spinning your to justify the taxpayer supported social welfare program that benefits YOU while whining about what other people get.

Presumably your son was paid for being in the military. Sorry, it wasn''t enough? I had to foot the bill for his education as well? Couldn''t he have worked a little harder and paid for the whole thing himself instead of taking a government handout?

Your comment that your son was "grateful" to get to suck at the government teat hardy justifies the program.

I realize that part of being a wingnut is that you''re missing the constancy, logic and self-reflection gene and this allows you to argue both sides of the same question if it suits your particular purposes. I get it.

But personally, since I''m the one footing the bill for your son''s lifestyle choice I''d prefer my tax dollars were spent on people more deserving, not you whining conservative welfare queens.

[element51]

Rowdy....I enlisted in the military right out of high school because my parents didn''t have the money to send me to college. I served four years and was proud to do so. After I was discharged I went to school on the GI Bill and got my teaching credentials. I taught for 26 years so I think I repaid the taxpayers investment in me. I have known many teachers who would not have been able to teach had it not been for the GI Bill. It isn''t a gimme program. We earned it. By the way, and correct me if I''m wrong, but were you on CSPAN Saturday. Someone from Texas was on, a lady, and her comments were almost identical to some you have made on line. When I heard her I thought, "that''s Rowdy".

[jumkey]

@bajajohn1

%u201CLiterature on the effects of educational benefits on retention suggest that every $10,000 increase in educational benefits yields a reduction in retention of slightly more than 1 percentage point. CBO estimates that S. 22 (as modified) would more than double the present value of educational benefits for servicemembers at the first reenlistment point %u2014 from about $40,000 to over $90,000 %u2014 implying a 16 percent decline in the reenlistment rate, from about 42 percent to about 36 percent. [%u2026]

%u201CEducational benefits have been shown to raise the number of military recruits. Based on an analysis of the existing literature, CBO estimates that a 10 percent increase in educational benefits would result in an increase of about 1 percent in high-quality recruits. On that basis, CBO calculates that raising the educational benefits as proposed in S. 22 would result in a 16 percent increase in recruits.%u201D

So it''s not a "management" issue. It is and always has been a money issue.

I actually have no problem with not increasing or increasing benefits whichever makes more sense for the country and the military. Sadly the demagoguery and disingenuous arguments that conservatives always seem to bring to the table prevent any meaningful discussion of the merits or demerits of the issue at hand.