Add a Comment
- « Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next »
- Kesac4650,
The Graham version was only authored and introduced after Sen. McCain was questioned about it at a town hall meeting. The Webb version had been out for 13 months when McCain was asked why he didn''t support it while Obama and Clintin did. Low and behold within a month these Republican Senators threw together their own watered-down version.
Supporters of the McCain-Graham version never did support our veterans. They only did so after they realized the Webb *just might* pass. Then threw together their own BS bill to dull the political damage. Look at the timeline of events, it''s obvious. - Reply to this comment
- **What Sen. Graham failed to mention is that his bill still wouldn''t cover the costs of college education even for those who serve more than 12 yrs and receive his bill''s max benefit amount.**
Under his bill, anyone serving more than 3 years receives $1500/mo and those serving over 12 yrs receive $2,000/mo. The kicker is, his bill doesn''t even allow for the $2,000/mo until 2011!!!
For 2007, the College Board states the average annual cost(tuition, room and board, and miscellaneous costs) for a four-year public university is $17,366/yr. Over that period of time his bill would leave the average vet with $5,000 in student loans and $20,000 after degree completion. (1500/mo x 8 months(two-16wk semesters))=full academic year.
Even for a lifer, they would have $1,366 in student loans/yr or about $5,000 in student loans after degree completion.
In stark contrast, the Webb bill would provide a tuition payment and monthly living stipend that would COMPLETELY COVER THE COST of a four-year degree. Regardless if they served 3 yrs or 30 yrs!!!
Tell me Senator, whose bill gives nothing to those that stay in??? - Reply to this comment
- However, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-Fla., characterized the new GI Bill as one that would "give $52 billion to the people who will leave the military and nothing for those who will stay."
What a crock of BS. I would like to see Sen. Graham give a breifing to troops returning from Iraq on the difference between his bill and Sen. Webb''s. If it weren''t for the fact he is a Colonel, HE WOULD BE BOOED OF THE STAGE!!!
That he would say Sen. Webb''s bill would provide nothing for troops that stay in is an ABSOLUTE, BOLD-FACED LIE. I have read the text of both bills extensively and can tell you with 100% confidence the Webb bill offers more to our troops than his bill ever could, regardless of time served.
First, all enlistments are 4 yrs, no one will be able to jump ship after 3 yrs of service.
The Webb bill provides enough money to pay for a "21st Century College Education" A person who served 3yrs or 20 would have all college expenses paid for. Let''s leave the pension and free healthcare for career military. They are well taken care of, but would receive less GI Bill benefits under the Graham bill vs. the Webb bill. - Reply to this comment
- Incoming!
Five federal service academies are fully staffed, maintained and operated annually by tax dollars.
Would either candidate consider closing these elite institutions to help defray costs of a better GI Bill for all Veterans who have served?
United States Military Academy (USMA), United States Naval Academy (USNA), United States Air Force Academy (USAFA), United States Coast Guard Academy (USCGA), United States Merchant Marine Academy (USMMA)are all excellent opportunities for higher education.
However to receive an offer of appointment to these academies, an applicant must obtain a nomination from an official source. This normally includes a U.S. Representative, U.S. Senators, and the Vice President of the United States.
Long established, time honored service academies historically only generate about 25 percent of our nation%u2019s military officer corps.
High cost, tax funded academic traditions and their prep schools are redundant in the 21st Century.
Scores of average citizens are graduating with degrees successfully from various quality universities both private and public readily accessible today in this country.
Proudly many universities are in patriotic partnership with government successfully operating great value for tax dollar Reserve Officers Training Corps (ROTC) programs which annually graduate more newly educated military officers than the five federal academies. Why two systems? Time for a change? - Reply to this comment
- McCain has lost his bearings, as in his compass bearings. He doesn''t know where he''s going because on his compass, true north just keeps pointing at George Bush and that keeps making him lost and a loser. Their only idea is to keep our soldiers forever--or until they die or are maimed. How about making the service attractive again so that more people see it as a good choice to improve their lives? It worked pretty well before and it will work again. George and John just consider it a waste of money. They see Halliburton as a good investment, but veterans aren''t. George and John should just get out of town. We Americans are willing to help them with that.
- Reply to this comment
- I find it interesting that Hillary would say she was "deeply dismayed that my comments would be construed in a way that flies in the face of everything I stand for", and that Obama would then graciously say "obviously she didn''t mean it that way." When Obama''s bitter comment came out Clinton jumped all over it and used it for weeks to whip Pennsylvania voters into a frenzy. I see the circumstances of these comments as very similar (unfortunate word choices to express what they were trying to say), and the difference in the responses of the candidates to the other''s comments as very indicative of the kind of campaign they are each running. There is an incredible amount of projection in the Clinton campaign.
That Wolfson and McAuliffe would say that the Obama campaign''s response that it was an unfortunate comment is inflaming the situation is ludicrous. How is calling the comment "unfortunate" an attack? It was "unfortunate", how would he describe it? - Reply to this comment
- Broder''s Law.
Anybody that wants the presidency so much that he''ll spend two years organizing and campaigning for it is not to be trusted with the office.
Law of Wealth.
Victory goes to the candidate with the most accumulated or contributed wealth who has the financial resources to convince the middle class and poor that he will be on their side.
Law of Wisdom.
Wisdom is considered a sign of weakness by the powerful because a wise man can lead without power but only a powerful man can lead without wisdom.
Capitalism can exist in one of only two states, welfare or warfare. - Reply to this comment
- Graham said. "I would recommend that he go back. So much has happened since 2006 on the ground. It''s been extraordinary."
What a crock of sh*it. The only thing extraordinary that has happened on the ground is the amount of more blood soaking into it. We never should have gone into this quagmire and we need to get the hell out. Now. the only reason we went in in the first place and the only reason we stay, is because war is very very very profitable to some segments of our corporations. That''s it. This and always has been a war for profit and nothing more. If McCain/Bush says otherwise then they are lying pieces of garbage and they know it. - Reply to this comment
- "Also on the program, Howard Wolfson, director of communications for Hillary Clinton''s campaign"
She still has campaign workers? Why? She''s out of it. - Reply to this comment
- McCain is coming across as an elitist officer, which it seems he was. He got his education at the expense of the government (taxpayers) at the Naval Academy and now doesn''t seem to want regular troops to get a degree too. The new GI Bill will most benefit the grunts, the enlisted personal and it would appear that both he and his new mentor Bush are more interested in retaining them for cannon fodder in Iraq and soon Iran (if McCain is elected) then they are in giving them the benefits they deserve after being in Bush''s war for profit. Mccain''s attitude is "I got mine, scre*w you."
- Reply to this comment
- « Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next »
