View Full Version : Bush/McCain: Leaving America's Troops Behind?
ChristopherHall
05-09-2008, 01:22 PM
Support the Troops.
McCain, Military Oppose Expanding GI Bill
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=4652517&page=1
Bob Herbert: Today's troops deserve benefits from new GI bill
http://www.daytondailynews.com/search/content/oh/story/opinions/editorial/2008/05/06/ddn050708herbert.html
Who wouldn't support an effort to pay for college for GIs who have willingly suited up and put their lives on the line, who in many cases have served multiple tours in combat zones and in some cases have been wounded?
We did it for those who served in World War II. Why not now?
Well, you might be surprised at who is not supporting this effort. The Bush administration opposes it, and so does Sen. John McCain.
Reinvigorating the GI bill is one of the best things this nation could do. The original GI Bill of Rights, signed into law by President Franklin Roosevelt in 1944, paid the full load of a returning veteran's education at a college or technical school and provided a monthly stipend. It was an investment that paid astounding dividends. Millions of veterans benefited, and they helped transform the nation. College would no longer be the exclusive preserve of the wealthy and those who crowned themselves the intellectual elite.
..........
McCain's office said on Monday that it was following the Pentagon's lead on this matter, getting guidance from Defense Secretary Robert Gates. Under pressure because of his unwillingness to support Webb's effort, McCain introduced legislation with substantially fewer co-sponsors last week that expands some educational benefits for GIs, but far less robustly than Webb's bill.
"It's not even close to the Webb bill," said Paul Rieckhoff, executive director of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, an advocacy group.
.........
Bob Herbert is a columnist for The New York Times. Address: New York Times, 620 Eighth Ave., New York, N.Y. 10018.
DividedThigh
05-09-2008, 01:31 PM
i am all for giving help to our boys and women out there doing a great job of defending and representing this country but to use this for propoganda to slam the president and senator mccain is a joke, they support the people in the armed forces and have there backs much more than the libs who try to say this stuff for political gain, that is all, dt
scotty
05-09-2008, 01:34 PM
Na, don't want it.....they are right , retention would drop...
In 1988 the military ramped up the GI bill in order to ramp up enlistment, part of Reagans military build up...Many got in JUST for the college help, when their time was up they opted out...costing us millions.
the largest group of whiners in the service against the war are ones who signed up for the college benifits not the defense of our country.
When Clinton came into office he drasticly cut the military budget, including GI bill benifits...funny his wife is now for it...
It is a political card , nothing more , nothing less....it bring in recruits who will take it and leave...plus if Obama or Clinton get the White House they will cut the military again, after all , they are for diplomacy.
DividedThigh
05-09-2008, 01:36 PM
Na, don't want it.....they are right , retention would drop...
In 1988 the military ramped up the GI bill in order to ramp up enlistment, part of Reagans military build up...Many got in JUST for the college help, when their time was up they opted out...costing us millions.
the largest group of whiners in the service against the war are ones who signed up for the college benifits not the defense of our country.
When Clinton came into office he drasticly cut the military budget, including GI bill benifits...funny his wife is now for it...
It is a political card , nothing more , nothing less....it bring in recruits who will take it and leave...plus if Obama or Clinton get the White House they will cut the military again, after all , they are for diplomacy.
my thoughts exactly scotty, thanks for the back up, dt
ChristopherHall
05-09-2008, 01:38 PM
i am all for giving help to our boys and women out there doing a great job of defending and representing this country but to use this for propoganda to slam the president and senator mccain is a joke, they support the people in the armed forces and have there backs much more than the libs who try to say this stuff for political gain, that is all, dt
Riiiigggghhhhht. Bush 'n' Company (and Bush III only) want to keep our troops indefinately committed to their globalist nation building experiment in Iraq.
DividedThigh
05-09-2008, 01:39 PM
i consider the source, that is enough for me, i wonder about you ch, really, dt:crazywalls
ChristopherHall
05-09-2008, 01:40 PM
Essentially these troops have been on an unbelievably long deployment. They deserve our best. Besides...anyone who's been in the military knows you can't just get out and go to college whenever you like, especially if on deployment. These troops can only use these benefits after their deployment. If we're going to have troops securing our interests in Iraq for the next 100 years...do we wait 100 years before honoring them for their service?
Frankly this is an insult to our troops.
In addition...excellent benefits would bring higher levels of recruitment...and the better the benefits the better the recruits signing up.
DividedThigh
05-09-2008, 01:44 PM
frankly you swallow and spit out this propoganda quite easily, good grief for you insinuate that president bush, and john mccain a decorated war hero, legit i might add, dont support the troops is just the height of ignorance, but you just keep acting like you are conservative, i have seen enough, you want hear from me again, no matter how silly the things you say are, dt
ChristopherHall
05-09-2008, 01:47 PM
Consider,
Recruitment of More People With Criminal Records Places Nation's Military in Jeopardy, Says Pitt Faculty Expert Donald Goldstein
http://mac10.umc.pitt.edu/m/FMPro?-db=ma&-lay=a&-format=d.html&id=3322&-Find
The U.S. Army and Marine Corps recruited significantly more people with criminal records last year than in 2006, amid pressure to meet combat needs
PITTSBURGH-Leading World War II authority Donald Goldstein, a professor in the University of Pittsburgh's Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, is concerned about the state of the U.S. military. According to data released Monday by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, the U.S. Army and Marine Corps recruited significantly more ex-convicts last year than in 2006. The crimes included assault, sex crimes, manslaughter, and burglary.
GI Schmo
How low can Army recruiters go?
http://www.slate.com/id/2133908/
By Fred Kaplan
Posted Monday, Jan. 9, 2006, at 5:06 PM ET
Three months ago, I wrote that the war in Iraq was wrecking the U.S. Army, and since then the evidence has only mounted, steeply. Faced with repeated failures to meet its recruitment targets, the Army has had to lower its standards dramatically. First it relaxed restrictions against high-school drop-outs. Then it started letting in more applicants who score in the lowest third on the armed forces aptitude test—a group, known as Category IV recruits, who have been kept to exceedingly small numbers, as a matter of firm policy, for the past 20 years. (There is also a Category V—those who score in the lowest 10th percentile. They have always been ineligible for service in the armed forces and, presumably, always will be.)
ChristopherHall
05-09-2008, 01:48 PM
Funny...they'd rather recruit ex-felons and rif/raf (that will weaken our military) than increase benefits to attract America's best and brightest thereby recruiting better troops.
an accurate title to this thread would be
Bush/McCain oppose proposed new GI Bill....
the current title of this thread is an out and out lie.
Chris, my question for you is why do you want to lie?
scotty
05-09-2008, 01:49 PM
Dt...you now it is useless with him , why continue.
If a government bashing thread does not protrude from his profile at least once a week I would send out a search and rescue cause something obviously has went wrong..
as you can see he has ignored our replies entirly....lol he may have us ignored by now...lol
pelathais
05-09-2008, 01:49 PM
Frankly, this "bill" is an election year gambit designed to generate puff pieces in the media - kind of like your post here, Chris. It's such an obvious ploy that I'm surprised you fell into line and regurgitated the propaganda. You're more savvy than that; or do you think AFF is not savvy enough to know what year it is?
DividedThigh
05-09-2008, 01:51 PM
Dt...you now it is useless with him , why continue.
If a government bashing thread does not protrude from his profile at least once a week I would send out a search and rescue cause something obviously has went wrong..
as you can see he has ignored our replies entirly....lol he may have us ignored by now...lol
that is why i said no more, i wont waste my time on the boy no matter how dumb what he says is, enough, thanks scotty, dt
ChristopherHall
05-09-2008, 01:52 PM
an accurate title to this thread would be
Bush/McCain oppose proposed new GI Bill....
the current title of this thread is an out and out lie.
Chris, my question for you is why do you want to lie?
Thanks bro. I modified the title.
scotty
05-09-2008, 01:52 PM
Funny...they'd rather recruit ex-felons and rif/raf (that will weaken our military) than increase benefits to attract America's best and brightest thereby recruiting better troops.
Chris...they leave when its over
they sign up for the college and then whine when they suddenly have to defend our country , they have said it themselves on TV in interviews about anti war demonstrators......."I signed up for the college benifits, not to fight"
well duh ?!?!..
ChristopherHall
05-09-2008, 01:54 PM
frankly you swallow and spit out this propoganda quite easily, good grief for you insinuate that president bush, and john mccain a decorated war hero, legit i might add, dont support the troops is just the height of ignorance, but you just keep acting like you are conservative, i have seen enough, you want hear from me again, no matter how silly the things you say are, dt
Bro, you know I'm a free thinka. Conservatives think I'm a raging liberal and the liberals think I'm a rightwing nut. That's because I choose what I think on each issue independently. For example I agree with the Republicans on energy...but I agree with the Democrats on health care.
Some will agree lock step with the side they choose. I don't. I make up my own mind. And in all honesty I think we're selling our troops a bill of bad goods. We should do far more for them.
ChristopherHall
05-09-2008, 01:56 PM
Chris...they leave when its over
they sign up for the college and then whine when they suddenly have to defend our country , they have said it themselves on TV in interviews about anti war demonstrators......."I signed up for the college benifits, not to fight"
well duh ?!?!..
This is targetted to those who are currently serving. Yes, it may draw some into the military but remember...it's war time. They'll know going in they will be deployed before receiving benefits.
scotty
05-09-2008, 01:56 PM
Bro, you know I'm a free thinka. Conservatives think I'm a raging liberal and the liberals think I'm a rightwing nut. That's because I choose what I think on each issue independently. For example I agree with the Republicans on energy...but I agree with the Democrats on health care.
Some will agree lock step with the side they choose. I don't. I make up my own mind. And in all honesty I think we're selling our troops a bill of bad goods. We should do far more for them.
If that were true you address the points that have been posted
DividedThigh
05-09-2008, 01:57 PM
where is the title change for this thread, the present title is a lie, hmmmmm,dt:blah
Bro, you know I'm a free thinka. Conservatives think I'm a raging liberal and the liberals think I'm a rightwing nut. That's because I choose what I think on each issue independently. For example I agree with the Republicans on energy...but I agree with the Democrats on health care.
Some will agree lock step with the side they choose. I don't. I make up my own mind. And in all honesty I think we're selling our troops a bill of bad goods. We should do far more for them.
It seems to me you are always siding with whatever idea would end up costing us more and more of our hard earned money.
scotty
05-09-2008, 01:58 PM
This is targetted to those who are currently serving. Yes, it may draw some into the military but remember...it's war time. They'll know going in they will be deployed before receiving benefits.
those who are serving have college benifits, I used them...worked fine for me.
scotty
05-09-2008, 01:59 PM
where is the title change for this thread, the present title is a lie, hmmmmm,dt:blah
what does that say about the poster :blah
ChristopherHall
05-09-2008, 02:00 PM
Essentially what you’re saying is that it’s better to recruit those the military would have previously had never taken, such as ex-felons, than to reward troops currently serving or seek to attract better recruits with better G.I. Bill benefits.
Could we coin a term here…discount patriotism.
Thanks bro. I modified the title.
adding a questionmark doesnt change the thread title.
now you have plausable denyablility....
but the problem with that is, you are a known quantity here bro.
this is a blatant attempt to smear to men many here respect.
believe me when I say this speaks more to your charactor than it does theirs
DividedThigh
05-09-2008, 02:01 PM
adding a questionmark doesnt change the thread title.
now you have plausable denyablility....
but the problem with that is, you are a known quantity here bro.
this is a blatant attempt to smear to men many here respect.
believe me when I say this speaks more to your charactor than it does theirs
amen, dt:boxing
ChristopherHall
05-09-2008, 02:02 PM
where is the title change for this thread, the present title is a lie, hmmmmm,dt:blah
Dude...instead of it being a presuppositional statement (which honestly could be interpreted as an untruth, it's been changed to an interrogative thereby allowing for the possibility of alternative opinons). And figure that...I granulated and got my delima from the public scooos. lol
ChristopherHall
05-09-2008, 02:05 PM
It seems to me you are always siding with whatever idea would end up costing us more and more of our hard earned money.
Whoa...discount patriosm. Hey dude...I know a guy who bought an American flag at Walmart to save money...it was made in China. But it saved him a couple bucks! lol
Bro...if you want cheap...don't launch an unnecessary war. You know...it's not uncommon for taxes increase and bonds are sold to fund wars. That hasn't happened in this case. That's really strange.
ChristopherHall
05-09-2008, 02:06 PM
those who are serving have college benifits, I used them...worked fine for me.
How long ago did you go to college?
ChristopherHall
05-09-2008, 02:22 PM
adding a questionmark doesnt change the thread title.
now you have plausable denyablility....
but the problem with that is, you are a known quantity here bro.
this is a blatant attempt to smear to men many here respect.
believe me when I say this speaks more to your charactor than it does theirs
Bro you and I both served. I think they deserve our best. You guys sound like you just want to save money. One guy was already concerned it might cost him some hard earned money to give better college benefits to those who are dying in the desert in service to our country.
And since when has it concerned you that someone many here respect had been smeared? Here's the deal...if this thread was about Obama...you'd salivate. But it's asking a question about McCain's priorities and what's best for our soldiers. So you can say what you like about me...I support offering better benefits to our troops.
ChristopherHall
05-09-2008, 02:24 PM
amen, dt:boxing
:boxing
The boxer's cool bro!
I think this is worth talking about. And I think while we may have some pointed opinions...we're all man enough to take it and have a passionate discussion. Good man all around.
ChristopherHall
05-09-2008, 02:28 PM
Frankly, I'd like to see McCain break with Bush on this issue.
Whoa...discount patriosm. Hey dude...I know a guy who bought an American flag at Walmart to save money...it was made in China. But it saved him a couple bucks! lol
Bro...if you want cheap...don't launch an unnecessary war. You know...it's not uncommon for taxes increase and bonds are sold to fund wars. That hasn't happened in this case. That's really strange.
I haven't said whether I am in favor or against this plan. My comment was directed at you, not the proposal. Everything you side with is something that is going to cost even more money. Get it now?
ChristopherHall
05-09-2008, 02:59 PM
I haven't said whether I am in favor or against this plan. My comment was directed at you, not the proposal. Everything you side with is something that is going to cost even more money. Get it now?
So our troops shouldn't have top notch benefits because it might cost us more money?
Oh, I'm sorry, this was aimed at me personally. LOL
Hey bro...I have actually shown how any initiative I support will actually cost you "less" money in the long run. I know...it's counterintuitive but it's true. Like the health care deal...you're paying far too much right now because you're paying for the uninsured that aren't paying anything toward their medical bills 'cause they can't afford it. I support a national health insurance program in which everyone pays into the system for their own coverage. Since it's negotiated by the government premiums can be brought down through group rates. Taxation needed to subsidize the system would require a modest tax increase. However this cost is offset by lower premiums. For example right now some folks are paying $900 a month for health insurance. But with the national health insurance program I'm talking about you'd pay only about $90 a month in premiums and maybe an additional $190 (most likely not even this high) a month in increased taxes. Meaning....you actually walk away keeping $620 more dollars a month than you do right now. ;)
That was just an example.
I assure you if you invest in troops...it will pay off. Recruiting ex-felons and having troops come home who can't afford to get an education or retrain...now that will cost far more long term.
So our troops shouldn't have top notch benefits because it might cost us more money?
Oh, I'm sorry, this was aimed at me personally. LOL
Hey bro...I have actually shown how any initiative I support will actually cost you "less" money in the long run. I know...it's counterintuitive but it's true. Like the health care deal...you're paying far too much right now because you're paying for the uninsured that aren't paying anything toward their medical bills 'cause they can't afford it. I support a national health insurance program in which everyone pays into the system for their own coverage. Since it's negotiated by the government premiums can be brought down through group rates. Taxation needed to subsidize the system would require a modest tax increase. However this cost is offset by lower premiums. For example right now some folks are paying $900 a month for health insurance. But with the national health insurance program I'm talking about you'd pay only about $90 a month in premiums and maybe an additional $190 (most likely not even this high) a month in increased taxes. Meaning....you actually walk away keeping $620 more dollars a month than you do right now. ;)
That was just an example.
I assure you if you invest in troops...it will pay off. Recruiting ex-felons and having troops come home who can't afford to get an education or retrain...now that will cost far more long term.
CH, I am fed up with reading about your healthcare cure. Seriously, you find a way to do this on so many threads. Give it a rest already. :rolleyes:
ChristopherHall
05-09-2008, 03:21 PM
CH, I am fed up with reading about your healthcare cure. Seriously, you find a way to do this on so many threads. Give it a rest already. :rolleyes:
Dude...number one, I was only offering you an example of how the plans I propose aren't going to cost you more money.
Number two, I have the burden of being an advocate for those who are in need. And in my mind it's a shame that thousands of Americans die each year because they can't afford the treatments/procedures they need. Being poor or of simply modest income shouldn't be a death sentence for the sick.
Cindy
05-09-2008, 04:17 PM
Maybe Mr. McCain has a better idea and wants to wait unitl after the election to do it. And maybe Mr. Bush is acting as CIC. And it seems like all the college kids you are speaking for are in some ways just users and cowards. Use the military for an education and a little money, but have been raised that the world owes them instead of them owing our country. I don't know how health care got into this discussion but it seems to me more of the military's spending could be used taking care of our veterans better.
Praxeas
05-09-2008, 06:42 PM
Riiiigggghhhhht. Bush 'n' Company (and Bush III only) want to keep our troops indefinately committed to their globalist nation building experiment in Iraq.
Do you think Obama/Clinton and company are not committed to their own form of globalist nation building?
Praxeas
05-09-2008, 06:43 PM
AND btw, did anyone show us where Obama and Clinton stand on this issue?
I remember reading years ago how Ted Kennedy explained how universal health care would cost us nothing. He said, "If you work, your employer will pay for it and if you don't work, the government will pay for it."
It's just that simple.
I don't remember the quote exactly but some one said,
"When the government takes over the health care business,
it will be managed with
the cost effectiveness of the Pentagon,
the employee satisfaction level of the Post Office,
and
the customer relations style of the IRS."
or something like that.
Praxeas
05-09-2008, 07:46 PM
I remember reading years ago how Ted Kennedy explained how universal health care would cost us nothing. He said, "If you work, your employer will pay for it and if you don't work, the government will pay for it."
It's just that simple.
some employers just can't afford that
Ted Kennedy is a balled faced lier.
and I am not sure that Stalin was worse.
DividedThigh
05-12-2008, 10:45 AM
Ted Kennedy is a balled faced lier.
and I am not sure that Stalin was worse.
amen to that, lol, go ferd go, lol
Light
05-12-2008, 11:12 AM
i am all for giving help to our boys and women out there doing a great job of defending and representing this country but to use this for propoganda to slam the president and senator mccain is a joke, they support the people in the armed forces and have there backs much more than the libs who try to say this stuff for political gain, that is all, dt
Like a bird with its head deeeeeep in the sand.
DividedThigh
05-12-2008, 11:37 AM
light , so how you doing my lib friend, lol,dt:blah
We are back to this thread? I thought we had a rule against intentionally decieving people?
DividedThigh
05-12-2008, 12:12 PM
We are back to this thread? I thought we had a rule against intentionally decieving people?
they're back, lol
ChristopherHall
05-12-2008, 03:15 PM
Ted Kennedy is a balled faced lier.
and I am not sure that Stalin was worse.
I'm not a big fan of Teddy...frankly I'm not a big fan of any generation too much older than my own...y'all ruined this country in my opinion and now we have to fix your mess. However, this underscores something that gets my goat sometimes. Comparing Kennedy to Stalin. Frankly that offers Stalin a degree of legitimacy, when the facts are that Stalin is FAR worse than even the worse American politician. It just shows the blind partisianship of your generation's scortched earth politics that is so far divorced from reality it would make any true American wanna puke and made political discourse in our country so divisive.
Is T. Kenneday a flake? Yes.
A drunk? Yes.
A womanizer? Yes.
But like Stalin? Give me a break dude. And you have the chutzpah to call someone's opinion a lie? Bro...remove the beam in your own eye. lol
ChristopherHall
05-12-2008, 03:23 PM
I don't remember the quote exactly but some one said,
"When the government takes over the health care business,
it will be managed with
the cost effectiveness of the Pentagon,
the employee satisfaction level of the Post Office,
and
the customer relations style of the IRS."
or something like that.
The numbers show that when government negotiates lower rates based on group rates and subsidizes the system for those who cannot afford it an American currently paying $900 a month for insurance might walk away with as much as $600 or $700 of their hard earned money they currently pay in premiums in their own pockets. Do the MATH and lay off the platitudes.
Hey bro...and for the record...essentially your insurance would still be through a private company and you'd still see private doctors. All that changes is that the government will treat you like an employee by putting you in for lower premiums through more competitive group rates.
vBulletin® v3.8.0, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.