Current Events

TOPICS:

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21

 ... 441

Next

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3

Next

bean

bean

STAFF

Los Angeles, CA

MAY 14, 2008 05:51 PM

No really. He does. All of them. Well, all the firemen, policemen, and EMTs, and veterans who have served in the armed forces since 9/11.

First, a little context. Sen. Jim Web (D-VA) and Sen. John Warner (R-VA) recently introduced a new GI Bill that would dramatically improve college and living benefits for veterans. It's a comprehensive, generous, bipartisan plan that would be fully paid for by a .5% surtax on individuals making over $500,000 a year and couples making over $1 million a year. Who's against it? John McCain, George Bush, and the Senate Republican leadership (in other words, rich white guys looking out for other rich white guys).

So what did McCain do that was so heinous? He introduced his own GI Bill which would bump up existing benefits a tiny bit, but that wasn't the heinous part. He tried to attach this bill, which didn't have much support, to an existing bill meant to give collective bargaining power to first-responders. In other words, he wanted to force other members of the Senate to either vote for his watered-down GI Bill or have to vote against the interests of firemen, policemen, and EMTs.

Luckily, that measure was struck down, 42-55.

Here's what Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid said after the vote:

"A bipartisan majority of the Senate has rejected a petty, partisan effort to stand in the way of making Americans safer. This vote is a message to Bush/McCain Republicans that the U.S. Senate will not stand for political games at the expense of our nation's first responders and veterans. I hope Senator McCain hears that message loud and clear, and urge him to join us to support both of these important bills - one to give our firefighters, police officers and emergency medical technicians the rights they deserve, and another to give our veterans the educational opportunities they have earned."



More

Coyotemike

Coyotemike

Kearney, NE
May 2006

MAY 14, 2008 05:57 PM

The GI Bill used to be a fine reward for service. Go into the military, and when you get out, you get to go to college. Hell, that used to be about half the selling point for getting recruits. Now, according to a former student of mine, it doesn't even cover half his tuition, let alone books, fees, living expenses (if he had chosen to live in campus). And this is at a school with one of the cheapest in-state tuitions in the whole fucking country! He spent 2 years in Iraq, getting shot at so he could fix radios, and now he's slowly going broke because he wants an education.

Nice way to say "thanks for almost getting your ass blown away."

bean

bean

STAFF

Los Angeles, CA

MAY 14, 2008 05:58 PM

coyotemike said:
The GI Bill used to be a fine reward for service. Go into the military, and when you get out, you get to go to college. Hell, that used to be about half the selling point for getting recruits. Now, according to a former student of mine, it doesn't even cover half his tuition, let alone books, fees, living expenses (if he had chosen to live in campus). And this is at a school with one of the cheapest in-state tuitions in the whole fucking country! He spent 2 years in Iraq, getting shot at so he could fix radios, and now he's slowly going broke because he wants an education.

Nice way to say "thanks for almost getting your ass blown away."


Did you read anything from the original post or did you just see the words "GI Bill" and post the first thing that popped into your head?

Coyotemike

Coyotemike

Kearney, NE
May 2006

MAY 14, 2008 06:05 PM

bean said:

coyotemike said:
The GI Bill used to be a fine reward for service. Go into the military, and when you get out, you get to go to college. Hell, that used to be about half the selling point for getting recruits. Now, according to a former student of mine, it doesn't even cover half his tuition, let alone books, fees, living expenses (if he had chosen to live in campus). And this is at a school with one of the cheapest in-state tuitions in the whole fucking country! He spent 2 years in Iraq, getting shot at so he could fix radios, and now he's slowly going broke because he wants an education.

Nice way to say "thanks for almost getting your ass blown away."


Did you read anything from the original post or did you just see the words "GI Bill" and post the first thing that popped into your head?



Mostly I was commenting on how the current GI Bill sucks and doesn't need some sort of bandage measure. But it is what came to mind. Sorry that I didn't make that clear. Is Bush planning to veto the better bill (not McCain's).

Hooraydiation

Hooraydiation

Boston, MA
October 2005

MAY 14, 2008 06:10 PM

So, I just realized that I have no idea why John McCain, or any Republican, does things like this.

bean

bean

STAFF

Los Angeles, CA

MAY 14, 2008 06:10 PM

coyotemike said:
Mostly I was commenting on how the current GI Bill sucks and doesn't need some sort of bandage measure. But it is what came to mind. Sorry that I didn't make that clear. Is Bush planning to veto the better bill (not McCain's).



Ah, gotcha. I don't think he has threatened a veto. I don't think he would want to veto it if he had any other options, so we'll see what happens now that the alternative has been shot down.

bean

bean

STAFF

Los Angeles, CA

MAY 14, 2008 06:11 PM

Hooraydiation said:
So, I just realized that I have no idea why John McCain, or any Republican, does things like this.



They make over $500,000 a year, and being a Republican is all about having your own best interests in mind above all else.

BlastProcessing

BlastProcessing

Knoxville, TN
OLD SKOOL

MAY 14, 2008 06:13 PM

Any McCain supporters care to tell us why this was an awesome move on his part?

bean

bean

STAFF

Los Angeles, CA

MAY 14, 2008 06:15 PM

BlastProcessing said:
Any McCain supporters care to tell us why this was an awesome move on his part?



I'm (obviously) not a McCain supporter, but the argument they're giving is that "being so generous will cause people to flee the military to go to school." Which is, of course, patently absurd.

Hooraydiation

Hooraydiation

Boston, MA
October 2005

MAY 14, 2008 06:17 PM

bean said:

Hooraydiation said:
So, I just realized that I have no idea why John McCain, or any Republican, does things like this.



They make over $500,000 a year, and being a Republican is all about having your own best interests in mind above all else.



Seriously? That's it? It just seems so insufficient an explanation for stabbing soldiers in the back.

Never mind the fact that McCain is running for president and would probably have to spend twice as much as a proper G.I. Bill would cost him to earn half as much goodwill as supporting the troops would.

Coyotemike

Coyotemike

Kearney, NE
May 2006

MAY 14, 2008 06:23 PM

bean said:

BlastProcessing said:
Any McCain supporters care to tell us why this was an awesome move on his part?



I'm (obviously) not a McCain supporter, but the argument they're giving is that "being so generous will cause people to flee the military to go to school." Which is, of course, patently absurd.



I think maybe, just maybe, soldiers are leaving the military because 2-3 tours worth of getting shot at is enough. And since GI benefits (like the GI Bill) only are available to those who get an honorable discharge, the idea that soldiers would flee the military is about as dumb as anything that has ever come out of D.C.

Bill_the_Cat

Bill_the_Cat

West Vancouver, BC
May 2005

MAY 14, 2008 06:31 PM

coyotemike said:

bean said:

BlastProcessing said:
Any McCain supporters care to tell us why this was an awesome move on his part?



I'm (obviously) not a McCain supporter, but the argument they're giving is that "being so generous will cause people to flee the military to go to school." Which is, of course, patently absurd.



I think maybe, just maybe, soldiers are leaving the military because 2-3 tours worth of getting shot at is enough. And since GI benefits (like the GI Bill) only are available to those who get an honorable discharge, the idea that soldiers would flee the military is about as dumb as anything that has ever come out of D.C.



Also the fact that the 'benefits' are so shitty doesn't provide much incentive.

IDGAS

IDGAS

Jackson Heights, NY
March 2004

MAY 14, 2008 06:40 PM

The post-WWII GI bill was one of the key forces that helped drive the US economy well into the 70's. We went from a small percentage of the population being college educated to where we are today.

McCain's bill is a joke while the Webb/Warner bill is brilliant.

RudieCantFail

RudieCantFail

Intercourse, PA
January 2006

MAY 14, 2008 06:52 PM

bean said:

BlastProcessing said:
Any McCain supporters care to tell us why this was an awesome move on his part?



I'm (obviously) not a McCain supporter, but the argument they're giving is that "being so generous will cause people to flee the military to go to school." Which is, of course, patently absurd.



Yeah. If they even let them out. Don't they have that whole 'stop loss' policy still going, where they won't let service members resign, even if their term of service is fulfilled?

Hooraydiation

Hooraydiation

Boston, MA
October 2005

MAY 14, 2008 06:58 PM

RudieCantFail said:

bean said:

BlastProcessing said:
Any McCain supporters care to tell us why this was an awesome move on his part?



I'm (obviously) not a McCain supporter, but the argument they're giving is that "being so generous will cause people to flee the military to go to school." Which is, of course, patently absurd.



Yeah. If they even let them out. Don't they have that whole 'stop loss' policy still going, where they won't let service members resign, even if their term of service is fulfilled?



I saw a movie about that!

The movie said it was a bad thing.

bean

bean

STAFF

Los Angeles, CA

MAY 14, 2008 07:11 PM

Bill_the_Cat said:

coyotemike said:

bean said:

BlastProcessing said:
Any McCain supporters care to tell us why this was an awesome move on his part?



I'm (obviously) not a McCain supporter, but the argument they're giving is that "being so generous will cause people to flee the military to go to school." Which is, of course, patently absurd.



I think maybe, just maybe, soldiers are leaving the military because 2-3 tours worth of getting shot at is enough. And since GI benefits (like the GI Bill) only are available to those who get an honorable discharge, the idea that soldiers would flee the military is about as dumb as anything that has ever come out of D.C.



Also the fact that the 'benefits' are so shitty doesn't provide much incentive.


Thus the Webb/Warner bill.

Bill_the_Cat

Bill_the_Cat

West Vancouver, BC
May 2005

MAY 14, 2008 07:23 PM

bean said:

Bill_the_Cat said:

coyotemike said:

bean said:

BlastProcessing said:
Any McCain supporters care to tell us why this was an awesome move on his part?



I'm (obviously) not a McCain supporter, but the argument they're giving is that "being so generous will cause people to flee the military to go to school." Which is, of course, patently absurd.



I think maybe, just maybe, soldiers are leaving the military because 2-3 tours worth of getting shot at is enough. And since GI benefits (like the GI Bill) only are available to those who get an honorable discharge, the idea that soldiers would flee the military is about as dumb as anything that has ever come out of D.C.



Also the fact that the 'benefits' are so shitty doesn't provide much incentive.


Thus the Webb/Warner bill.



My point precisely.

Isn't the military one of the largest Republican constituency bases? Or should I say didn't it used to be?

OhSoOrdinary

OhSoOrdinary

New York, NY
July 2006

MAY 14, 2008 07:37 PM

bean said:

BlastProcessing said:
Any McCain supporters care to tell us why this was an awesome move on his part?



I'm (obviously) not a McCain supporter, but the argument they're giving is that "being so generous will cause people to flee the military to go to school." Which is, of course, patently absurd.



It's really not though. I don't know about the other services but the Army isn't having problems getting new recruits, their having problems keeping them. The Army is hemorrhaging soldiers because of pleasure with regard to pay, housing, multiple deployments, and extended deployments.

I'm getting out regardless, but this bill - if it passes - really will make it more lucrative to leave the military than to reeinlist.

Still, I hope it passes. I need some money.

OhSoOrdinary

OhSoOrdinary

New York, NY
July 2006

MAY 14, 2008 07:44 PM

RudieCantFail said:

bean said:

BlastProcessing said:
Any McCain supporters care to tell us why this was an awesome move on his part?



I'm (obviously) not a McCain supporter, but the argument they're giving is that "being so generous will cause people to flee the military to go to school." Which is, of course, patently absurd.



Yeah. If they even let them out. Don't they have that whole 'stop loss' policy still going, where they won't let service members resign, even if their term of service is fulfilled?



Stop loss is more complicated than that. I'm stop lossed right now.

I signed up for 4 years active duty. In addition to that 4 years of inactive reserve is on my contract. It means if they need you, they call call you back to reserve duty or active duty if numbers gets too low. In peacetime, it doesn't matter because you don't have to go to drill or anything like the normal reserves. But we're at war so people can be stop lossed.

Put simply, the military cashes in on that inactive reserve time without letting you go first.

bean

bean

STAFF

Los Angeles, CA

MAY 14, 2008 07:49 PM

OhSoOrdinary said:

bean said:

BlastProcessing said:
Any McCain supporters care to tell us why this was an awesome move on his part?



I'm (obviously) not a McCain supporter, but the argument they're giving is that "being so generous will cause people to flee the military to go to school." Which is, of course, patently absurd.



It's really not though. I don't know about the other services but the Army isn't having problems getting new recruits, their having problems keeping them. The Army is hemorrhaging soldiers because of pleasure with regard to pay, housing, multiple deployments, and extended deployments.

I'm getting out regardless, but this bill - if it passes - really will make it more lucrative to leave the military than to reeinlist.

Still, I hope it passes. I need some money.


Well, first off, I find it hard to believe that there's a swarm of people who wouldn't otherwise be wanting to get out because of poor pay, multiple deployments, and/or extended deployments who would suddenly decide not to reenlist just because of better post-service benefits. I'm not saying there won't be some people for whom greater benefits would seal the deal about whether or not to reenlist, but given the fact that it's already a problem, it's hard to see how this is going to make it much worse.

Secondly, kids are constantly turning 18. There's a nearly endless supply of eager young people who want to get an education but can't afford it who would be happy to enlist if the benefits were good enough.

And lastly, if being in is so bad that it's causing a lot of people to avoid reenlisting, being stingy about benefits they get when they get out isn't the way to keep them in, reducing the negative aspects of being in would be the way to go. If you want to keep them in, pay them better, reduce the length of deployments, don't use deployments as a political tool, etc.

RudieCantFail

RudieCantFail

Intercourse, PA
January 2006

MAY 14, 2008 08:04 PM

OhSoOrdinary said:

RudieCantFail said:

bean said:

BlastProcessing said:
Any McCain supporters care to tell us why this was an awesome move on his part?



I'm (obviously) not a McCain supporter, but the argument they're giving is that "being so generous will cause people to flee the military to go to school." Which is, of course, patently absurd.



Yeah. If they even let them out. Don't they have that whole 'stop loss' policy still going, where they won't let service members resign, even if their term of service is fulfilled?



Stop loss is more complicated than that. I'm stop lossed right now.

I signed up for 4 years active duty. In addition to that 4 years of inactive reserve is on my contract. It means if they need you, they call call you back to reserve duty or active duty if numbers gets too low. In peacetime, it doesn't matter because you don't have to go to drill or anything like the normal reserves. But we're at war so people can be stop lossed.

Put simply, the military cashes in on that inactive reserve time without letting you go first.



Thanks for clarifying smile

OhSoOrdinary

OhSoOrdinary

New York, NY
July 2006

MAY 14, 2008 08:57 PM

bean said:

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

OhSoOrdinary said:

bean said:

BlastProcessing said:
Any McCain supporters care to tell us why this was an awesome move on his part?



I'm (obviously) not a McCain supporter, but the argument they're giving is that "being so generous will cause people to flee the military to go to school." Which is, of course, patently absurd.



It's really not though. I don't know about the other services but the Army isn't having problems getting new recruits, their having problems keeping them. The Army is hemorrhaging soldiers because of pleasure with regard to pay, housing, multiple deployments, and extended deployments.

I'm getting out regardless, but this bill - if it passes - really will make it more lucrative to leave the military than to reeinlist.

Still, I hope it passes. I need some money.


Well, first off, I find it hard to believe that there's a swarm of people who wouldn't otherwise be wanting to get out because of poor pay, multiple deployments, and/or extended deployments who would suddenly decide not to reenlist just because of better post-service benefits. I'm not saying there won't be some people for whom greater benefits would seal the deal about whether or not to reenlist, but given the fact that it's already a problem, it's hard to see how this is going to make it much worse.

Secondly, kids are constantly turning 18. There's a nearly endless supply of eager young people who want to get an education but can't afford it who would be happy to enlist if the benefits were good enough.



And lastly, if being in is so bad that it's causing a lot of people to avoid reenlisting, being stingy about benefits they get when they get out isn't the way to keep them in, reducing the negative aspects of being in would be the way to go. If you want to keep them in, pay them better, reduce the length of deployments, don't use deployments as a political tool, etc.



That's the case with a lot of people who are already past their first reenlistment. I hear, "I've already given the Army 8/10/12 years of my life, I may as well finish my 20 and get my benefits."

The benefits package for retirees is much better than that of prior service or even veterans. I think that for many having a huge GI Bill would negate that argument.

Still, I support the bill. There's plenty of people like me who will join out of desperation or rebellion and fill the ranks.

Cash

Cash

I'm lost
OLD SKOOL

MAY 14, 2008 09:15 PM

fuck 'em. Firemen have always been the double-edged sword in the political area. When something tragic happens...we're "The Nation's Heroes"......then that fades and we're just fat, overpaid oafs who do nothing but sit on our asses watching TV.

We've valuable when you need us...but when you don't....we're leeches.

Thistle

Thistle

SUICIDEGIRL

California, USA

MAY 14, 2008 09:17 PM

Ugh, I have never heard anyone refer to firefighters that way. What an ugly and horrible attitude.

Stiles

Stiles

New York, NY
November 2002

MAY 14, 2008 09:32 PM

^^^ 'tis true. Giuliani was all about the heroes, except when it came time to negotiate a new contract. IIRC there is some CA city not far from SF going bankrupt; the city government is blaming cops and firefighters overtime for sinking the budget yet they haven't hired enough of them to provide full staffing without expensive overtime.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3

Next