Ding Ding...In this corner.

MrLabGuy · #1 05-22-2008, 05:50 PM

Wow...Gloves are off already in the Presidential race.

Obama on the Senate floor.

"America's veterans and military families deserve better than a candidate who is willing to keep our troops in Iraq for 100 years, but refuses to take care of them when they come home," Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said in a statement. "The men and women in who volunteer to put on the uniform of the United States of America risk their lives to defend our freedoms, and we should do everything we can to help them be successful when they come home. While Senator McCain talks about supporting our troops and veterans on the campaign trail, his real record tells a much different story. While we honor his service to our country, Senator McCain's double talk on veterans' benefits is one more reason he is the wrong choice for America's future."

McCain in response to Obama.

"I will not accept from Senator Obama, who did not feel it was his responsibility to serve our country in uniform, any lectures on my regard for those who did. Perhaps, if Senator Obama would take the time and trouble to understand this issue he would learn to debate an honest disagreement respectfully. But, as he always does, he prefers impugning the motives of his opponent, and exploiting a thoughtful difference of opinion to advance his own ambitions. If that is how he would behave as President, the country would regret his election,”

"It is typical, but no less offensive that Senator Obama uses the Senate floor to take cheap shots at an opponent and easy advantage of an issue he has less than zero understanding of," McCain said. "Let me say first in response to Senator Obama, running for President is different than serving as President. The office comes with responsibilities so serious that the occupant can’t always take the politically easy route without hurting the country he is sworn to defend. Unlike Senator Obama, my admiration, respect and deep gratitude for America’s veterans is something more than a convenient campaign pledge. I think I have earned the right to make that claim."

At issue is a Senate bill which allows the same benefits for military personnel who serve for 3 years as someone who served for 20 years.

McCain would like a sliding scale and Obama wants to give the full package after only 3 years of service.

The Government accounting office has determined that we would lose 16% of our armed services personnel after the 3 year term leaving us short of recruits if this bill is signed into law.

Sponsored Links

Wagner · #2 05-22-2008, 05:53 PM

oh snap.

Awesome:

I will not accept from Senator Obama, who did not feel it was his responsibility to serve our country in uniform, any lectures on my regard for those who did.

MrLabGuy · #3 05-22-2008, 05:55 PM

The forum won't let me edit but here is more Obama said on the Senate floor.

"I can’t believe why he believes it is too generous to our veterans, I could not disagree with him and the president more on this issue,” Obama said. “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.”

Major04 · #4 05-22-2008, 08:53 PM

Okay, as a veteran of the Armed Forces. Is what am I reading correct? Obama wants to give the same benefits that a person that served 3 years vs a vet that served 20 years across the board? Why would you do that? Does he know that the sacrifice that a vet serving 20 yrs is greater than a vet serving 3 yrs.

3 yrs is a drop in the bucket. Does Obama understand the timeline? The first year, is schooling for the specialty. Everyone is not a "rifleman", most are used for support structure. The 2nd yr is used to get to know the structure of "learning" the job, and the 3rd yr is "boom" done (short-timer). Here is a personal example: Does Obama understand ie "Special Forces" is not a 1 yr program? I spent 1.5 yrs of my time just going through "spec school." 1 yr learning my "trade" with a team, and the rest in training. I spent 6 yrs (active) and 2 yrs (Reserve). Do I think that I deserve to have the same benefits as a 20 yr vet? No!

There is a huge difference between a 3 yr vet vs 20 yr vet. Is Obama talking out of his a%%$?

I can take care of myself thank you! I don't need a hand-out! The military not only teaches you to be a team player, to grow as a person, but the most important thing - to stand up for myself!

Wagner · #5 05-22-2008, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Major04

Okay, as a veteran of the Armed Forces. Is what am I reading correct? Obama wants to give the same benefits that a person that served 3 years vs a vet that served 20 years across the board? Why would you do that? Does he know that the sacrifice that a vet serving 20 yrs is greater than a vet serving 3 yrs.

3 yrs is a drop in the bucket. Does Obama understand the timeline? The first year, is schooling for the specialty. Everyone is not a "rifleman", most are used for support structure. The 2nd yr is used to get to know the structure of "learning" the job, and the 3rd yr is "boom" done (short-timer). Here is a personal example: Does Obama understand ie "Special Forces" is not a 1 yr program? I spent 1.5 yrs of my time just going through "spec school." 1 yr learning my "trade" with a team, and the rest in training. I spent 6 yrs (active) and 2 yrs (Reserve). Do I think that I deserve to have the same benefits as a 20 yr vet? No!

There is a huge difference between a 3 yr vet vs 20 yr vet. Is Obama talking out of his a%%$?

I can take care of myself thank you! I don't need a hand-out! The military not only teaches you to be a team player, to grow as a person, but the most important thing - to stand up for myself!

scirocco33 · #6 05-22-2008, 10:35 PM

This bill WILL NOT allow the same benefits for military personnel who serve for 3 years as someone who served for 20 years.

The Updated S.22., service members returning from Iraq or Afghanistan could earn up to 36 months of education benefits, equivalent to four academic years. Covered benefits would include the established charges of their program, up to the cost of the most expensive in-state public school; a monthly stipend equivalent to housing costs in their area; and a small stipend per semester for books

The bill would mirror the WWII G.L. bill.

The G.I. Bill (officially titled Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944, PL346, 58 Statutes at Large 284) provided for college or vocational education for returning World War II veterans (commonly referred to as GIs or G.I.s) as well as one year of unemployment compensation. It also provided loans for returning veterans to buy homes and start businesses.

This intent of this bill is to replace the current G.I. bill, which requires service member to pay $1200 during the first year service into the system.

The Government accounting office has determined that we would lose 16% of our armed services personnel after the 3 year term leaving us short of recruits if this bill is signed into law.

This is pure smoke. The Air Force does not even have 3 years terms and plans for 55% attrition after the first enlistment.

As a 25 year Air Force vet, I am all for it.

MrLabGuy · #7 05-23-2008, 01:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scirocco33

This bill WILL NOT allow the same benefits for military personnel who serve for 3 years as someone who served for 20 years.

The Updated S.22., service members returning from Iraq or Afghanistan could earn up to 36 months of education benefits, equivalent to four academic years. Covered benefits would include the established charges of their program, up to the cost of the most expensive in-state public school; a monthly stipend equivalent to housing costs in their area; and a small stipend per semester for books

The bill would mirror the WWII G.L. bill.

The G.I. Bill (officially titled Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944, PL346, 58 Statutes at Large 284) provided for college or vocational education for returning World War II veterans (commonly referred to as GIs or G.I.s) as well as one year of unemployment compensation. It also provided loans for returning veterans to buy homes and start businesses.

This intent of this bill is to replace the current G.I. bill, which requires service member to pay $1200 during the first year service into the system.

The Government accounting office has determined that we would lose 16% of our armed services personnel after the 3 year term leaving us short of recruits if this bill is signed into law.

This is pure smoke. The Air Force does not even have 3 years terms and plans for 55% attrition after the first enlistment.

As a 25 year Air Force vet, I am all for it.

Curious if you are a registered Democrat or a Republican. I'd support additional funds if the Senate curbed spending on other non essential items such as welfare and State funded medical insurance for illegals.

What this equates to is a Democratic spending spree for election year political gain. Then again fiscal responsibility is absent from both houses of government. Even a handful of Republicans jumped in at the last minute who were in a tight political race this Novermer. I respect the fact that McCain stood strong on fiscal responsibility. He did this knowing Obama would get a political windfall from this new spending bill vote.

scirocco33 · #8 05-23-2008, 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrLabGuy

Curious if you are a registered Democrat or a Republican. I'd support additional funds if the Senate curbed spending on other non essential items such as welfare and State funded medical insurance for illegals.

What this equates to is a Democratic spending spree for election year political gain. Then again fiscal responsibility is absent from both houses of government. Even a handful of Republicans jumped in at the last minute who were in a tight political race this Novermer. I respect the fact that McCain stood strong on fiscal responsibility. He did this knowing Obama would get a political windfall from this new spending bill vote.

Sadly, I'm neither. I just can't support either party 100% of the time.

As far a this being a spending spree. This is more show than anything else.

Right now, a vast majority of the troops fail to use the benefits they PAY for. There is also a percentage that lose their benefits by not serving 36 months or failing to get a honorable discharge. Making it "free" isn't going to change much.

While I whole hardily agree congress needs to curb pending, just dropping these “essential “ programs from the budget would probably cover the cost.
$2,000,000 to the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service,
$1,000,000 to the Clinton School of Public Service,
$200,000 to the Andre Agassi College Preparatory Academy,
$500,000 for Our Piece of the Pie,
$50,000 to Everybody Wins!,
$400,000 to the Montana World Trade Center,
$3,743,014 related to the Formosan subterranean termite,
$1,500,000 to the AFL-CIO Working for America Institute,
$100,000 for signage and streetscape improvements in the Los Angeles Fashion District, and
$100,000 to the Hunting and Fishing Museum of Pennsylvania.

rastaFarai · #9 05-23-2008, 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrLabGuy

Curious if you are a registered Democrat or a Republican. I'd support additional funds if the Senate curbed spending on other non essential items such as welfare and State funded medical insurance for illegals.

What this equates to is a Democratic spending spree for election year political gain. Then again fiscal responsibility is absent from both houses of government. Even a handful of Republicans jumped in at the last minute who were in a tight political race this Novermer. I respect the fact that McCain stood strong on fiscal responsibility. He did this knowing Obama would get a political windfall from this new spending bill vote.

I'm curious to know why being a Rep or Dem has anything to do with it? I would think it more has to do with if you've served or not. I haven't served, so I respect both their point of views, I know nothing about the bill - but I'd agree that a 3yr vet should NOT get the same benefits of what a 20yr vet should. But as Scirocco33 said - it isn't as cut and dry as it sounds. I believe this is where we all fail, going by your post - Obama is wrong (although it says said by Howard Dean - what quote is Obama's and what is Dean's?). With additional information, it seems that he may not be as wrong as originally thought. As you have a 25yr vet for the bill (and has no party affiliation).

MrLabGuy · #10 05-23-2008, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scirocco33

Sadly, I'm neither. I just can't support either party 100% of the time.

As far a this being a spending spree. This is more show than anything else.

Right now, a vast majority of the troops fail to use the benefits they PAY for. There is also a percentage that lose their benefits by not serving 36 months or failing to get a honorable discharge. Making it "free" isn't going to change much.

While I whole hardily agree congress needs to curb pending, just dropping these “essential “ programs from the budget would probably cover the cost.
$2,000,000 to the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service,
$1,000,000 to the Clinton School of Public Service,
$200,000 to the Andre Agassi College Preparatory Academy,
$500,000 for Our Piece of the Pie,
$50,000 to Everybody Wins!,
$400,000 to the Montana World Trade Center,
$3,743,014 related to the Formosan subterranean termite,
$1,500,000 to the AFL-CIO Working for America Institute,
$100,000 for signage and streetscape improvements in the Los Angeles Fashion District, and
$100,000 to the Hunting and Fishing Museum of Pennsylvania.

Both parties suck and I've been registered as a Democrat and a Republican in my lifetime so I don't really fit anywhere in the current party systems. I'm leaning more Conservative now because I live in California and the Liberals here are overboard on almost every issue.

I'm all for giving this benefit and more to every veteran but I'd like to see the benefits weighted more toward those who serve for longer terms or make careers in the military. This would incentive re-enlistment with reward. We can't give our armed forces volunteers enough in my opinion. The reason being is we waste so much of our tax dollars on pork and an inefficient government.

Sponsored Links