President George Bush Kicking A$$

[Cynthia]

Last time I checked, the GI Bill and various other benefits for returning soldiers was still in force.\

=========================
Yes and not really.\
Returnung soldiers CAN get money to go to college, but they cannot get all the money they need to cover room, board and tuition to most colleges. They can live at home with the 'rents and attend community college. But the GI's after WWII could go to Harvard and the GI Bill covered everything.

Please share more, XO. Ami isn't going to concede on this one anytime soon.

[Cynthia]

Just read the post, reply, and be done with it.

And I'm the taskmaster?

You are the maker and shaker of this board!...that makes you a Master, but not an agent who has the right to be condescending and stir the pot in order to "flex" your leadership muscle, Bill.
Come on....You are very much a task monitor.....Why can't you just discuss issues with the rest of us "newbies" lesser than thou folks instead of trying to stir up protocal whenever Sirs runs out of gas?

Bring BT to the debate----don't make a person feel as though they are less than capable as a method of intimidation.

You are just as human, intelligent and capable as any of us. You seem to be afraid to show your vulnerable side.

My opinion.

No, you are a good gent. I admire you BT. I do, why? Because I have down right LOVED posting, learning et al in this saloon for as long as I have vacationed here.  But, I am not going to let you flip me over when I am not done.

I'm callin' it when I see it'.

I have always been honest ----unafraid to admit that I am wrong.
I have yet*** to see any of you men do the same.

Flexing somethin' that's for certain.

[BT]

Last time I checked, the GI Bill and various other benefits for returning soldiers was still in force.\

=========================
Yes and not really.\
Returnung soldiers CAN get money to go to college, but they cannot get all the money they need to cover room, board and tuition to most colleges. They can live at home with the 'rents and attend community college. But the GI's after WWII could go to Harvard and the GI Bill covered everything.

One significant difference between the 1944 G.I. Bill and the 1952 Act was that tuition was no longer paid directly to the chosen institution of higher education. Instead, veterans received a fixed monthly sum of $110 from which they had to pay for their tuition, fees, books, and living expenses. The decision to abort direct tuition payments to schools came after a 1950 House select committee uncovered incidents of overcharging of tuition rates by some institutions under the original G.I. Bill in an attempt to defraud the government.

Current recipients of the Montgomery GI Bill get 1100 a month for up to 36 months as a return on their 1200 investment. They can buy up to 5400 in benefits for 600 any time during active enlistment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Servicemen's_Readjustment_Act_(USA)

[Amianthus]

If you read the Bill, there is plenty "less" than should be..... why don't YOU prove to me that this Bill is asking for too much.

The bill itself claims that it seeks to IMPROVE the current benefits. Therefore, the benefits must already exist (you can't improve something that doesn't exist). You're the one that made a claim that WWII veterans returned to benefits, therefore implying that current veterans are returning to none. When I pointed out that that the benefits still exist, you claimed they did not ("Not according to some who are running for office in my state. I just saw a political bite charging the opposite.").

Like I said, the benefits exist, contrary to your intimation. You can make the claim that they should or could be improved, but that's only an opinion. I think they're pretty good already. That's my opinion. I don't have to "prove" an opinion. It's up to the person claiming that a change is needed to provide proof that the change is, indeed, necessary.

The government should not be run on the principle of "change for the sake of change".

[sirs]

The government should not be run on the principle of "change for the sake of change".

I do believe that's the Obama platform

[Cynthia]

If you read the Bill, there is plenty "less" than should be..... why don't YOU prove to me that this Bill is asking for too much.

The bill itself claims that it seeks to IMPROVE the current benefits. Therefore, the benefits must already exist (you can't improve something that doesn't exist). You're the one that made a claim that WWII veterans returned to benefits, therefore implying that current veterans are returning to none. When I pointed out that that the benefits still exist, you claimed they did not ("Not according to some who are running for office in my state. I just saw a political bite charging the opposite.").

Like I said, the benefits exist, contrary to your intimation. You can make the claim that they should or could be improved, but that's only an opinion. I think they're pretty good already. That's my opinion. I don't have to "prove" an opinion. It's up to the person claiming that a change is needed to provide proof that the change is, indeed, necessary.

The government should not be run on the principle of "change for the sake of change".

Like I said, (having not spelled  it all out in detail -as that was not the purpose of my post at that moment in time to sirs)was that currenly, the SAME GI Bill still does NOT exist (in terms of what is offered to the vets today compared to the vets of WW2.)
I would venture to say, prior to googling this topic, that the Vets of today do not receive the same benefits in many ways

[Cynthia]

The government should not be run on the principle of "change for the sake of change".

I do believe that's the Obama platform

No, more like change for God's Sake!

 Americans are fighting a war that isn't popular, Americans need better health care, the NCLB need a major overhaul.....How is this administration NOT over due for a MAJOR CHANGE, Sirs?

[Plane]

The government should not be run on the principle of "change for the sake of change".

I do believe that's the Obama platform

No, more like change for God's Sake!

 Americans are fighting a war that isn't popular, Americans need better health care, the NCLB need a major overhaul.....How is this administration NOT over due for a MAJOR CHANGE, Sirs?

Change whether we hava an idea what we are doing or not?

[Amianthus]

I would venture to say, prior to googling this topic, that the Vets of today do not receive the same benefits in many ways

According to BT's post, the tuition reimbursement is over 10 times what was reimbursed after WWII.

Perhaps you'd like to show what benefits are less today than vets received after WWII?

[Cynthia]

I would venture to say, prior to googling this topic, that the Vets of today do not receive the same benefits in many ways

According to BT's post, the tuition reimbursement is over 10 times what was reimbursed after WWII.

Perhaps you'd like to show what benefits are less today than vets received after WWII?

 Udall has already done that.....read his webpage.

Here's one for the case of NM vets in terms of healthcare.
 http://www.tomudall.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=157&Itemid=89

[Cynthia]

http://www.tomudall.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=499
Here's another....

WASHINGTON - U.S. Representative Tom Udall, D-N.M., has joined with other House Republicans and Democrats to introduce the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act, legislation to offer 1.7 million troops who served in Iraq and Afghanistan educational benefits on par with those provided to veterans of the World War II era.[/b]

[Cynthia]

http://georgemiller.house.gov/gibill.html

The Bill

[Amianthus]

Udall has already done that.....read his webpage.

Again, a politician making an unsubstantiated claim is worth pretty much nothing in my book.

Since you've already read his website, perhaps you'd like to provide the facts and figures?

[Cynthia]

Udall has already done that.....read his webpage.

Again, a politician making an unsubstantiated claim is worth pretty much nothing in my book.

Since you've already read his website, perhaps you'd like to provide the facts and figures?

The Bill is on the table. I read it. Did you?

[Amianthus]

The Bill is on the table. I read it. Did you?

The bill claims to make a number of improvements to the benefits paid to soldiers. Fine and dandy.

I saw nothing in there that supported a claim (the claim was made, but it was unsupported, ie, no evidence was presented to substantiate it) that the benefits veteran get now are less than those given to WWII vets.

I am asking you to provide said evidence for your claim. You made it, you post the evidence. Again, it's not my job to find your evidence for you. You are supporting a change in policy, you should show why it's needed.