Speakign of popping off, here is the texts of hte bills in question:
Webb:
McCain:
Of particular interest of the Webb bill, regarding the duration of the educational assistance:
and 3311(d), paragraph 1 is:
That’s right. Get wounded in service, we’ll limit your education assistance to a maximum of 12 months. So much for your perverted logic.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
No. McCain’s plan does not give long-term vets any more than the Webb bill. It just gives one-time enlistees less. Please try to do some research before you pop off.
[/QUOTE]
No, genius, Plexi Guy is comparing the relative treatment of 3- and 6-year veterans within each plan, not between the two plans.
Seriously, you’re having us on with this obtuseness, right?
[QUOTE=Plexi Guy]
And Obama, as president, would only have authority to cut federal taxes. He can’t cut property taxes, sales taxes, etc.
[/QUOTE]
Obama as president has no authority to cut any taxes, federal or otherwise. He can sign or veto tax cut legislation passed by Congress but does not have the power to change the tax laws on his own.
OK, to be pedantic, as President he has authority over the IRS and could theoretically order the IRS to change the way it interprets regulations so as to result in lower taxes.
There will be people who won’t care that this man consistently steps all over his tongue, saying one thing, then saying the opposite, or denying he ever said it in the first place. But I really, really, really hope that more people will take this seriously as a deficiency we simply cannot afford to have in a President and Commander-in-Chief of our military.
[QUOTE=Shayna]
There will be people who won’t care that this man consistently steps all over his tongue, saying one thing, then saying the opposite, or denying he ever said it in the first place. But I really, really, really hope that more people will take this seriously as a deficiency we simply cannot afford to have in a President and Commander-in-Chief of our military.
[/QUOTE]
You’ve only cited half the equation. In that article, McCain says that he has always supported Bush on the trascendant issues of th eday. Which, circa 2005 was the War on Terror/Iraq/Puppies/Liberals. But that he has butted heads with Bush on domestic issues (Climate, Taxes, Economy, etc).
That is consistant with his current positions.
People, come on. It’s not a gaffe just because you disagree with what he is saying!
[QUOTE=Plexi Guy]
People, come on. It’s not a gaffe just because you disagree with what he is saying!
[/QUOTE]
You’re new around here, right?
[QUOTE=magellan01]
What’s so confusing? We have a volunteer army. It has to attract people to join. Part of that attraction is compensation. The question is: how high should that compensation be? The answer is that it should be as low as possible while still getting us the number of qualified people we want to join. If you disagree, could you elaborate as to why?
[/QUOTE]
First of all, given the number of waivers they are granting to meet the numbers, it is not clear that we are getting enough qualified people. Second, while the benefit would no doubt improve recruiting, it is given as a reward for satisfactory service. People who wash out or get dishonorable discharges get nothing. Third, since many of these kids might not have been able to go to college without the benefits, getting more college educated people helps the country, especially since someone coming out of the military is going to be more mature and a better student on average than someone straight out of high school. Since we keep hearing about how we need more educated people to compete, this will be good for the country.
Finally, while it might be fine to hire Mickey D burger flippers for the minimum salary possible, lots of companies who are very successful hire people at higher than the minimum, to attract not just barely qualified people but good people. I’m not sure I’m comfortable with cheaping out on the people who we’re asking to possibly sacrifice their lives for us. One of my daughter’s friends is now clearing mines in Afghanistan, and had a friend blown to bits right next to him. I’m a bit uncomfortable telling him that he shouldn’t expect our support because he only chose to risk his neck for one term.
But the real issue is not the merits of the case, it is that McCain is a dope for doing something that is going to sap his strength. I believe he is sincere, but this is the same as you guys saying we’re stupid to support SSM when the voters don’t want it. Maybe we should make McCain an honorary Democrat for this.
[QUOTE=Voyager]
First of all, given the number of waivers they are granting to meet the numbers, it is not clear that we are getting enough qualified people.
[/QUOTE]
If we’re not, we need to raise the incentives. It’s that simple. It’s also that simple that we should make them as high as necessary to acieve our goal and not higher.
[QUOTE=Voyager]
Second, while the benefit would no doubt improve recruiting, it is given as a reward for satisfactory service. People who wash out or get dishonorable discharges get nothing.
[/QUOTE]
And your point is…
[QUOTE=Voyager]
Third, since many of these kids might not have been able to go to college without the benefits, getting more college educated people helps the country, especially since someone coming out of the military is going to be more mature and a better student on average than someone straight out of high school.
[/QUOTE]
Well, that’s a good argument for having him stay in the military longer and starting college more mature. Right?
[QUOTE=Voyager]
Since we keep hearing about how we need more educated people to compete, this will be good for the country.
[/QUOTE]
I think we need better educated people to compete. And I certainly don’t think college is the only road to success or that everyone need attend. To imply otherwise does a great number of people a disservice. IMO.
[QUOTE=Voyager]
Finally, while it might be fine to hire Mickey D burger flippers for the minimum salary possible, lots of companies who are very successful hire people at higher than the minimum, to attract not just barely qualified people but good people.
[/QUOTE]
This goes to your earlier point, which I agreed with. We need to offer enough that we get an adequate pool of people who we actually want to serve. If in the end it turns out a full ride is the thing, fine. But we certainly shouldn’t start there. And it behooves us greatly to encourage soldiers to serve more than one term. That is the beauty of McCain’s idea.
[QUOTE=Voyager]
I’m not sure I’m comfortable with cheaping out on the people who we’re asking to possibly sacrifice their lives for us. One of my daughter’s friends is now clearing mines in Afghanistan, and had a friend blown to bits right next to him. I’m a bit uncomfortable telling him that he shouldn’t expect our support because he only chose to risk his neck for one term.
[/QUOTE]
Oh, fucking puhleeaaaaase! This is so mawkish and over the top the syrup is dripping out onto my keyboard. Now, anyone who doesn’t want to hand over the full ride that’s been put on the table is not supporting him? Yeah, right. If a college education is that important top him, he can stay in and earn it. The same way someone who wants a pension—or more of a pension—decides to stay in longer.
I almost forgot, McCain’s false claim that he “voted for every [Katrina] investigation.” The real gall is that he said this while in New Orleans. Btw, you know what McCain was doing when the levees broke?
[QUOTE=magellan01]
Oh, fucking puhleeaaaaase! This is so mawkish and over the top the syrup is dripping out onto my keyboard. Now, anyone who doesn’t want to hand over the full ride that’s been put on the table is not supporting him? Yeah, right. If a college education is that important top him, he can stay in and earn it.
[/QUOTE]
So you think a kid who gets his legs blown off in Iraq hasn’t done enough to earn a college education?
Man, you guys aren’t even pretending to care about the troops anymore.
It’s not a gaffe, but I keep noticing that McCain does this weird and unsettling smile when he’s criticising Obama. I’ve seen him do it twice now. He doesn’t snicker but he looks like he’s on the cusp of doing so, all the while essentialy saying that an Obama presidency will be the nation’s ruination for all eternity.
What is up with this? If he really thinks Obama will wreak havoc on the country, he should not be smiling. Villians smile at the thought of bad things happening to people, not heroes!
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
So you think a kid who gets his legs blown off in Iraq hasn’t done enough to earn a college education?
Man, you guys aren’t even pretending to care about the troops anymore.
[/QUOTE]
Its a shame isn’t it? Cause kids with no legs could really use our support.
I think it’s persuasive that we ought to limit non-combat-related military benefits like college and pay raises and pensions to a level that give us the number of soldiers that we need. It’s a responsible way to run a standing army while beholden to taxpayers. There is room for argument on what the optimum level of benefit should be, but it’s unfair to claim that folks who feel that this level is low “don’t care about the troops”. However, it’s fair game politically to ask people why they are on the low side in terms of troop compensation.
None of this relates to health care or rehabilitation of soldiers injured in the line of duty. This is a recognized cost of war and such people should be given world-class assistiance for as long as they require it.
This is a heckuva gaffe thread so far.
Dio, you’re getting excessively rah-rah over this. Military service in a volunteer army is a job, like any other. Sure, it comes with a greater risk of injury than, say, dentistry, but I don’t see you stumping for NFL teams to provide educational grants to players with career-ending injuries. I don’t see anyone doing it for police officers, either, and I’m pretty sure they face much the same risk of crippling injury or death that military personnel do.
Romanticizing the military leads you down messy roads. They’re not baby-killers. They’re not “heroes”. They’re just soldiers, and you say the word in the same tone as you would “engineer” - a respectable profession, no less, and no more.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
So you think a kid who gets his legs blown off in Iraq hasn’t done enough to earn a college education?
Man, you guys aren’t even pretending to care about the troops anymore.
[/QUOTE]
As has been pointed out to you numerous times in this thread by numerous posters, this childish appeal to sympathy is lame and not even worthy of discussion. If there is a bill that puts forth the idea that a kid who gets his leg blown off should get a free college education, we can discuss it, and I’d probably be 100% on your side. I say “probably” because I’d still wanted to look at the whole bill and judge it accordingly. Until then take your sophmoric argument and shove it up your ass until it tickles your uvula. I’d rather not waste my time with disingenuous debaters. Or, assuming you actually believe the stupidity you evidently insist on spewing, morons.
And who, exactly, are “you guys”, genius?
[QUOTE=magellan01]
And who, exactly, are “you guys”, genius?
[/QUOTE]
At a wild guess, I’d say it’s the retards who suggest that voting to end a war equates with ‘not supporting the troops’.
-Joe
[QUOTE=you with the face]
It’s not a gaffe, but I keep noticing that McCain does this weird and unsettling smile when he’s criticising Obama. I’ve seen him do it twice now. He doesn’t snicker but he looks like he’s on the cusp of doing so, all the while essentialy saying that an Obama presidency will be the nation’s ruination for all eternity.
What is up with this? If he really thinks Obama will wreak havoc on the country, he should not be smiling. Villians smile at the thought of bad things happening to people, not heroes!
[/QUOTE]
I noticed this, too, especially when he gave his speech after Obama clinched the nomination. That smile creeped me the fuck out. The forced nature of it only added to its bizarreness.
[QUOTE=woodstockbirdybird]
I noticed this, too, especially when he gave his speech after Obama clinched the nomination. That smile creeped me the fuck out. The forced nature of it only added to its bizarreness.
[/QUOTE]
And that cheesy green background made it downright surreal!
[QUOTE=Merijeek]
At a wild guess, I’d say it’s the retards who suggest that voting to end a war equates with ‘not supporting the troops’.
-Joe
[/QUOTE]
And it all depends on who broad a brush you want to use. But surely you’re not saying that there isn’t a group that does want to end the war and does not support the troops. Heck, there are a few on these boards alone.
[QUOTE=magellan01]
And it all depends on who broad a brush you want to use. But surely you’re not saying that there isn’t a group that does want to end the war and does not support the troops. Heck, there are a few on these boards alone.
[/QUOTE]
I challenge you to find where in the text that was even implied.