[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
There is such a bill. It’s the Webb bill. McCain publicly opposed it and did not show up to vote on it.
[/QUOTE]
Cute. You know damn well what I meant: a bill that focused on—and ONLY on—wounded soldiers. Now, care to try again?
[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
I don’t disagree with any of that. My point is not that we should do away with the GI Bill, but that people get all misty-eyed and irrational when you start talking about anything “for the troops”. As I understood it, the competing proposals are over ways to improve the existing (Montgomery) GI Bill, not get rid of it.
I certainly don’t believe we could improve recruitment to meet existing quotas, let alone meet new ones, if we spend less money. I just don’t think that saying, “then you’re against the troops!” in response to any criticism of military personnel spending is productive.
Put another way, Dio wants Injured Soldier Jones, Jr. to get a scholarship to Georgia Tech because he got his legs blown off. I want him to get a full scholarship to make sure his younger brother enlists when he reaches majority.
That might sound a bit callous, but there you go.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I’m with you. I hate that “against the troops” bullshit more than anything. I’m as anti-Iraq war as they come, and think a lot of military personnel spending is wasteful.
[QUOTE=magellan01]
Cute. You know damn well what I meant: a bill that focused on—and ONLY on—wounded soldiers. Now, care to try again?
[/QUOTE]
That’s irrelevant. The only salient point is that McCain wants to exclude them. Whether others get the same compensation along with those who serve a combat tour is not relevant to the conversation. The only question is whether serving a combat tour is good enough to merit a college education. The Webb bill says it is. You and John McCain say it isn’t.
[QUOTE=magellan01]
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]
How do you know that this isn’t just what is needed? It’s raising the incentive.
The incentive is after service, not before, and helps to encourage people to push through and stay in.
Do you think the delta for two terms is anywhere close to that for one? If so, how about three? Why not only give it to those retiring after 20 years? They’re real mature.
It is a fact that people who go through college make more money than those who don’t. Isn’t better earning potential a nice thing to give to veterans? Plus, I’m sure that I’ve been told that the solution to global competitiveness is a better trained workforce. Do you disagree? Won’t it at least help? Plus, nobody is forcing anyone to go to college if he or she doesn’t want to.
I’m all for better pay, reenlistment bonuses, all that stuff to encourage multiple terms. But, since college for them helps everyone, let’s not reduce this benefit for those who for whatever reason, don’t want to reenlist.
Now, if you want to save money, I’m fine with not giving the improved benefit for those not in combat, however the military defines that. But I’m not sure what that would do for recruiting.
[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
So do most soldiers. Travelling account executives don’t; how about them?
[/QUOTE]
I know the answer to that. Let’s ship pillow top queen size beds to Iraq, to equalize things.
(Most of the beds I sleep on when I travel are more comfortable than the one I own.)
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
That’s irrelevant. The only salient point is that McCain wants to exclude them. Whether others get the same compensation along with those who serve a combat tour is not relevant to the conversation. The only question is whether serving a combat tour is good enough to merit a college education. The Webb bill says it is. You and John McCain say it isn’t.
[/QUOTE]
So NOW you finally lay this out in honest fashion. Thank goodness. And yes, from what I know now, I think McCain’s idea is better. mainly because it won’t cost as much (and sorry, that is a real-world consideration) and more importantly: it is a great incentive for people to stay in for two terms.
[QUOTE=Voyager]
How do you know that this isn’t just what is needed? It’s raising the incentive.
[/QUOTE]
I said earlier that if we inched up to that point, and that what was needed to ensure we had an adequate pool of qualified candidates, I would have no problem with it. Until that is demonstrated, I like McCain’s plan better.
[QUOTE=Voyager]
It is a fact that people who go through college make more money than those who don’t. Isn’t better earning potential a nice thing to give to veterans?
[/QUOTE]
That is true in general. But the population we’re talking about here is a segment that has chosen to not go the college route. Some may have wanted to and couldn’t. I’m sure some had no desire to. So it is not a random sampling of the general population, therefore you cannot fairly attribute characteristics of the larger population to this self-selected segment. Also, people can do well without college. My brother didn’t go to college and he makes way more than I do. And I do pretty good.
[QUOTE=Voyager]
Plus, I’m sure that I’ve been told that the solution to global competitiveness is a better trained workforce. Do you disagree? Won’t it at least help? Plus, nobody is forcing anyone to go to college if he or she doesn’t want to.
[/QUOTE]
Oh, I agree. But better trained does not necessarily mean college. But the problem with your line of thinking here is that if you buy it, you should be for free college for everyone, service or no service.
[QUOTE=Voyager]
I’m all for better pay, reenlistment bonuses, all that stuff to encourage multiple terms. But, since college for them helps everyone, let’s not reduce this benefit for those who for whatever reason, don’t want to reenlist.
[/QUOTE]
But shouldn’t we, from a purely financial standpoint, make incentives as little as possible to meet our goals? Wouldn’t it make more sense to start lower and slowly raise the incentive—any incentive—over time to where it finally accomplishes what you hope?
[QUOTE=Voyager]
Now, if you want to save money, I’m fine with not giving the improved benefit for those not in combat, however the military defines that. But I’m not sure what that would do for recruiting.
[/QUOTE]
Do you think that might mean that everyone gets to “see” combat then, however it is defined on a piece of paper? all things considered, I’ll go with McCain on this.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
The only question is whether serving a combat tour is good enough to merit a college education.
[/QUOTE]
So why do you persist in focusing on wounded soldiers? Why do you keep ducking people who point out your utterly faulty logic?
At times you are the single most blatantly dishonest poster on these boards, you really are.
I disagree, Dead Badger, he is not.
Frankly, I’d support a version of this bill that was two enlistments completed in full, one enlistment with combat pay completed in full, or one enlistment with a purple heart resulting.
[QUOTE=Dead Badger]
So why do you persist in focusing on wounded soldiers? Why do you keep ducking people who point out your utterly faulty logic?
At times you are the single most blatantly dishonest poster on these boards, you really are.
[/QUOTE]
This is evasive nonsense. There is nothing faluty about my logic, I just refuse to let myself get pulled into irrelevant sidetracks. The Webb bill rewards soldiers who do a single combat tour, McCain’s does not. It’s that simple. McCain’s bill has the effect of denying a free college education to combat vets wounded on their first tour. IT DOESN’T MATTER IF THEY’RE NOT THE ONLY ONES. Why is that so difficult for you to grasp?
[QUOTE=E-Sabbath]
I disagree, Dead Badger, he is not.
Frankly, I’d support a version of this bill that was two enlistments completed in full, one enlistment with combat pay completed in full, or one enlistment with a purple heart resulting.
[/QUOTE]
I’d have no problem with that either. As lonbg as combat vets get a free ride, I’m happy. There is no defensible reason to deny that to a wounded vet, and (despite some peoples’ efforts to avoid confronting that central fact), The bill McCain supports would leave them out. That’s undeniable and unjustifiable.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
IT DOESN’T MATTER IF THEY’RE NOT THE ONLY ONES.
[/QUOTE]
It does if you’re making a point of their being specifically victimised, capital letters notwithstanding. You’ve been given example after example of exactly why your harping on about John McCain victimising wounded vets is utterly specious, addressed precisely none of them, and yet you’re still doing it. Look, you just did it again:
I repeat: you are utterly and irretrievably dishonest when you choose to be.
[QUOTE=Dead Badger]
It does if you’re making a point of their being specifically victimised, capital letters notwithstanding. You’ve been given example after example of exactly why your harping on about John McCain victimising wounded vets is utterly specious, addressed precisely none of them, and yet you’re still doing it. Look, you just did it again:
I repeat: you are utterly and irretrievably dishonest when you choose to be.
[/QUOTE]
You simply do not appear to have the ability to parse what is actually being said. Calling me “dishonest,” only exposes your own lack of comprehension. There is no point going in circles lilke this because I’ve already clearly expressed what the issue is, and you are determined not grasp it.
I have said nothing “dishonest” in this thread. If you really believe that, then you simply haven’t understood what I’ve said.
[QUOTE=Squink]
Very tasteful:
[/QUOTE]
I don’t mind this as it’s a quite apt example of self-deprecating humor.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
You simply do not appear to have the ability to parse what is actually being said.
[/QUOTE]
Everyone can understand what you’re saying. Everyone can see what you’re doing. You’re just persisting with your typical tactic of hoping that if you repeat your bullshit often enough, people will throw up their hands and give up trying to address it. Maybe you really have convinced yourself that McCain doesn’t care for injured veterans, but Jesus, the mental hoops you must’ve jumped through, we could enter your brain at Crufts.
Really? Is this what McCain opposition is going to come down to? Wilful misinterpretation of what is clearly a compliment to someone’s dogged interviewing? I mean, really. I have every intention of voting for Obama in November, but this thread is a fucking embarrassment.
[QUOTE=Dead Badger]
Wilful misinterpretation of what is clearly a compliment to someone’s dogged interviewing?
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, who doesn’t appreciate being compared to torturers these days? 
[QUOTE=Shayna]
You simply have to read the entire exchange to get the full brunt of the idiocy on display.
[/quote]
Effin’ ridiculous. So much for “straight talk.” :rolleyes:
And another one on Privatizinfg Social Security:
McCain in a New Hampshire town hall said, “I’m not for, quote, privatizing Social Security. I never have been. I never will be.”
On C-Span in 2004, McCain said, “Without privatization, I don’t see how you can possibly, over time, make sure that young Americans are able to receive Social Security benefits.”
In my mind there is a disturbing trend where McCain is adamant about some position he has had or some action he has taken and it later being shown not to be true, using McCains own words and actions as proof against himself. It seems to me that he does not quite get the concept that these days you will be accountable for what you said thanks to the 24 hour news cycle and the internet.
Here’s a youtube full of McCain gaffes. Or lies. Or senior moments. Whatever you want to call them.
