No...

McCain (correctly) believes we shouldn't give people in our military the opportunity for FULL education SO EARLY IN THEIR MILITARY CAREERS...

Sliding scale...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

My reply was in no way meant to mimic how much effort you spent on the original argument, but rather it corresponds to my personal emphasis.
Anybody could type two words that brings about many, many more on the issue to counter what was said.

I personally have a soft spot for military benefits, and a hard time with people not realizing the significance behind giving benefits to those who we ask so much from.

Furthermore, your complaint is ridiculously artificial.
This is a message board where Obama makes one comment, and it enjoins page after page of discussion.
On ONE comment.

For you to complain about me pointing out what was wrong with the argument you raised, with "many times" more comments, is absurd.

He should have explained it that way. He didn't though.

__________________
Wine is fine, but whisky's quicker....--Ozzy

I always thought it was liquor is quicker. And I think it was blind boy fuller around 1925. But what do expect from a burned out drunk.

Here's my G.I. bill:
If you serve in war time(deployed or stateside), police action, or see action you qualify-

Four years college tuition paid for up front-non transferable
Veteran's housing loan benefits
all injuries and/or health conditions occurring during enlistment covered for life
dental
vision
stipend monetary allotment if income (after age sixty-five or disabled) is below poverty line. [Currently Vietnam vets who's retirement/disability income does not reach 12,000 dollars per year receive compensation up to that amount.]

Cremation and standard urn paid for
If burial, standard headstone paid for

If you serve during a time of peace (including police actions)
Four years college tuition reimbursement-non transferable
Ability to convert insurance to private pay and keep same type of coverage in the private sector

__________________
Frugal tip: To keep potatoes from budding, place an apple in the bag with the potatoes.

How to Fold a Shirt

Salty's Blog

You don't have "years of service" indicated...

That's a big part of the issue with the GI bill...

Democrats want to hand over every benefit after 3 years...Republicans (correctly IMO) believe that is too much incentive to leave the military after the minimum time required and retention rates will crash...they'd rather do something like "25% of what you've mentioned after 3 years, 50% after 6, 75% after 9, then 100% after 12"...(Not specifically, but you get the idea)...During all of that time personnel would still be with the military trying to acheive those plateaus while serving their country instead of playing "take the money and run" at the first chance they get...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

Risk life = education...

Risk life = education... But I will say that there should be some rules. Maybe you have to maintain a good GPA. Or the like.

In the case of a war veteran other than dishonorably discharged (and in my estimation that should include police actions, due to the fact Vietnam vets had to sue to get benefits cause it wasn't a "war" ) under my plan if you serve one day in a combat era in any capacity, you would qualify for the full montey.
As for non war time vets, to have an incentive for you to join, any completed enlistment time with proper discharge would garner the two specified benefits. Note that I would give war veterans upfront tuition paid to the accredited college (or trade school) of their choice , but would reimburse the non wartime vet after he had paid his tuition each year or maybe each semester.

My thoughts here are that our war veterans deserve our best efforts for their best effort and they should know this when they enlist in war time.
A non war vet is important and taking time out of his life to serve his country.
He deserves something substantial and I think tuition reimbursement is a proper form of thanking him/her for service. And being able to keep good insurance from lapsing (as long as he/she makes private payments) is also substantial. I don't feel education benefits should be transferable, but they already exist for children-someone may be able to help me out here- I think of "lifers". And if a person achieves a certain rank, I think the wives are given pretty much full benefits in certain areas. Again maybe mlurp or someone could find that info?

__________________
Frugal tip: To keep potatoes from budding, place an apple in the bag with the potatoes.

How to Fold a Shirt

Salty's Blog

But there's a MAJOR problem with that...and one that would destroy the military...

I pretty sure you'd agree that the best officers are people that have SEEN COMBAT...

Sure, they'll be exceptions, but it's pretty logical to have a leader of troops be someone who has "been to the sh*t" rather than a pencil pusher or someone who worked behind computer screens...

People who have seen combat ARE the best people to rise up the ranks and be leaders of the enlisted men since they have the experience to have BEEN THERE...Giving them a greater incentive to LEAVE rather than STAY will ruin the retention levels, and 10 years from now the only people moving up the military ladder will be people with no combat experience whatsoever...

Who do you want running your battalions in a potential future war?...Someone who says "From my experience, this is what you will encounter."?...or someone who says "This is what I've heard you will encounter, although I have no first-hand knowledge of it."?...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd