Hill article on differences between Webb, McCain GI bills failed to note more generous benefits in Webb bill
SUMMARY: An article in The Hill stated that there are "some marked differences" between bills offered by Sen. Jim Webb and Sen. John McCain addressing benefits for military veterans. But the article cited only one difference and did not mention the ways in which Webb's bill is more generous to veterans than McCain's.
In a May 18 The Hill article that purported to identify the differences between Sen. Jim Webb's (D-VA) and Sen. John McCain's bills addressing benefits for military veterans, reporter Roxana Tiron wrote: "There are some marked differences between the two bills -- deepening the standoff between McCain and Webb, who are both Vietnam War veterans. In particular, McCain's bill seeks to transfer educational benefits to the spouses and children of military members who spend at least six years in the military. Webb's bill as it stands now does not address the issue of transferability." But despite noting that there are "some marked differences between the two bills," Tiron cited only one provision in McCain's bill and did not mention the ways in which Webb's bill is more generous to veterans than McCain's.
The Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act (S.22), sponsored by Webb and co-sponsored by 57 other Republicans and Democrats, provides monetary assistance to veterans for "an amount equal to the established charges for the program of education" up to the highest tuition rates of a public college or university in their state, a monthly housing stipend, and "[a] yearly stipend for books, supplies, equipment, and other educational costs in the amount of $1,000." According to Webb's Senate office, to qualify for the assistance, "veterans must have served at least three to thirty-six months of qualified active duty, beginning on or after September 11, 2001. The bill provides for educational benefits to be paid in amounts linked to the amount of active duty served in the military after 9/11. Generally, veterans would receive some amount of assistance proportional to their service for 36 months, which equals four academic years."
From Webb's bill:
Sec. 3313. Educational assistance: amount; payment
(a) Payment- The Secretary shall pay to each individual entitled to educational assistance under this chapter who is pursuing an approved program of education (other than a program covered by subsections (e) through (i)) the amounts specified in subsection (c) to meet the expenses of such individual's subsistence, tuition, fees, and other educational costs for pursuit of such program of education.
(b )Approved Programs of Education- Except as provided in subsections (g) through (i), a program of education is an approved program of education for purposes of this chapter if the program of education is approved for purposes of chapter 30 of this title.
(c) Amount of Educational Assistance- The amounts payable under this subsection for pursuit of an approved program of education are amounts as follows:
(1) In the case of an individual entitled to educational assistance under this chapter by reason of section 3311(b)(1) or 3311(b)(2) of this title, amounts as follows:
(A) An amount equal to the established charges for the program of education, except that the amount payable under this subparagraph may not exceed the maximum amount of established charges regularly charged in-State students for full-time pursuit of programs of education by the public institution of higher education in the State in which the individual is enrolled that has the highest rate of regularly-charged established charges for programs of education among all public institutions of higher education in such State.
(B) A monthly housing stipend in an amount equal to the monthly amount of the basic allowance for housing payable under section 403 of title 37 for a member with dependents in pay grade E-5 residing in the military housing area that encompasses all or the majority portion of the ZIP code area in which is located the institution of higher education at which the individual is enrolled.
(C) A yearly stipend for books, supplies, equipment, and other educational costs in the amount of $1,000.
(2) In the case of an individual entitled to educational assistance under this chapter by reason of section 3311(b)(3) of this title, amounts equal to 90 percent of the amounts that would be payable to the individual under paragraph (1) for the program of education if the individual were entitled to amounts for the program of education under paragraph (1) rather than this paragraph.
(3) In the case of an individual entitled to educational assistance under this chapter by reason of section 3311(b)(4) of this title, amounts equal to 80 percent of the amounts that would be payable to the individual under paragraph (1) for the program of education if the individual were entitled to amounts for the program of education under paragraph (1) rather than this paragraph.
(4) In the case of an individual entitled to educational assistance under this chapter by reason of section 3311(b)(5) of this title, amounts equal to 70 percent of the amounts that would be payable to the individual under paragraph (1) for the program of education if the individual were entitled to amounts for the program of education under paragraph (1) rather than this paragraph.
(5) In the case of an individual entitled to educational assistance under this chapter by reason of section 3311(b)(6) of this title, amounts equal to 60 percent of the amounts that would be payable to the individual under paragraph (1) for the program of education if the individual were entitled to amounts for the program of education under paragraph (1) rather than this paragraph.
(6) In the case of an individual entitled to educational assistance under this chapter by reason of section 3311(b)(7) of this title, amounts equal to 50 percent of the amounts that would be payable to the individual under paragraph (1) for the program of education if the individual were entitled to amounts for the program of education under paragraph (1) rather than this paragraph.
(7) In the case of an individual entitled to educational assistance under this chapter by reason of section 3311(b)(8) of this title, amounts equal to 40 percent of the amounts that would be payable to the individual under paragraph (1) for the program of education if the individual were entitled to amounts for the program of education under paragraph (1) rather than this paragraph.
By contrast, McCain's bill (S. 2938) would provide, for fiscal year 2009 (increasing in subsequent years), a flat, $1,500-per-month educational stipend to individuals who served on active duty in the Armed Forces for less than 12 years and $1,650 per month (increasing to $2,000 by 2011) for those who served on active duty for more than 12 years, as well as an "educational stipend" at an annual rate of $500 for an individual pursuing an approved program of education on at least a half-time basis. Those attending on less than a half-time basis would receive a $350 annual stipend. From McCain's bill:
SEC. 4. INCREASE IN RATES OF BASIC EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE UNDER THE MONTGOMERY GI BILL.
(a) Increase in General Rates and Augmented Rates for Extended Service-
(1) RATES BASED ON THREE YEARS OF OBLIGATED SERVICE- Subsection (a)(1) of section 3015 of title 38, United States Code, is amended by striking `on a full-time basis, at the monthly rate of' and all that follows and inserting `on a full-time basis--
(A) in the case of an individual who served on active duty in the Armed Forces for 12 or more years, at the monthly rate of --
(i) for months occurring during fiscal year 2009, $1,650;
(ii) for months occurring during fiscal year 2010, $1,800;
(iii) for months occurring during fiscal year 2011, $2,000; and
(iv) for months occurring during a subsequent fiscal year, the amount for months occurring during the preceding fiscal year increased under subsection (h); and
(B) in the case of an individual who served on active duty in the Armed Forces for less than 12 years, at the monthly rate of --
(i) for months occurring during fiscal year 2009, $1,500; and
(ii) for months occurring during a subsequent fiscal year, the amount for months occurring during the preceding fiscal year increased under subsection (h); or'.
(2) RATES BASED ON TWO YEARS OF OBLIGATED SERVICE- Subsection (b)(1) of such section is amended --
(A) by striking subparagraphs (A) through (C) and inserting the following new subparagraph (A):
(A) for months occurring during fiscal year 2009, $950; and'; and
(B) by redesignating subparagraph (D) as subparagraph (B).
(b) Effective Date-
(1) IN GENERAL- The amendments made by subsection (a) shall take effect on October 1, 2008, and shall apply with respect to basic educational assistance payable for months beginning on or after that date.
(2) LIMITATION ON COST-OF-LIVING ADJUSTMENTS-
(A) CERTAIN RATES BASED ON THREE YEARS OF OBLIGATED SERVICE- No adjustment under subsection (h) of section 3015 of title 38, United States Code, shall be made in the rates of educational assistance payable under subsection (a)(1)(A) of such section (as amended by subsection (a)(1) of this section) for any of fiscal years 2009 through 2011.
(B) OTHER RATES- No adjustment under subsection (h) of section 3015 of title 38, United States Code, shall be made in the rates of educational assistance payable under subsection (a)(1)(B) of such section (as so amended), or subsection (b) of such section, for fiscal year 2009.
SEC. 5. ANNUAL STIPEND FOR RECIPIENTS OF BASIC EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE UNDER THE MONTGOMERY GI BILL.
(a) Entitlement to Stipend-
(1) IN GENERAL- Subchapter II of chapter 30 of title 38, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:
Sec. 3020A. Educational stipend
(a) Entitlement- Each individual receiving basic educational assistance under this subchapter who is pursuing a program of education at an institution of higher learning (as such term is defined in section 3452(f) of this title) is entitled to an educational stipend under this section.
(b) Amount of Stipend- The educational stipend payable under this section to an individual entitled to such a stipend shall be paid--
(1) in the case of an individual pursuing an approved program of education on at least a half-time basis, at the annual rate of $500; and
(2) in the case of an individual pursuing an approved program of education on less than a half-time basis, at the annual rate of $350.
(c) Payment Frequency and Method- The educational stipend payable under this subsection shall be paid with such frequency (including by lump sum), and by such mechanisms, as the Secretary shall prescribe for purposes of this section.'.
(2) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 30 of such title is amended by adding at the end of the items relating to subchapter II the following new item:
3020A. Educational stipend.'.
(b) Effective Date- Section 3020A of title 38, United States Code, as added by subsection (a), shall take effect on the date that is one year after the enactment of this Act.
From the May 17 article in The Hill:
The Senate is expected to vote on Webb's legislation when it considers a supplemental spending bill for Iraq and Afghanistan next week.
Webb is considering one change to his bill, which mirrors the generous post-World War II G.I. Bill that helped veterans pay for their education and is credited with spurring an expansion of the U.S. economy.
Webb is looking into an existing option that would allow certain officers to transfer their education benefits to family members would still be able to do so if his bill becomes law, his aide said.
The 2002 Defense Authorization Act allows service members with critical military skills to transfer up to 18 months of their current G.I. bill benefits to their spouse or to one or more children if they have served at least six years and agree to serve at least four more.
It is unclear if these service members would be able to transfer the benefits under Webb's bill as written. Webb is trying to maintain the benefits under his bill, the aide said.
After months of being pressed by Webb and thousands of veterans to support Webb's bill, McCain refused to sign on and introduced his own legislation with Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Richard Burr (R-N.C.).
There are some marked differences between the two bills -- deepening the standoff between McCain and Webb, who are both Vietnam War veterans.
In particular, McCain's bill seeks to transfer educational benefits to the spouses and children of military members who spend at least six years in the military. Webb's bill as it stands now does not address the issue of transferability.
Webb has already indicated that no major compromise would be possible so late in the game.
I used the original G.I.Bill in the mid 70's. When I was filling out the paperwork the V.A. folks told me that the country never lost any money on the G.I. bill. A better job in the end meant that the gov collected sufficient in taxes from that better job for an easy payback.
Often wondered, why not use this good idea for all citizens. The answer seemed to be that it would be socialism. Also the GOP's support for education in general is IMO suspect.
Also the GOP's support for education in general is IMO suspect.
Not when it comes to teaching creationism in science classes...
It is unfortunate that the extent to which you can pursue higher education is not dictated solely by your academic achievement, as it is in some other countries.
Which is why there are so many doctorate-level idiots in the right wing, such as Michael Savage, Laura Schlessinger, Mark Levin, Newt Gingrich, Phil Gramm, and James Dobson (to name a few)
It's always funny to me that the America that so many conservatives look on with reverence would be considered a socialist state by those same people today. My dad used the G.I. Bill to go to school between serving in two wars, and he was always very thankful for it.
I heard Hugh Hewitt today on the radio, playing an Obama speech that mentioned some of the things Americans considered important 50 years ago; Education, health care, etc. Hewitt & his guest or co-host didn't add much commentary, except for the occasional "wow!" and "do you hear the alarms going off" and "sounds like he wants everybody to have a government job for life".
I think the GOP and the media have done such a good job with their bootstraps-pulling sucker game that they don't even need to really discuss these things in any detail.Their audience has been pretty well programmed to hate the things that were once sources of pride for Americans.
It's not Socialism when you sacrifice and serve and receive something in return. The whole concept would be a good idea for the general public if service to your country is a pre-requisite. It certainly doesn't have to be military service, but obviously the government can't be in the business of giving away college educations to people who don't sacrifice something of themselves by first serving their country. Right?
The whole concept would be a good idea for the general public if service to your country is a pre-requisite.
Bobby Kennedy was proposing something like that back in 1968 - a requirement that each young American give two years' service to the country - either in the military, the Peace Corps, or in some other capacity. Sirhan Sirhan put a stop to that.
Because of ideas like that, Bobby Kennedy is still my hero 40 years after his death. And one of my favorite quotes is his: "Some people see things as they are and ask 'Why?' I dream things that never were and ask, 'Why not?'"
To me, that quote is the very epitome of liberalism.
Why not? People who work their 40 hours, in many cases more than 40 hrs at more than one job, they aren't worthy to receive some gratitude for their labor? In my book public service, service to one's country can be as simple and essential as the work of a man who gets up every day to clean toilets. That man is a hero too and should be entitled to a free education as a matter of sound infrastructure investment, not to mention good old Anerican common decency.
The conservatives have engineered a negative feedback loop by allowing, even cheering on in the name of market fundamentalism, the rising cost of education while jeering the folks, who would otherwise dedicate their lives to public service, if salaries in the public sector were comensurate with the cost of college debt.
The soul of a caring America has been ripped from us by this your on your own, no free rides, Randian romanticized selfishness, conservative bs. It's the cynicism of those who would stereotype wide swaths of the working poor as indolent, creatures of contemptible habit, that has fostered this disdain of poverty and canonized grotesque materialism.
No thanks. The conservative worldview deeply sucks.
We obviously have a fundamental disagreement on the role of government. I tend to believe there is a fundamental problem with a cradle to grave nanny state mentality. When a person takes a private sector job, whatever it may be, the rationale is to earn a living, not to please the government. This concept that because a person takes the personal responsibility to find a job and work hard they are somehow entitled to free government handouts is absurd. This notion that the government somehow owes a person gratitude because they decide to work instead of being flat out lazy is puzzling to me. Serving your country has a different meaning to me. If I go out and find a job in the private sector I do so to make a living, support my family, etc. The gratitude I get is the self satisfaction of earning an honest living and making it on my own. Perhaps I misunderstand you, but you seem to put forth the idea that the sole basis for working should not be for self gain but to rather please the government. To me, that diminishes the concept of self sacrifice for the common good which millions before us have done in the active service of their country. It's as if you are putting forth the idea that those men who put their lives on the line each day in the military do nothing different than ordinary Americans do everyday when they get up and go to work to support their family. I just can't agree with that. To me there is a difference. The government doesn't owe me anything special because I take it upon myself to work. I'm sorry, I just don't grasp that concept.
I tend to believe there is a fundamental problem with a cradle to grave nanny state mentality
Who has that mentality? Specifics please, or you just tossed another straw man into the salad (as usual).
God forbid we should actually help people. I guess you have already forgotten that out economy is strongest when the lowest income earners become wealthier. You should have watched the FDR special on PBS last night - you might have learned something about what government can and should do.
Well, Roundhouse stated this: "why not? People who work their 40 hours, in many cases more than 40 hrs at more than one job, they aren't worthy to receive some gratitude for their labor? In my book public service, service to one's country can be as simple and essential as the work of a man who gets up every day to clean toilets. That man is a hero too and should be entitled to a free education as a matter of sound infrastructure investment, not to mention good old Anerican common decency."
I took that statement to be indicative of a mentality that the government owes everybody who works gratitude in that a free college education should be provided just because you have a job. Nanny state? Surely not. Rounds statement is fairly clear. He believes that simply working a private sector job cleaning toilets is on par with national service such as serving in the military. If you agree fine. Just say so.
As for your assertion that I have forgotten that our economy is stronger when the poor are empowered and I have no idea about the good governemnt can do, well, do you have any proof of that or are you just throwing out a strawman there? Got any specifics that I toss out strawman arguments into the salad "as usual", or are you just talking out of your arse , as usual?
Empowering the poor in our society with fair economic practices so they may earn a fair wage and have a sense of self worth has nothing to do with the notion that just because you work you are somehow entitled to a free college education. I fail to see how simply working a job is national service. That notion diminishes the sacrifices made by those who have died for our freedoms. Also, I know plenty about the good the government can do. I am living proof. I utilized the G.I. Bill, I utilized federal loan programs for veterans housing. I also spent years of my life in the armed services, including 19 months in a combat zone. What I garnered from the government I earned through blood sacrifice. That being said, I certainly support government programs to empower people who need help. I just don't think the government needs to be in the business of giving free college education away to people simply because they work a private sector job. Perhaps the government should give each citizen who works an automobile as well and buy their work clothes, give them a house. Heck, why even work for money, we should just work so the government can give us everything we need. Is there anything private citizens should be responsible for or do we expect the government to provide everything to us because simply working a job is national service which should be awarded with free stuff?
I took that statement to be indicative of a mentality that the government owes everybody who works gratitude in that a free college education should be provided just because you have a job.
What's wrong with free college education? Wouldn't that be a sound investment in our future?
I don't know. What's wrong with an ignoramous slippery slope argument?
How many European and Asian societies provide free higher education without giving away luxury items? Just the enlightened ones.
Dear God. What a stupid logical fallacy from such a well read man.
Are you capable of debating anyone without resorting personal insults? I really don't think so. What that tells me is that you are so self absorbed in your own views you feel threatened when anyone dares to disagree. Perhaps this went over your head but for your sake I will try to explain it to you. I want you to follow the conversation between FOGHORNLEGHORN and MYSELF. Now, your slippery slop argument falls so arrogantly flat on it's face. Why? Because using both of you guys flawed logic, giving a car to everyone would be a investment to the nation. The same with a home and so on. If one is entitled to a college education simply because they work then why wouldn't they be entitled to other things such as a car so they can get to work. Or perhaps a "green" car wouldn't that be an investment to our future? What's wrong with a free car for everyone?"
I grow so tired of the comparison to what the European and Asian countries do whcih makes them so much better than us. I wonder why it is that so many people want to come to America than these utopic societies you think exist across the oceans. The logical fallacy lies within comparing a nation of 300 million with that of a nation of 50 million and wondering why we can't be just like them. Dear God indeed.
Your narrow definition of public service obviously includes only military participation, as if blood sacrifice in the name of war is the only noble cause. Sounds like some mutated incarnation of elitism to me. Hell, Chris, men die in mine collapses to bring your self-centered a** heat and electricity. Men and women keep the public healthier by making restrooms safe from infectious disease. Where's their worker's bill of rights for their contribution to our freedom from sickness? For their contribution to the greater good?
Further, you utterly ignore the fact that the private sector is inextricably linked to (and enabled by) our public infrastructure.
The unwillingness to see anything beyond one's own myopic view reminds of the saying that we do not see things as they are, we see them as we are.
And nanny state? Screw that conservative frame, screw that arrogance. Working folks are entitled to fair compensation for their essential labor and tax dollar.
That's my bedrock philosophy and I don't give a good goddamn who disagrees.
"Your narrow definition of public service obviously includes only military participation," round
Sorry for that disconnect but I think, fundamentally, my reply is still very sturdy.
It's obvious. You do not recognize the dignity of the working man.
I guess because I don't see things the way you do that automatically makes me ignorant of "the working man". That is an interesting argument, given that I worked my arse off to get everything I got. I received assistance from the government, I earned that assistance. I know plenty about working and supporting a family on little or nothing. I am semi-retired and live pretty good. My belief is that I am in such a situation because of hard work, good decisions, and some luck. I don't owe anybody anything and I am damn proud of the fact that what I got was earned and not given to me. BTW, I won't vote for McCain but rest assured that his healthcare from the government was plenty earned. Unlike you, I don't feel it is fair to give people the healthcare he has if they have done nothing to deserve it. Do you really believe that, for example, some slacker who sits around and smokes pot all day and works at McDonalds deserves the same benefits as a man who served his country and spent 5 years of his life in a enemy prison camp?
as if blood sacrifice in the name of war is the only noble cause. Sounds like some mutated incarnation of elitism to me. Hell, Chris, men die in mine collapses to bring your self-centered a** heat and electricity. Men and women keep the public healthier by making restrooms safe from infectious disease. Where's their worker's bill of rights for their contribution to our freedom from sickness? For their contribution to the greater good?
Men die in mines because they work there and do so to make a living. They don't apply for such a job because they have this ideological mindset that they want to help people have electricity. Men and women work keeping public restrooms safe because that's probably the only job they could get. It's not as if everyone is clamoring for a janitorial position because of the nobility it offers in contributing to the sanitary health of the public. Your only fooling yourself to prop up your argument that work isn't a necessity but rather a glorious offering to the state. As if working is a privalege afforded to us by the state and therefore all work done, is in the end for the state. Sorry, but you can keep that ideology and discuss it with Castro and Mao in the afterlife.
Further, you utterly ignore the fact that the private sector is inextricably linked to (and enabled by) our public infrastructure.
I do nothing of the sort. I just fundamentally disagree with the notion that we owe the government something because in all it's wisdom it allows us to work so we can give our sweat for the glory of the state.
The unwillingness to see anything beyond one's own myopic view reminds of the saying that we do not see things as they are, we see them as we are.
So tell me, how is it that you are able to have this omnipotent wisdom which says that your views are the right way and others who may disagree are somehow catagorized as being self centered and disconnected from reality? You call me elitist?
And nanny state? Screw that conservative frame, screw that arrogance. Working folks are entitled to fair compensation for their essential labor and tax dollar.
Screw socialism, screw the disdain for initiative and individualism. Working folks are entitled to be compensated fairly for what they do. A heart surgeon should be compensated a hell of a lot more than a public restroom cleaner.
That's my bedrock philosophy and I don't give a good goddamn who disagrees.
Fair enough. Your a socialist. There is no place for the individual in your philosophy, only the state. All things end and begin with the government. No one person is better than another. No one person deserves more than another even if they worked harder for it. I get it. I just disagree.
Elitist punk. McDonald's employs a huge amount of hard working people who sacrifice. You're an effing snob if you think the majority of them are slackers. Screw you, jerk.
My first job in life was at McDonald's and I'll tell you what, I'd take the heart of any one Mickey Dee's employee I worked with over five arrogant SOB's like you.
"Men die in mines because they work there and do so to make a living. They don't apply for such a job because they have this ideological mindset that they want to help people have electricity."
More ignorance outta you. Jerk. Come out to Eastern Kentucky, or segments of West Virginia, where the mines are the sole source of a decent paycheck for folks, then try to sell us that bullsh*t story.
"Men and women work keeping public restrooms safe because that's probably the only job they could get. It's not as if everyone is clamoring for a janitorial position because of the nobility it offers in contributing to the sanitary health of the public. Your only fooling yourself to prop up your argument that work isn't a necessity but rather a glorious offering to the state"
More elitist BS. I'm talking about people serving people, not people serving the glory of the "state," whatever the hell the "state" means to your misrepresenting sissy a**. You obvipusly can't discuss the greater good without allusions to socialism. That tactic betrays your fear of a caring community.
Now you've gone off the rails. Just read it. "I do nothing of the sort. I just fundamentally disagree with the notion that we owe the government something because in all it's wisdom it allows us to work so we can give our sweat for the glory of the state."
You totally inverted my argument with some punk a** straw man, you're good at that by the by. I'm saying people are owed something by our government for their essential labor.
"so tell me, how is it that you are able to have this omnipotent wisdom which says that your views are the right way and others who may disagree are somehow catagorized as being self centered and disconnected from reality?"
Not others. Not everyone. Not even the majority of people. Just you as evidenced b your opinions.
"Screw socialism, screw the disdain for initiative and individualism. Working folks are entitled to be compensated fairly for what they do. A heart surgeon should be compensated a hell of a lot more than a public restroom cleaner. "
I'm talking about opening the doors of opportunity for working people and you're talking about dollar amounts. More stupidly sly misrepresentations from your elitist piehole.
"Your a socialist."
And you can't dispute my populism without ultraconservative smears.
You truly, deeply suck with your only the disciplined prosper nonsense. You ignore the almost total control that the elite money holders have over the prosperity and well being of common people. Not every hard working, responsible person has been as blessed as as you with opportunity.
Education and healthcare is opportunity and are an equal right for all of us equally created, equally endowed Americans.
"No one person is better than another. No one person deserves more than another even if they worked harder for it. I get it. I just disagree."
Equal. That word is prominent in our founding document, so don't you dare try to portray equality as socialism to me ever again you slimey toad.
Elitist punk. McDonald's employs a huge amount of hard working people who sacrifice. You're an effing snob if you think the majority of them are slackers. Screw you, jerk.
My, My, My. Has little Roundhouse gotten mad because someone has challenged his elitist ideology. If you want to draw a comparison and equate the sacrifice of McCain for this nation and a guy who works at McDonalds then go for it. It just proves you know nothing of self sacrifice. You just sit in you ivory tower and exclaim how wrong everybody is becaue they don't hold the same socialist views as you. BTW, I never said those people don't work hard. My point was that there is a clear distinction in the sacrifice made for their country. Get over it.
My first job in life was at McDonald's and I'll tell you what, I'd take the heart of any one Mickey Dee's employee I worked with over five arrogant SOB's like you.
So? I'll take the heart of a man who had the balls to serve his country over you any day. I shudder to think of the sacrifice you gave to America by flipping those burgers. I'm sure every veteran grateful for your service.
More ignorance outta you. Jerk. Come out to Eastern Kentucky, or segments of West Virginia, where the mines are the sole source of a decent paycheck for folks, then try to sell us that bullsh*t story.
No need for that hotshot. I live in Southwest Virginia. I am married to a coal miners daughter. I know it's a honest and decent living. I'm telling you that those folks didn't take that job because of some higher calling to provide electricity to elitist intellectuals such as yourself. You ignorance has no bounds does it?
More elitist BS. I'm talking about people serving people, not people serving the glory of the "state," whatever the hell the "state" means to your misrepresenting sissy a**. You obvipusly can't discuss the greater good without allusions to socialism. That tactic betrays your fear of a caring community.
Keep on with the personal insults cupcake. It just shows your weak argument, so you have to resort to name calling. While you sat around and picked your ass and read Trotsky I was putting my sissy ass on the line everyday. You have no clue about sacrifice and bravery. You are blinded by your illusions of right and wrong. It is your argument which states that people who work are entitled to government gifts. Your words speak for themselves. You can't evenhide behind them without screwing up can you?
Now you've gone off the rails. Just read it. "I do nothing of the sort. I just fundamentally disagree with the notion that we owe the government something because in all it's wisdom it allows us to work so we can give our sweat for the glory of the state."
You totally inverted my argument with some punk a** straw man, you're good at that by the by. I'm saying people are owed something by our government for their essential labor.
Wrong, people are owed something by their employer for their labor. Tell me, what does the government owe some 16 year old kid for mowing yards in the summer? God, your pitiful.
Not others. Not everyone. Not even the majority of people. Just you as evidenced b your opinions.
Wow! Thanks for your insight their swami. I doubt anyone will ever challenge your wisdom again. I wonder why it is that you haven't wrote a book or ran for office since you have all the answers. Nah, you would rather sit on your throne cast elitist aspersions.
"
I'm talking about opening the doors of opportunity for working people and you're talking about dollar amounts. More stupidly sly misrepresentations from your elitist piehole.
Quit running from you opinions. Your the elitist here. You seem to believe that yours and only your philosophy is correct. How can anyone disagree with you? they must be jerks, sissy's, etc if they do. You are talking about giving entitlements to people just because they work as if cleaning toilets is the same type of self sacrifice exhibited by John McCain. Boy, you are stupid.
And you can't dispute my populism without ultraconservative smears.
NO you're just a socialist. Why be ashamed?
You truly, deeply suck with your only the disciplined prosper nonsense. You ignore the almost total control that the elite money holders have over the prosperity and well being of common people. Not every hard working, responsible person has been as blessed as as you with opportunity.
You truly are incapable of arguing anything without the sophomoric insults. The collectivism tripe you preach here has no effect on me. That is what you can't stand. Just because someone works hard does not entitle them to government handouts. Over your little head I know, but at least try to get it.
Education and healthcare is opportunity and are an equal right for all of us equally created, equally endowed Americans.
Okey dokey Mao. Healthcare should be affordable for anyo who wants it. Education should as well. If you give to this nation you should get someting in return. Working at McDonalds isn't that same kind of sacrifice as taking a bullet. Merit has a place in this society. I can't help it if you feel shortchanged because someone works harder than you. That's tough. the more you work, the more you sacrifice the more you get in return. That's life. We distinguish between national sacrifice and working at McDonalds here on earth. Sorry.
Equal. That word is prominent in our founding document, so don't you dare try to portray equality as socialism to me ever again you slimey toad.
Look Chairman Mao, the founding document doesn't say anything about from each according to his ability to each according to his need. the equality you have so perverted in your disgusting diatribe diminishes the brave souls (unlike you) who have sacrificed their time and effort for this nation. Everyone should have an equal chance at success. Just because you don't make soesn't mean you are owed something. That whole mentality of being owed something is pitiful. Do us a favor and teach your children to excel and not expect a handout. Hopefully, they will be far more succesful than yourself, smarter too.
Your posts drip with condescending stereotypes, outrageous conflations and deliberate backsliding mischaracterizations, slippery slope fallacies and petty perosnal digs. You then have the nerve to gripe when you're called an ass?
Grow up.
These are the threads where I want to see those posters who said they were waiting to hear why McCain didn't supply his own proposal before they criticized his unwillingness to go along with Webb's bill. I hope they post on this thread and add their input to this discussion.
Personally, I think Webb's bill is generous, and frankly, it needs to be. The troops who do sign up need assurance that their futures will be taken care of by the country that they are willing to die for. This should not be a conditional carrot and should be a bi-partisan project. The critics of this bill say that the troops won't stay in the military long enough if it is passed. Well, newsflash critics, its not a great time to be in the military right now and anyone who is willing to serve now deserves all we can give. If we had a larger armed forces, this might be a legitimate concern, but until we take care of those who take care of us, none of us is "supporting the troops."