A
Anonymous
Guest
kolanuraven said:aplusmnt said:kolanuraven said:He's all for supporting the troops but against a bill to offer them free education upon their completion of 3 yrs of military service. He says we can't afford it??? We spend MILLIONS a day on the war. This makes no sense whatsoever.
Every parent you ask will tell you that they could not afford to loose their child either. That money is the factor in that bill...that alone tells you what is at the center of the Rep heart , a $$$$ sign. Millions that can not be accounted for that was bagged and shipped to Iraq and we can't AFFORD something for the Vets' of this quagmire!!! Every parent of a soldier should be pissedoff about that...and loudly claim it.
I am all for free education for anyone that wants it and especially the troops. But in reality a President has to look at the cost of things. In many ways he has to be able to separate emotion for fiscal reality on issues. Otherwise a person could get caught up in offering social programs left and right, much like the Liberals try to do.
Personally I am not very read on this issue and have no idea if the money could really be there or if the current education support the troops get is about as good as America can do financially.
I do know it is not just a decision a President should make on a it feels good and sounds good whim. Just like a good parent, a good President has to be able to say no sometimes as much as he would like to say yes. Those decisions are what make a good President.
You're spewing a load of crap Aminus and you know it........
If this Pres is graded on a ' parental scale'.....he should locked up for abuse!
Yep- McCain is just another neocon that beats the war- veteran drum-- but doesn't want to stand behind them--rather sending the money overseas for foreign nationbuilding :roll:
This part of the bill is essentially an idea first brought to light by ultra conservative investor/economist/entrepreneur/TV host Ben Stein (Ben Steins Money) on the O'Reilly Factor a couple of years ago- that O'Reilly agreed to...
That the rich (and I have to call anyone with an income of $500,000/$1 mill couple a year rich)- who in most cases are those most profiteering from this war- should be the ones picking up the cost of the war- and paying a surcharge to equip the troops adequately, and the costs of the troops salaries, medical, and educational costs....
Maybe if they had to start paying for it- it would slow down the elitist neocon war drum beat :???:
I'm fed up to the ears with old men dreaming up wars for young men to die in. ~George McGovern
When the rich wage war, it's the poor who die. ~Jean-Paul Sartre
The add-ons for the unemployed and the new college benefits under the GI Bill represented the price demanded by Democrats for approving Bush's long-stalled request for additional war funding.
The new GI Bill essentially would guarantee a full scholarship at any in-state public university, along with a monthly housing stipend, for people who serve in the military for at least three years. It is aimed at replicating the benefits awarded veterans of World War II and would cost $52 billion over 10 years.
To pay for it and adhere to budget rules requiring new benefit programs not add to the deficit, the Democratic plan would impose a surtax on individuals with incomes above $500,000. Couples would pay the tax on income exceeding $1 million.
"We are talking about people who are making over $1 million to pay a small sacrifice for this war where our military families are paying a huge sacrifice," said Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill.