floridadiver81 0 #1 June 21, 2008 New MGIB to hit presidents desk. IF it goes through it is going to royally kick some booty due to the fact that it is a SIGNIFIGANT amount of more money!!! Check it out! http://education.military.com/money-for-school/gi-bill/new-gi-bill-overview#2"Age has absolutely nothing to do with knowledge, learning, respect, attitude, or personality." -yardhippie "Fight the air, and the air will kick your ass!!! "-Specialkaye Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jtval 0 #2 June 21, 2008 QuoteNew MGIB to hit presidents desk. IF it goes through it is going to royally kick some booty due to the fact that it is a SIGNIFIGANT amount of more money!!! Check it out! http://education.military.com/money-for-school/gi-bill/new-gi-bill-overview#2 As for me. I won't get excited about anything untill I know the final deal.My photos My Videos Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
floridadiver81 0 #3 June 21, 2008 The way i see it...if the president veto's this...then he will be slapping every soldier that has served over there weather it be army navy airforce or marine in the face. There have been too many lives lost in this war. I am prior Navy. I did 2 deployments over there...one on a destroyer and the other on a LHD(marine taxi). I was on a ship over there so i wasnt on the front line...and it still sucked. I deff have respect for the army and marines because i know what they go through. We deserve more for college....and as it looks...if the bill passes...we will get that!"Age has absolutely nothing to do with knowledge, learning, respect, attitude, or personality." -yardhippie "Fight the air, and the air will kick your ass!!! "-Specialkaye Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jtval 0 #4 June 21, 2008 QuoteThe way i see it...if the president veto's this...then he will be slapping every soldier that has served over there weather it be army navy airforce or marine in the face. Do you remember ywho you're talking about? the way I see it, he doesn't care about anything other then himself.My photos My Videos Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ACMESkydiver 0 #5 June 21, 2008 Glad that might work out for these younger soldiers. Won't mean anything to me personally; I used my GI Bill in it's entirety a couple of years ago. Hmmm....I don't know if that might help Joe, though. All of our active time was prior to 9-11, but he was a reservist for all of the time since up until last April. He didn't serve 'consecutive' active duty weeks; just 4 weeks per year over seas, so I don't think it would apply for him. Kinda sucks for him though really. I was a communications specialist and I got $25k in benefits. He was a freaking ranger and only got the basic $12k alloted for him, which he can't take, because that won't pay for shit. But I'm happy for everyone else that can use it if it goes through. ~Jaye Do not believe that possibly you can escape the reward of your action. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #6 June 21, 2008 Let's see how much more CRAP congress tries to pack into it... Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MrFreefall383 0 #7 June 21, 2008 Quote Let's see how much more CRAP congress tries to pack into it... Yeah, that would be the Senate. The House doesn't have enough clout to be packing a bill like that with BS. And the Senate is notorious for pushing their own agendas. I would know, I had to read Senate and House legislation when I interned in Washington. But yes, this is a good thing. As a Coastie for all of 4 months, I already know that the current MGIB offers a very significant value at a very small price. If it offers more at the same price, then you can at least say that the country really does care about our troops."If at first you don't succeed... well, so much for skydiving." - aviation cliche Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #8 June 21, 2008 Quote I would know, I had to read Senate and House legislation when I interned in Washington. My condolences!! Quote But yes, this is a good thing. Agreed - I'm just hoping they don't pack it down and force a vetoMike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #9 June 22, 2008 I'm going to surprise many folks in here with this - I hope it's vetoed. I AM a military member - 13.5 years and some change and I HAVE been on the ground in Iraq multiple times, though not for an extended period - and think this is overly generous. The benefits should be re-written to target certain groups - combat vets from Iraq and Afghanistan most prominent among them. Its current blanket coverage and lack of focus makes it unpalatable to me. It will probably pass, though. I'll probably even avail myself of its benefits someday. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #10 June 22, 2008 I disagree, Vinnie - the MGIB needed some re-vamping, but not as a "special treat" for the Iraq/Afghanistan vets. I think adding a special bonus for the Iraq/Afghanistan vets is better than re-writing the MGIB to specifically focus on them.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #11 June 22, 2008 Revamping - yes. But not in this manner. This is far too generous and unfocused. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #12 June 22, 2008 I can't speak to the 'unfocused' part...but as to generosity...I'd say y'all have EARNED it...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hairyjuan 0 #13 June 22, 2008 must read----www.addictedtowar.com and consider that depleted uranium is defined as a WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION by USC 50, Chapter, Sec 2302we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively wishers never choose, choosers never wish Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GaryRay 0 #14 June 22, 2008 Quote I'm going to surprise many folks in here with this - I hope it's vetoed. I AM a military member - 13.5 years and some change and I HAVE been on the ground in Iraq multiple times, though not for an extended period - and think this is overly generous. The benefits should be re-written to target certain groups - combat vets from Iraq and Afghanistan most prominent among them. Its current blanket coverage and lack of focus makes it unpalatable to me. It will probably pass, though. I'll probably even avail myself of its benefits someday. with all the respect i can offer to you for your 13.5yrs, i am a Marine finishing my 5yr contract out. i think you are wrong, of all people you should know we all enlisted knowing we will probably be sent to iraq or afghanistan or some other shit hole country. luck of the draw doesnt allow everyone, i spent 4months doing missions out of kuwait into iraq. but what about the sailors taht supported us, should they not be allowed to get the new benefits, or the docs in the rear that dont get to go over because they are to busy making sure that we can. why should the best benefits go just for the guy who went boots on deck. i am very happy with this coverage, if you served you have supported the war in one way or another. there is no reason why you should not get to use the benefits awarded to those who were "lucky" or "unlucky" (depending on your outlook) to go over. EDIT: i think if this passes it will be a very good thing for everyone who has served.JewBag. www.jewbag.wordpress.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #15 June 22, 2008 QuoteI'm going to surprise many folks in here with this - I hope it's vetoed. I AM a military member - 13.5 years and some change and I HAVE been on the ground in Iraq multiple times, though not for an extended period - and think this is overly generous. The benefits should be re-written to target certain groups - combat vets from Iraq and Afghanistan most prominent among them. Its current blanket coverage and lack of focus makes it unpalatable to me. It will probably pass, though. I'll probably even avail myself of its benefits someday. I don't agree with that, while I understand your meaning, all of us know what the score is when we enlist. Deployments are guaranteed - whether on a ship, plane, desert or jungle. As much as we hear about "everyone getting a taste of the action", the reality is that there are those, in certain jobs that simply won't be sent into Iraq, or Afghanistan for one reason of another. Their service is still real.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #16 June 22, 2008 QuoteAs much as we hear about "everyone getting a taste of the action", the reality is that there are those, in certain jobs that simply won't be sent into Iraq, or Afghanistan for one reason of another. Their service is still real. In most cases, the troops on the ground in combat zones could not carry out their mission without those support troops. Support troops are not any lesser than combat troops, and should not be limited to lesser benefits. just 2¢ from a former 13BMath tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #17 June 22, 2008 Our sponsors would like us to point out that other countries have a military (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #18 June 22, 2008 Their service is still real - and this bill is still overly generous to an already well-compensated military. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GQ_jumper 4 #19 June 22, 2008 Their service is still real - and this bill is still overly generous to an already well-compensated military. Quote WWII vets recieved full tuition for their service, why shouldn't soldiers of the current war recieve the same?History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. --Dwight D. Eisenhower Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TheAnvil 0 #20 June 22, 2008 The current force is all volunteer for the most part - a few involuntarily recalled folks are still about - unlike the WW II force. Compensation packages for the WW II force compared with today's would probably be staggering. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #21 June 23, 2008 Quoteand this bill is still overly generous to an already well-compensated military. And what pay grade are you??? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites humanflite 0 #22 June 23, 2008 Quote Quote The way i see it...if the president veto's this...then he will be slapping every soldier that has served over there weather it be army navy airforce or marine in the face. Do you remember ywho you're talking about? the way I see it, he doesn't care about anything other then himself. He cares about his cronies as well Cheney and the Halibuton boys. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TheAnvil 0 #23 June 23, 2008 I've just been selected for Commander, not that my rank is sequitur to the conversation at hand. I've been offered jobs for just about twice my current salary on several occasions over the past few years- turned them down for myriad reasons. Some in the military earn less than their civilian counterparts - others more. Those earning less, if they feel the additional benefits and culture do not make up for the pay delta, are welcome to leave at the end of their obligated service. Quite the nice thing about a volunteer force. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nerdgirl 0 #24 June 23, 2008 Quote … an already well-compensated military. For enlisted or officers? Both? In an absolute sense or w/r/t the competitive employment environment? QuoteI've been offered jobs for just about twice my current salary on several occasions over the past few years ... Some in the military earn less than their civilian counterparts - others more. The vast majority of non-federal positions, i.e., contractors and private industry, make more than either civilian or uniformed federal positions for similar skill sets. One doesn't pursue uniformed or civil service to become wealthy, unless you're planning on doing something less than legal. W/r/t compensation for uniformed services, the larger issues predate President Clinton's administration and will have national security implications extending beyond the next administration. West Point has a 40% attrition rate 5 years after graduation. In 2003, the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) identified retention of officers as a critical issue for the future of the Navy (i.e., subject of CNO SSG). Is raising compensation the only or best way to address the predicted shortage of officers, putting aside for the moment other concerns regarding promotion rates and time in grade? I don’t think so … but as is demonstrated with the bonuses being paid to retain officers, it is one metaphorical tool in the toolbox. Bonuses should not be a long-term solution. While the recent bonuses for USA Captains have gotten attention, the monetary incentives to increase retention precede OIF & OEF, e.g., the USN and USMC Selected Reenlistment Bonus (SRB), USN Nuclear Officer Incentive Pay, USN Aviation Continuation Pay, USN Medical Officer Incentive Special Pay, and the USMC Aviation Retention Bonuses all date back to at least 1997. Increasing the number of young Americans selecting the military officer corps as a career field and the national security implications are a long term interest of mine. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TheAnvil 0 #25 June 23, 2008 Retention is a completely different topic than this flawed bill. Since I've been commissioned, the retention issue has always been there. Far more for officers than enlisted folks. I'd say with high confidence the problem with officer retention had its seeds in the late years of the Carter administration and the early years of the Reagan administration. The officer corps typically earns far less than their civilian counterparts, but the delta between the enlisted ratings is HIGHLY dependent up on what skill sets you're speaking of - some are better paid in the service and others worse than their counterparts. Many variables at play there. The force as a whole, IS well compensated. Regular pay raises, an EXTREMELY good vacation policy, upward mobility opportunity, Montgomery GI Bill (in its current form), a SUPERB pension plan, plenty of tax breaks, free health care, and many other benefits. Could the compensation/benefits be improved upon? Absolutely. Is the bill under discussion the manner in which to do that - I say no. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 1 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
TheAnvil 0 #20 June 22, 2008 The current force is all volunteer for the most part - a few involuntarily recalled folks are still about - unlike the WW II force. Compensation packages for the WW II force compared with today's would probably be staggering. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #21 June 23, 2008 Quoteand this bill is still overly generous to an already well-compensated military. And what pay grade are you??? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
humanflite 0 #22 June 23, 2008 Quote Quote The way i see it...if the president veto's this...then he will be slapping every soldier that has served over there weather it be army navy airforce or marine in the face. Do you remember ywho you're talking about? the way I see it, he doesn't care about anything other then himself. He cares about his cronies as well Cheney and the Halibuton boys. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #23 June 23, 2008 I've just been selected for Commander, not that my rank is sequitur to the conversation at hand. I've been offered jobs for just about twice my current salary on several occasions over the past few years- turned them down for myriad reasons. Some in the military earn less than their civilian counterparts - others more. Those earning less, if they feel the additional benefits and culture do not make up for the pay delta, are welcome to leave at the end of their obligated service. Quite the nice thing about a volunteer force. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #24 June 23, 2008 Quote … an already well-compensated military. For enlisted or officers? Both? In an absolute sense or w/r/t the competitive employment environment? QuoteI've been offered jobs for just about twice my current salary on several occasions over the past few years ... Some in the military earn less than their civilian counterparts - others more. The vast majority of non-federal positions, i.e., contractors and private industry, make more than either civilian or uniformed federal positions for similar skill sets. One doesn't pursue uniformed or civil service to become wealthy, unless you're planning on doing something less than legal. W/r/t compensation for uniformed services, the larger issues predate President Clinton's administration and will have national security implications extending beyond the next administration. West Point has a 40% attrition rate 5 years after graduation. In 2003, the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) identified retention of officers as a critical issue for the future of the Navy (i.e., subject of CNO SSG). Is raising compensation the only or best way to address the predicted shortage of officers, putting aside for the moment other concerns regarding promotion rates and time in grade? I don’t think so … but as is demonstrated with the bonuses being paid to retain officers, it is one metaphorical tool in the toolbox. Bonuses should not be a long-term solution. While the recent bonuses for USA Captains have gotten attention, the monetary incentives to increase retention precede OIF & OEF, e.g., the USN and USMC Selected Reenlistment Bonus (SRB), USN Nuclear Officer Incentive Pay, USN Aviation Continuation Pay, USN Medical Officer Incentive Special Pay, and the USMC Aviation Retention Bonuses all date back to at least 1997. Increasing the number of young Americans selecting the military officer corps as a career field and the national security implications are a long term interest of mine. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #25 June 23, 2008 Retention is a completely different topic than this flawed bill. Since I've been commissioned, the retention issue has always been there. Far more for officers than enlisted folks. I'd say with high confidence the problem with officer retention had its seeds in the late years of the Carter administration and the early years of the Reagan administration. The officer corps typically earns far less than their civilian counterparts, but the delta between the enlisted ratings is HIGHLY dependent up on what skill sets you're speaking of - some are better paid in the service and others worse than their counterparts. Many variables at play there. The force as a whole, IS well compensated. Regular pay raises, an EXTREMELY good vacation policy, upward mobility opportunity, Montgomery GI Bill (in its current form), a SUPERB pension plan, plenty of tax breaks, free health care, and many other benefits. Could the compensation/benefits be improved upon? Absolutely. Is the bill under discussion the manner in which to do that - I say no. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
