McCain Takes Off the Gloves and Knocks Obama Down

The interesting thing about McCain's response is that he's not opposed to the bill because it's too expensive - he's opposed to it because he's worried that people might actually use it.

What the above basically boils down to is that he's concerned about lower retention rates - that the army might lose people that are only there because they don't have better options in life, and giving them better options would take them out of the army. In other words, it's better to make sure they don't have better opportunities so they are stuck staying in the army.

May very well be true from a practical standpoint - but sad nonetheless. It also ignores the fact that signups would increase as people find they have a new possible route to going to college.

 

exactly, this is what i was refering to in my earlier post, and to be fair lets say he's arguing for a graduated system where the longer you stay, the more benefits you get. still, how long is a standard military contract, 3 years? that's plenty of time in my opinion to deserve complete benefits. that's three years for most of the enlitsted of their youth.

 

I appreciate what McCain did during his time of service, but I think I would sound insensitive if I said that he plays the "torture victim" card too much.

Too late.



Cod

 

The army is a job. In anyplace you work, particularly government agencies, the longer you stay the more benefits you get. Why should a job in the army be any different than any other part of government (especially once the war is over and new enlistments serve during peacetime)?

 

But when the war will be over is something no one can be 100% exact on. If McCain wins it could be quite a while and if it's Obama hopefully not that long.

And one way it's different is that they are in harms way every day during a war, risking their lives for their country. That's one, huge, significant sacrifice. Don't you think? And there doesn't necessarily have to be a war for soldiers to do this.

 

If this is the rationale, don't you think it would be better to focus our resources on their pay during their enlistment and benefits for those who are wounded in battle? Also, attention needs to be paid to survivor benefits for the spouses and children of those killed in battle.

I do not know what soldiers are paid today, but when I was in college, I knew several soldiers. Those soldiers (non officers) with children were frequently on food stamps or some other program in order to make ends meet.

I think focusing on those problems is a much better use of resources than a blanket hike in post-enlistment benefits regardless of service time.

 

Interesting take on this G.I. Bill business in the New York Times today :

 

I totally agree with...

"don't you think it would be better to focus our resources on their pay during their enlistment and benefits for those who are wounded in battle? Also, attention needs to be paid to survivor benefits for the spouses and children of those killed in battle.

I do not know what soldiers are paid today, but when I was in college, I knew several soldiers. Those soldiers (non officers) with children were frequently on food stamps or some other program in order to make ends meet."

In my opinion, given the wars raging in Iraq and Afghanistan, the new dangers faced by our volunteer military, the repeated deployments with not nearly enough time between deployments, and the stop-loss policies ( the involuntary extension of a service member's active duty service under the enlistment contract in order to retain them beyond their initial end of term of service (ETS) date. It also applies to the ceasing of a permanent change of station (PCS) move for a member still in military service... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop-loss_policy), we should do both. What you so correctly pointed out and giving more benefits to those in the service, regardless of the time. I wouldn't be opposed to a graduated increase in benefits related to time of service, but I think the minimum should be more than what McCain is talking about and they should address what you are talking about.


BTW... I disagree that being in the military is just another governmental job.



Impeach Bush.

 

It's different because people shoot at you and try to blow you up. It's different because at any time, someone you don't know can send you into harm's way. It's different because there is a trust with that person who can send you into harm's way: they won't do it unless it's absolutely necessary. (It's really different when that trust is broken.) It's different because you're being asked to put your life on the line for all Americans and usually a good chunk of the world. It's different because soldiers die regularly just undergoing training. It's different because of the stress you're under. It's different because of the stress your loved ones are under. It's different because your co-worker might be dead tomorrow.

Now, let's take all other government employees: fish biologists, accountants, Park Rangers, meteorologists, patent examiners, engineers, firefighters, intelligence analyst, etc. None of them are the same as a soldier. None of them are going to walk into a situation where they can't identify the hazards and control the environment... and none of them would walk into such a situation just because someone else tells them to do so.

In my job, we're a bunch of cowards: we don't hold ground at any costs, we'll retreat while looking for more favorable ground and better conditions, we'll run away if we have to look up at a fire. My family worries about me, but more for the long drives than any danger I'll find myself in on the line... and it's only 2 weeks at a time... not several consecutive months.

I've never heard a wildland firefighter complaining about how good those Army people have it.

 

I disagree. One of the things that is universally respected about McCain is his military service and his time as a prisoner of war. For Obama to challenge his dedication to the military is dangerouse ground, for Obama, as it is an easy argument for McCain to counter as he did. While military service won't win the election, it has been in the last 4 presidential elections, that is one area that McCain clearly has a strength in and it might not be that fruitful for Obama to take him on regarding that when there are so many other issues to go at McCain for.

 

I take it you're not a smoke jumper. Not to turn this into a contest of who is braver but there are some very brave wildland firefighters. I mean who in their sane mind would parachute into a forest fire?

I know you were making a rhetorical point but I think you would agree with me that even without getting shot at wildland fire fighters aren't exactly a bunch of cowards.

 

Raise the pay and current benefits for the troops as they serve and give them the old fashioned GI Bill of the past, too, which is basically what this bill does.

For Bush and gang, Veteran's Benefits are just another form of welfare for other people's kids. They never flinch in spending more and more for private contractors and or expensive weapons systems that they and their buds make $$$ off.

A coincidence? I think not.

 

Of course, oftentimes these weapon systems are the things that reduce the likelihood of American soldiers dying...but who counting, right glynch? So long as those bastards that invent and build the stuff don't make money.

Glad you are so principled with the perils of others.

 

Nobody in their sane mind jumps into a forest fire and smokejumpers are not insane.

They drop near fires (not on them), usually on the side that is safest and provides the greatest tactical advantage... this is usually near the point of origin or the heel of the fire and away from the active flank. The jumping part takes a certain personality, but is not necessarily bravery. They all love it. What I think takes more courage is packing all your gear out after the fire is done. You may have to bushwhack/ hike for 20 miles or more with 90+ pounds on your back... but they all say the misery is worth it... as are the hours spent sewing chutes and bags during the offseason (yes, they all have a sewing station at their base with industrial strength machines and supplies).

Also, smokejumpers are primarily an initial attack resource, meaning they attack small fires with the goal of suppressing them before they get big, Sometimes they fail and have to run away.