Should Congress pass the Webb-Hagel G.I. Bill?

Set as news: False

Set as news: True

Set as news: True

Set as news: False

Set as news: True

Sounds good!

hmmm, fair enough...let's approve

I propose...

Should Congress pass the Webb-Hagel G.I. Bill?

Oh... and there's an entire website / movement devoted to this specific bill:

http://www.newgibill.org/

We need to get a move on this issue... there's going to be a huge rally at UCLA with celebrities pushing for the bill's approval... I'm thinking we might want to make this BILL specific after all...

[Stars to Push for New G.I. Bill]

good wording, JZipp.

Should veterans receive an increase in benefits for more than three years of military service?

Should veterans be given benefits after three years?

Here's where the debate is at:

President Bush has threatened to veto the measure, citing the high domestic price tag and the potential the benefits could entice soldiers to leave the service after only three years putting additional strain on an already stretched military force.

But the military, initially expected by most to support the measure, is quickly forming an opposition. The main failure of the bill, critics argue, is that it will place an enormous strain on an already thinly stretched force, as those who have served their 36 months might take off to pursue their degree. While recruiting would be improved because of the benefits, retention would likely plummet, and the cost of training new recruits would be significant.

Should the G.I. bill include increased benefits for veterans who have served a minimum of three years?

That looks good, Brian.

Should military benefits be expanded to veterans who have served at least three years?

From NYTimes:

President Bush opposes a new G.I. Bill of Rights. He worries that if the traditional path to college for service members since World War II is improved and expanded for the post-9/11 generation, too many people will take it.

He is wrong, but at least he is consistent.

Thankfully, the new G.I. Bill has strong bipartisan support in Congress. The House passed it by a veto-proof margin this month, and last week the Senate followed suit, approving it as part of a military financing bill for Iraq and Afghanistan.

More info here.

"Should military benefits be given to all veterans regardless of length of service?"

No, there are apparently different types of enlistments (2-year seems to be the smallest increment).

I'll do more research.

McCain:

The most important difference between our two approaches is that Senator Webb offers veterans who served one enlistment the same benefits as those offered veterans who have re-enlisted several times. Our bill has a sliding scale that offers generous benefits to all veterans, but increases those benefits according to the veteran's length of service. I think it is important to do that because, otherwise, we will encourage more people to leave the military after they have completed one enlistment. At a time when the United States military is fighting in two wars, and as we finally are beginning the long overdue and very urgent necessity of increasing the size of the Army and Marine Corps, one study estimates that Senator Webb's bill will reduce retention rates by 16%.

"Should military personnel receive benefits after a single enlistment?"

- Yes

- No

(Is an enlistment 6 years?)

OK, thanks for researching.  Do you think that's what we should hang it on?

How many years of service should be required from military personnel before they are eligible to receive benefits?

-  6 years

-  12 years

-  Other

McCain proposed a new bill. The problem is he doesn't want to vote for Sen. Webb's version because it gives benefits to vets after 6 years of service. McCain's version is like 12 years and Webb is arguing that his verison would exclude most of the Army.

We have to look depper into the bill and maybe pull out where the debate it instead of just saying are you for this GI bill or not. There's a reason McCain won't support it obviously, so maybe we're better off finding that reason and harping on that. Maybe not. Let's take a look...

I'm still learning about this -- there may be better wording.  It's something that keeps coming up, though.

Obama's for, McCain's against. 

An assortment of Huffpost entries about this bill here.