It may be nice to pander for votes but it wouldn’t be good for America in the long run.

Chakra Hammer on May 30, 2008 at 12:33 AM

So you think that the troops are pandered to? And pampered too I suppose? Absolutely unreal.

How about we give every soldier who enlists 1 million dollars after just 4years of service(What do you think that would do to retention rates and our overall workforce?)

Chakra Hammer on May 30, 2008 at 12:31 AM

How about you not acting so damn silly or do you really want mercenary Soldiers now? I don’t want Soldiers to be second class/serfs and I don’t want them to be mercenaries. I want them to be American Soldiers.

MB4 on May 29, 2008 at 3:26 PM

How about we give every soldier who enlists 1 million dollars after just 4years of service(What do you think that would do to retention rates and our overall workforce?)

the intelligent reaction is to come over the top and out bid Obama.

pabarge

Right but not just here.

On this, and the environment, and health care, and social security, if only McCain would promise even more spending than Obama does, then he’d be respected as a candidate.

Not by conservatives or Republicans, but maybe the Democrats would like him more. and if we’re really lucky Congressional Republicans would follow their recent statements and follow suit moving the whole party drastically to the left.

That’d be awesome… if I weren’t a conservative.

Tom

Army Strong Serfs
- Updates by John McCain?

(IMHO the guy is bordering on moronic)

By holding back benefits for soldiers politicians are negating the fact that this is a volunteer military and if soldiers wish to voluntarily leave, after contract, they should not be shunned by their government for doing so.

PresidenToor on May 29, 2008 at 2:08 PM

Well, unless their government thinks of them as serfs of course.

Nor, would I hope, the GI Bill isn’t considered a primary incentive or motivation for re-enlistment! It is a benefit for serving one’s country and to talk of it as a recruiting/retention tool comes very close to the whole “military as employer of last resort for the stupid” mantra that has been thrown around by the (mostly Democrat) polticians since 2003.

highhopes on May 29, 2008 at 1:35 PM

Or, as I see it,comes very close to treating military as second class citizens, almost like serfs.

Point: Obama and MSM. McCain is toast.

pabarge on May 29, 2008 at 12:50 PM

I don’t know if McCain is toast but he will be pretty well done if he said/says anything like –

During a period in which the nation needs experienced soldiers to defend the nation in an asymmetrical war, it doesn’t make much sense for Congress to skew the incentives away from re-enlistment. After all, the primary purpose of a military is national defense and protection of American assets, not college scholarship distribution.

The Post was for it before they were against it. Now that’s DECISION MAKING!

The question for the competing bills has nothing to do with “generosity”, but effectiveness and support for the mission.

The mission? Meaning staying in Iraq? Huh? The “competing bills” are suppose to be about benefits those serving get when they leave the service. Something to “catch them up” to those who were civilians who maybe were going to collage in between being out shopping.

McCain favored a graduated approach to the GI Bill, giving more credit to those who serve longer in active duty.

I never heard of previous GI bills working that way. Those who serve longer get more pay and more reenlistment bonuses.

Webb’s bill provides a flat benefit that doesn’t reward longer service, and costs more in the long run.

That’s the way it has always worked in the past to the best of my knowledge. Many other things “reward” longer service.

During a period in which the nation needs experienced soldiers to defend the nation in an asymmetrical war, it doesn’t make much sense for Congress to skew the incentives away from re-enlistment. After all, the primary purpose of a military is national defense and protection of American assets, not college scholarship distribution.

Well hell’s bells, then why “give” anything to anyone who leaves the service? Double hell’s bells why not fine people who leave the service? The primary purpose of a military is also not to provide health care distribution or to take care of a deceased Soldier’s widow or children so why do any of that either? Maybe if there weren’t so damn few guys of military age volunteering for the military these day there wouldn’t be such a problem here. Is it somehow the fault of those who do volunteer to serve an enlistment, but not serve even more enlistments, that such a very small percentage of there age contemporaries do?

Unreal.

Military families should not be fooled. The McCain bill on this which will not get a vote would have been passable and helped military families. Thanks to politics, we will defeat the Webb bill (properly so) and the issue will go over to the next administration address.

KW64 on May 29, 2008 at 2:07 PM

don’t worry about that…

There are two types of “things” we can give our troops. Lifelong things, which are “benefits,” as we call them, such as Healthcare/Medications, Education/Vocational Training, Home Financing, and so on. Then there are lump sum money payments, which we call (re-)enlistment bonuses. Benefits should be extended to all service memebers irregardless of their service length as long as they serve out their duty honorably. Lump some money payments should be given to soldiers per their merit or service to their country.

By holding back benefits for soldiers politicians are negating the fact that this is a volunteer military and if soldiers wish to voluntarily leave, after contract, they should not be shunned by their government for doing so.

Military families should not be fooled. The McCain bill on this which will not get a vote would have been passable and helped military families. Thanks to politics, we will defeat the Webb bill (properly so) and the issue will go over to the next administration address.

Obama’s ignorance and naivete is dangerous to our future.

Obama bores me completely.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F45rXyuTZjo&eurl=http://larrysinclair0926.wordpress.com/

During a period in which the nation needs experienced soldiers to defend the nation in an asymmetrical war, it doesn’t make much sense for Congress to skew the incentives away from re-enlistment. After all, the primary purpose of a military is national defense and protection of American assets, not college scholarship distribution.

Nor, would I hope, the GI Bill isn’t considered a primary incentive or motivation for re-enlistment! It is a benefit for serving one’s country and to talk of it as a recruiting/retention tool comes very close to the whole “military as employer of last resort for the stupid” mantra that has been thrown around by the (mostly Democrat) polticians since 2003.

then perhaps he should withhold his criticisms until he learns something about the issue.

Then we will never hear from him; as one other poster so aptly stated…GQ over IQ.

Which is why McCain is going to get his clock cleaned.

The intelligent reaction to Obama’s ploy to buy the appearance of supporting our military with Webb’s new GI Bill is not to go off on a long, tiresome and blustery tirade against Webb’s bill. The intelligent reaction is to come over the top and out bid Obama.

Texas Hold’em players and clever politicians know this. McCain does not.

Point: Obama and MSM. McCain is toast.