On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 12:49:10 -0500, BAR wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 10:35:49 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 11:32:10 -0500, John H.
wrote:

On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 16:01:14 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 08:22:34 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

Saw Jim Webb on C-Span a while ago talking about his and Chuck
Hagel's attempt to get the GI Bill back to where it was before Reagan.
I think the guys putting their lives on the line for us in Iraq and
Afghanistan deserve that. Webb said the educational benefits of that
bill returned 7 to 1 (tax revenues vs costs.)
I'm sure it did in my case. Probably more.
Republicans in the Senate are generally not supporting it.
Creeps.
Once again, the Korean and Vietnam vets get it tucked straight up the
ass.

Moron.
By now, I'd think the Korean and Vietnam vets would have used whatever GI
Bill education benefits they wanted to use.

Webb makes it sound as though the current crop of folks leaving the
military get nothing. They will receive about $1100 per month. Tuition at
George Mason University is $3420 for a full time student taking 12-16
hours. That doesn't seem like such a bad deal to me.
My understanding of current GI bill is that you have to contribute if
you want ed benefits. I seem to remember when they changed it
it was quite a downgrade from what I had. Of course pay was quite a
bit higher too, so the bite maybe wasn't as bad as it looked to me.

--Vic

Yes, the contribution is $100 per month for the first 12 months. That was
instituted to get soldiers 'vested' and interested so they would actually
use the benefits. So they pay $1200 and in return get a little over
$39,600. Not a bad investment, if they use it.

$1200 buys a portion of a car, lots of beer, some tattoos and you can
date the colonel's daughter.

It could also be given to the kid by the parents. That makes it a cheap way
for parents to come out way ahead in the education payment department!
--
John H