GI Bill
 

On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 12:22:25 -0500, HK wrote:

Gene Kearns wrote:

PS
For at least the first two years of study, I can't see any reason (as
a taxpayer and educator) to pay a school (like GWU) $230 per semester
hour, when the same education can be obtained at a local community
college for about $48 per semester hour.


That really depends upon the qualities of the student and the quality of
the school.

I would have thought George Washington U (GWU) was more than $230 a
credit hour. Good private universities are way, way up there, $1000 a
credit hour or more.


When I went, GWU was charging close to $2000 for a three hour masters level
course. I would take two at a time, which made me a part time student. The
GI Bill I used paid for almost all the tuition. The current GWU rates a

GRADUATE
MBA & MSF $ 1,080.00 per credit hour
SPHHS $ 1,024.00 per credit hour
All Others $ 1,012.00 per credit hour
GWSB Doctoral (for two semesters) $ 7,130.00 per semester

PART-TIME UNDERGRADUATE & NON-DEGREE $ 1,090.00 per credit hour
SMPA PART-TIME UNDERGRADUATE $ 1,120.00 per credit hour

FULL-TIME* UNDERGRADUATE
Entering Fall 2007 or Spring 2008 $39,210** per year***
Entering Fall 2006 or Spring 2007 $37,790** per year***
Entering Fall 2005 or Spring 2006 $36,370** per year***

I don't think the GI Bill should be considered for expensive private
universities.
--
John H

GI Bill
 

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

GI Bill
 

On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 10:22:40 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

What's your beef? Don't like Jim Webb?

I served '66 to '72 and know full well what $238/month did - squat.
Might have paid for books if you had a light semester. And it did
nothing for out-of-state tuition if you were living somewhere other
than your home state of enlistment.

Do a direct comparision of benefits from WWII and Vietnam. WWII vets
to this day can get totally free education paid for by the VA - can
you?

I don't give a rat's ass about Jim Webb.

Don't even get me started on Veterans Health care.

GI Bill
 

On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 12:00:43 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


"John H." wrote in message
.. .

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


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.

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.

I have a hazy memory of it working that way when I entered the service, so
it was in effect in 1968.
We signed some paperwork (with significant encouragement to do so)
authorizing the deduction from our pay when we entered boot camp.

That's the Montgomery GI Bill. Ours was, theoretically, a straight
benefit.

GI Bill
 

On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 11:38:45 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

I don't know how or when the benefit package changed, but I was active duty
from '68 to '77. Continued school after I got out with full GI benefits
and purchased my first house with a VA backed loan.

Yes you could, but you could get a commercial loan for .25% less than
what the VA authorized and there was considerably less paperwork.

And it wasn't a full "loan" - it was a security backed loan with a
guarenteed down payment - not the full loan like WWII vets got.

GI Bill
 

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 12:00:43 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
...

On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 10:35:49 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:
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.
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.
I have a hazy memory of it working that way when I entered the service, so
it was in effect in 1968.
We signed some paperwork (with significant encouragement to do so)
authorizing the deduction from our pay when we entered boot camp.

That's the Montgomery GI Bill. Ours was, theoretically, a straight
benefit.


Liberal that I am, I think anyone who completes a full enlistment in the
military ought to have a ticket that at least covers room, board and
tuition for a bachelor's degree at any state university, and be entitled
to lifetime coverage at conventient medical facilities for any ailments
or injuries that result from that enlistment. If the serviceperson
decides to remain in the service while at school, he or she should be
accommodated to the extent possible, with the military picking up the
entire tab through graduate school.

And as crappy as military pay is, I think it ought to be at least
doubled or tripled for anyone serving in a hot zone, like Iraq or
Afghanistan. I don't see any reason to shortchange individuals for the
stupidity of their government.

GI Bill
 

On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 15:58:10 -0500, HK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 12:00:43 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
...

On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 10:35:49 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:
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.
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.
I have a hazy memory of it working that way when I entered the service, so
it was in effect in 1968.
We signed some paperwork (with significant encouragement to do so)
authorizing the deduction from our pay when we entered boot camp.

That's the Montgomery GI Bill. Ours was, theoretically, a straight
benefit.


Liberal that I am, I think anyone who completes a full enlistment in the
military ought to have a ticket that at least covers room, board and
tuition for a bachelor's degree at any state university, and be entitled
to lifetime coverage at conventient medical facilities for any ailments
or injuries that result from that enlistment. If the serviceperson
decides to remain in the service while at school, he or she should be
accommodated to the extent possible, with the military picking up the
entire tab through graduate school.

And as crappy as military pay is, I think it ought to be at least
doubled or tripled for anyone serving in a hot zone, like Iraq or
Afghanistan. I don't see any reason to shortchange individuals for the
stupidity of their government.

Why not just give them $5000 per month for the rest of their lives?


--
John H

GI Bill
 

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 11:38:45 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

I don't know how or when the benefit package changed, but I was active
duty
from '68 to '77. Continued school after I got out with full GI benefits
and purchased my first house with a VA backed loan.

Yes you could, but you could get a commercial loan for .25% less than
what the VA authorized and there was considerably less paperwork.

And it wasn't a full "loan" - it was a security backed loan with a
guarenteed down payment - not the full loan like WWII vets got.


It really wasn't a loan at all. The VA simply "co-signed" in a way, my
application for a mortgage.

Eisboch

GI Bill
 

On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 16:15:26 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 11:38:45 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

I don't know how or when the benefit package changed, but I was active
duty
from '68 to '77. Continued school after I got out with full GI benefits
and purchased my first house with a VA backed loan.

Yes you could, but you could get a commercial loan for .25% less than
what the VA authorized and there was considerably less paperwork.

And it wasn't a full "loan" - it was a security backed loan with a
guarenteed down payment - not the full loan like WWII vets got.


It really wasn't a loan at all. The VA simply "co-signed" in a way, my
application for a mortgage.

Eisboch


I believe the VA guaranteed repayment of a percent of your loan. I don't
recall what the percent was, but I think that's how it worked.
--
John H

GI Bill
 

On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 16:15:26 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 11:38:45 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

I don't know how or when the benefit package changed, but I was active
duty
from '68 to '77. Continued school after I got out with full GI benefits
and purchased my first house with a VA backed loan.

Yes you could, but you could get a commercial loan for .25% less than
what the VA authorized and there was considerably less paperwork.

And it wasn't a full "loan" - it was a security backed loan with a
guarenteed down payment - not the full loan like WWII vets got.

It really wasn't a loan at all. The VA simply "co-signed" in a way, my
application for a mortgage.

That's correct - they cosigned to guarantee a certain percentage
(which I believe at the time) was 2% of the total value of the loan.
John had it right as I remember it.

I'm not saying it wasn't a good benefit - it was, but lenders, at
least when I was looking at a home, were reluctant to loan against a
VA guarantee and would actually discount their rate to avoid it.

Then again, that was my experience. I've never used the VA loan
benefit because it was cheaper for us to co-own sans VA guarantee.

By the way, I'm not a huge fan of the VA in general.

I have my reasons -someday when we're just sitting around with nothing
else to do I'll tell you why.