GI Bill
 

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.

--Vic

GI Bill
 

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.

--Vic


Webb is going to run for president some day, and he'll win. He's the
right stuff.

GI Bill
 

HK wrote:
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.

--Vic


Webb is going to run for president some day, and he'll win. He's the
right stuff.

He's a flaming asshole. He hasn't been heard from since his Democrat
Response after the SOU, I belive, last year.

GI Bill
 

BAR wrote:
HK wrote:
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.

--Vic


Webb is going to run for president some day, and he'll win. He's the
right stuff.

He's a flaming asshole. He hasn't been heard from since his Democrat
Response after the SOU, I belive, last year.



Yeah, right...Jim Webb is a flaming a**hole and you're a high school
dropout. That's the ticket.

GI Bill
 

HK wrote:
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.

--Vic


Webb is going to run for president some day, and he'll win. He's the
right stuff.

Harry,
Didn't you say 6 months ago that Hillary would walk away with the
primary and the general election?

GI Bill
 

HK wrote:
BAR wrote:
HK wrote:
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.

--Vic


Webb is going to run for president some day, and he'll win. He's the
right stuff.

He's a flaming asshole. He hasn't been heard from since his Democrat
Response after the SOU, I belive, last year.



Yeah, right...Jim Webb is a flaming a**hole and you're a high school
dropout. That's the ticket.

All of your statements are questioned for their veracity. Your history
of lying about your own life and the lives of others is well known.

I have never uttered a lie in rec.boats. You on the other hand utter
lies in every post you make.

GI Bill
 

BAR wrote:
HK wrote:
BAR wrote:
HK wrote:
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.

--Vic


Webb is going to run for president some day, and he'll win. He's the
right stuff.

He's a flaming asshole. He hasn't been heard from since his Democrat
Response after the SOU, I belive, last year.



Yeah, right...Jim Webb is a flaming a**hole and you're a high school
dropout. That's the ticket.

All of your statements are questioned for their veracity. Your history
of lying about your own life and the lives of others is well known.

I have never uttered a lie in rec.boats. You on the other hand utter
lies in every post you make.



snerk

GI Bill
 

HK wrote:
BAR wrote:
HK wrote:
BAR wrote:
HK wrote:
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.

--Vic


Webb is going to run for president some day, and he'll win. He's
the right stuff.

He's a flaming asshole. He hasn't been heard from since his Democrat
Response after the SOU, I belive, last year.



Yeah, right...Jim Webb is a flaming a**hole and you're a high school
dropout. That's the ticket.

All of your statements are questioned for their veracity. Your history
of lying about your own life and the lives of others is well known.

I have never uttered a lie in rec.boats. You on the other hand utter
lies in every post you make.



snerk


Harry,
Even those who think you are an interesting "character" realize you lie
about the vast majority of your life.

GI Bill
 

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.

GI Bill
 

On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 10:27:21 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is
Here wrote:

HK wrote:
BAR wrote:
HK wrote:
BAR wrote:
HK wrote:
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.

--Vic


Webb is going to run for president some day, and he'll win. He's
the right stuff.

He's a flaming asshole. He hasn't been heard from since his Democrat
Response after the SOU, I belive, last year.



Yeah, right...Jim Webb is a flaming a**hole and you're a high school
dropout. That's the ticket.

All of your statements are questioned for their veracity. Your history
of lying about your own life and the lives of others is well known.

I have never uttered a lie in rec.boats. You on the other hand utter
lies in every post you make.



snerk


Harry,
Even those who think you are an interesting "character" realize you lie
about the vast majority of your life.

It *is* astonishing.
--
John H

GI Bill
 

On Feb 13, 10:16*am, BAR wrote:
HK wrote:
BAR wrote:
HK wrote:
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.

--Vic

Webb is going to run for president some day, and he'll win. He's the
right stuff.

He's a flaming asshole. He hasn't been heard from since his Democrat
Response after the SOU, I belive, last year.

Yeah, right...Jim Webb is a flaming a**hole and you're a high school
dropout. That's the ticket.

All of your statements are questioned for their veracity. Your history
of lying about your own life and the lives of others is well known.

I have never uttered a lie in rec.boats. You on the other hand utter
lies in every post you make.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Harry is a chronic liar. I think it's brought on by his real life
failings. What is funny as all hell is how if anyone here DARES to ask
him about any of his lies, he'll deflect by name calling first, and if
that doesn't work, he'll put you in Bozo's Bin.
Ask him about his lobster boat, his yale degree and his Dr. Dr. wife.
Then sit back and watch!

GI Bill
 

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.

Guess you don't know much about it, or just have jerking knees.
From right after WWII until sometime in the 80's, maybe late 70's,
ALL vets were eligible for state school tuition, and a monthly
stipend.
I served 64-67 and that's how - and WHY - I attended college.
What's your beef? Don't like Jim Webb?

--Vic

GI Bill
 

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.
--
John H

GI Bill
 

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

GI Bill
 

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
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.

Guess you don't know much about it, or just have jerking knees.
From right after WWII until sometime in the 80's, maybe late 70's,
ALL vets were eligible for state school tuition, and a monthly
stipend.
I served 64-67 and that's how - and WHY - I attended college.
What's your beef? Don't like Jim Webb?

--Vic

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.

Eisboch

GI Bill
 

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
..

Once again, the Korean and Vietnam vets get it tucked straight up the
ass.

Moron.

Tucked?

how about "CRAMMED!"

GI Bill
 

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.
--
John H

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.

As I recall reading it, the change was something like a 100% match of
what you contribute for tuition. So you'd have to contribute $1000 to
get $2000 back.
My tuition was paid in full, no contribution from me. Besides that I
was getting a gov check for $400 a month while in school.
There was a maximum, and I hit it as I finished school.
I doubt I would have attended college without that GI Bill, because
I started late and already had kids.
Didn't use a VA backed loan for my first house as I had 20% down,
which used to be the standard. I recall hearing the VA loans
sometimes were a hassle in Chicago, because an inspection had
to find the house up to all codes, which often required the seller do
some work, making VA buyers less desirable.

--Vic

GI Bill
 

"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.

--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.
--
John H

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.

Eisboch

GI Bill
 

"Vic Smith" 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.

As I recall reading it, the change was something like a 100% match of
what you contribute for tuition. So you'd have to contribute $1000 to
get $2000 back.
My tuition was paid in full, no contribution from me. Besides that I
was getting a gov check for $400 a month while in school.
There was a maximum, and I hit it as I finished school.
I doubt I would have attended college without that GI Bill, because
I started late and already had kids.
Didn't use a VA backed loan for my first house as I had 20% down,
which used to be the standard. I recall hearing the VA loans
sometimes were a hassle in Chicago, because an inspection had
to find the house up to all codes, which often required the seller do
some work, making VA buyers less desirable.

--Vic

My experience with the VA backed loan program was different. The guy
showed up, asked me what the house was selling for, then asked if I thought
it was worth it. I said yes, and he signed off on it.

Eisboch

GI Bill
 

On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 11:57:19 -0500, John H.
wrote:



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.


That's a lot better than I understood it to be back when.

--Vic

GI Bill
 

On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 11:52:40 -0500, Gene Kearns
wrote:

On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 11:32:10 -0500, John H. penned the following well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

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.


IMHO, this should be a payment based on actual costs for education. I
see students every day that have no interest in the subject matter,
but if they don't use the (using your figures) GI bill they have, at
$1100 a month, they will lose it.

Over the course of the 2 year program their education costs will run
about $225 per month... they will pocket the $875/month as profit.

91.5% of statistics are made up as the speaker talks, this 7:1 benefit
seems to be one of them.....

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.

Agree with all.


--
John H

GI Bill
 

On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 10:59:00 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

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.

As I recall reading it, the change was something like a 100% match of
what you contribute for tuition. So you'd have to contribute $1000 to
get $2000 back.
My tuition was paid in full, no contribution from me. Besides that I
was getting a gov check for $400 a month while in school.
There was a maximum, and I hit it as I finished school.
I doubt I would have attended college without that GI Bill, because
I started late and already had kids.
Didn't use a VA backed loan for my first house as I had 20% down,
which used to be the standard. I recall hearing the VA loans
sometimes were a hassle in Chicago, because an inspection had
to find the house up to all codes, which often required the seller do
some work, making VA buyers less desirable.

--Vic

Vic, the numbers I used in an earlier post are accurate.
--
John H

GI Bill
 

On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 12:08:57 -0500, John H.
wrote:


Vic, the numbers I used in an earlier post are accurate.

Hadn't seen that, but I expect you know it well.

--Vic

GI Bill
 

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.

GI Bill
 

John H. wrote:
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 11:52:40 -0500, Gene Kearns
wrote:

On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 11:32:10 -0500, John H. penned the following well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

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.

IMHO, this should be a payment based on actual costs for education. I
see students every day that have no interest in the subject matter,
but if they don't use the (using your figures) GI bill they have, at
$1100 a month, they will lose it.

Over the course of the 2 year program their education costs will run
about $225 per month... they will pocket the $875/month as profit.

91.5% of statistics are made up as the speaker talks, this 7:1 benefit
seems to be one of them.....

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.

Agree with all.



Most first level schools are in the $35,000 - $40,000 a year range.

GI Bill
 

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.

GI Bill
 

On Feb 13, 11:43*am, Tim wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

.



Once again, the Korean and Vietnam vets get it tucked straight up the
ass.

Moron.

Tucked?

how about "CRAMMED!"

Or replace the "t" with an "f"......

GI Bill
 

On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 11:05:51 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 11:57:19 -0500, John H.
wrote:



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.


That's a lot better than I understood it to be back when.

--Vic

Actually, I don't know what the total entitlement was for Vietnam era vets.
I used the hell out of the GI Bill, but it was for master's programs at
night school. I was never a full time student on the GI Bill, so they
reimbursed only the actual tuition expenses.

I went to college on the Army's 'Undergraduate Degree Completion Program'
which was a hell of a good deal. The Army paid my salary, with allowances,
all the tuition and book costs, and gave me an additional $100 a month for
typing, paper, etc. That was a way to get officers with only a high school
education a degree.
--
John H

GI Bill
 

On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 12:29:35 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is
Here wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 11:52:40 -0500, Gene Kearns
wrote:

On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 11:32:10 -0500, John H. penned the following well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

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.

IMHO, this should be a payment based on actual costs for education. I
see students every day that have no interest in the subject matter,
but if they don't use the (using your figures) GI bill they have, at
$1100 a month, they will lose it.

Over the course of the 2 year program their education costs will run
about $225 per month... they will pocket the $875/month as profit.

91.5% of statistics are made up as the speaker talks, this 7:1 benefit
seems to be one of them.....

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.

Agree with all.



Most first level schools are in the $35,000 - $40,000 a year range.

Well, George Mason University may not be a 'first level' school, but it
does have a pretty good reputation around here, and elsewhere. It is a
state school, and the cost quoted do not include living expenses.

I don't think the GI Bill should provide for Yale type tuition.
--
John H

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.