Abrupt end of college tuition help angers military spouses

[unhappycamper]

Abrupt end of college tuition help angers military spouses
By Les Blumenthal, McClatchy Newspapers
Stars and Stripes online edition, Sunday, March 28, 2010

WASHINGTON — With her husband deployed in Iraq with a Stryker brigade from Washington state's Joint Base Lewis-McChord, 20-year-old Lauren Silva isn't your typical college student. But when it comes to finding money for tuition, books and other expenses, she's not so different.

Silva has scrambled to apply for scholarships and loans to pay for classes at the University of Washington-Tacoma, where she's a junior studying social work. She thought part of her financial problems were solved when she learned of a Defense Department program that pays military spouses $6,000 to help them with their education. Yet just as Silva prepared to apply earlier this year, the military abruptly shut the program down.

The Pentagon was overwhelmed by the number of applicants, which had grown from an average of about 10,000 a month to 70,000 in January alone as the nation's economy continued to sputter. Money for the Military Spouse Career Advancement Accounts program, known as MyCAA, was rapidly running out. Rather than ask Congress for more cash, Pentagon officials decided to close the program to new applicants and stop payments to those who were already enrolled.

"This was probably, in my view, a mistake," Defense Secretary Robert Gates told the Senate Appropriations Committee's defense subcommittee last week, adding that while he expected the program to resume, it eventually could end up costing $1 billion to $2 billion.

Gates said the Pentagon had budgeted $61 million for the program in the current fiscal year and had requested $65 million in the next fiscal year.


Rest of article at: http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=68980

[ThomWV]

1. Every dollar spent on education returns more than a dollar to the treasury over tme

And it seems to be the natural course of events with our Government to kill a program that unexpectedly works.

[awoke_in_2003]

44. probably more than that

When I graduated in 98, I was making $12 an hour (15.72 in 2009 dollars). Because of that piece of paper, my pay immediately jumped $5 an hour, and I now make $32 an hour. I am definitely returning more that dollar for dollar.

[secondwind]

2. The irony is astounding. $1 million/yr for a soldier in Afghanistan and this

woman cannot get help to finish her studies! (I know her husband is in Iraq)

[Roland99]

3. Why dos the Pentagon hate Americans?

[LiberalFighter]

4. I don't approve of military spouses or children receiving special education benefits.

If every citizen is not eligible than it should be restricted to just those in the military and children of military killed while on duty.
Again, it should only apply to military personnel and children of military killed while on duty.

Maybe there is something missing about the program I don't know. There wasn't enough in the article to convince me.

[Confusious]

5. Boy, I have no idea what to say.

Most people in the military are underpaid and come from poor backgrounds and by extension, their families are poor too. They are gone a lot and risk their lives which puts a lot of stress on them and their families, and you think it's too much to give a little for their education.

I guess I could say a lot about that and your attitude, but the post would probably be deleted.

[wroberts189]

10. When I was in the military I did not consider myself poor.

I bought stereos ..tv's ..ate very well.

Once you make E-4 in a few years you are earning enough to earn a "living wage"

Add in free dental,medical,free chow hall three times a day and living quarters (or an additional pay allowance if married) and it is a good deal compared to a dead end job in the private sector.

And last I heard you family is covered with HC benefits as well. Also inexpensive life insurance in case you die. When I was in it was 200k. Plus retirement after 20 years.

Then there are always re-up bonuses.

Now I nor my spouse get none of that. Now that I am out.

But I am all for it ... *but* allow us struggling to get by get the same benefits. I would love 6k to go back to school.

[Thothmes]

43. Neither did I as long as I remained single.

Once I was married with kids, it got real tough real quick. Not an uncommon problem for young enlisted. So even qualify for the food stamp and WIC programs.

[nadinbrzezinski]

48. You were an officer right?

Otherwise I'd say you are lying

When hubby retired from the Navy as a Chief we did the math, it came to 60K

Of course for the lower enlisted they were on food stamps if they were off base, and if they were married they were on WIC and other social assistance programs.

So I call bullshit.

[wroberts189]

59. I was a spec 4 or E-4 ..and I was alowed to live off post due to a lack of rooms.

They paid me extra .. a lot extra for it. A housing and meal allowance. I could still eat at the chow hall for a couple bucks.


But I was single as a poster above pointed out .. having kids may have been a different story..

One other thing ... you got a cola raise every year ... maybe 1-2%

[Statistical]

56. You are aware that at current pay scale a E-4 dependents qualify for WIC

I think by the very definition is you are qualifying for public assistance you are not rich.

[wroberts189]

60. No I did not .. but I was not pumping out babies like a lot of others were. nt

[patrice]

15. No Draft. They CHOSE to join. If it's all about money and they could do better elsewhere, they

shouldn't join.

Their pay should probably be better, but they also receive absolute job security and health benefits that most Americans can only dream of.

You're talking about INSTITUTIONALIZING a career fast track for persons most likely to support federal budgets based on almost 50% of all revenues going to the military, which they have for a few decades now, so they get not only the lion's share of revenues in this country but also guaranteed futures with educationa and (covert) job placement preferments. I say that is institutionally supported prejudice.

[SolidGold]

61. Just like in the public sector, education benefits are a bargaining chip

I'm not for or against, just pointing it out.

Even shitty jobs at UPS will pay 50% of schooling and generally you don't get in deaths way. (although i am sure some would argue)

[patrice]

91. I have loaded trucks at UPS, getting in "death's" way . . . yep!!

[Confusious]

88. absolute job security and health benefits

absolute job security until they die by a bullet at a young age

health benefits ( Sorry can't do anything about that bullet wound or missing leg)

If it's all about money and they could do better elsewhere

Most small towns in America the only place you can find a job is the military, and that's the way it's been for the past 10 years.

You're talking about INSTITUTIONALIZING a career fast track

It's already INSTITUTIONALIZED. Ever hear of the GI bill? There since 1945. It made the middle class.

persons most likely to support federal budgets based on almost 50% of all revenues going to the military

You have absolutely no evidence of that.

guaranteed futures with educationa and (covert) job placement preferments.

They put their lives on the line.

I say that is institutionally supported prejudice.

This is a joke right? Otherwise it's just really sad. People serve their country for low pay and risk their lives, maybe to never have a boyfriend, girlfriend, family, grandchildren, or come back physically or emotionally scarred, or both, and you begrudge them the little they do get.

and who said shit about a draft?

As I said before, I have a few choice words for you, but this post would be deleted if I said them.

[patrice]

93. You prove my point: Non-Military Americans are judged as LESS than Military. It is our job to PAY

for whatever the Military wants, even if I/we, short of an invasion of CONUS, have no desire for what they do.

We are War Slaves.

[Cid_B]

94. Silly at best...

Military merely receive credit for what they have accomplished. If I left the Army today and went to apply for a job I would expect them to recognize that I have certain skills and experiences that a civilian would not have been exposed to. A potential employer would be able to see that I have strong management/leadership skills, ability to perform under a deadline and under pressure. I can give orders and take them. I understand chain of command. I have the ability to learn a technical skill. The list goes on and on.

These skills are not a given for anyone coming out of the military but are more likely to be found in a vet rather than a keyboard commando who spent his 20's smoking pot and working at the Stop 'n Go.

In the same way if I went to apply for a job that required photoshop mastery I wouldn't expect to be hired as I am barely proficient.

Again, it is just credit where credit is due.

All of our taxes go to something we disagree with. Get used to it or complain to your congressman if it bothers you. That's your right.

[ThomWV]

6. I would agree with you except that the families of service person pay a price too

and this is small repayment. Consider the effect it would have on most people's lives if their spouse were to be yanked away now and then for a year or more at a time.

Also, keep in mind, military pay stinks.

[LiberalFighter]

7. Then military pay needs to improve.

What are the benefits that they receive now for single and married military personnel?

Do they receive health benefits?
Do they receive merchandise at reduced prices? Or have the PXs been eliminated?
Do military personnel receive free education?
Do they receive free travel back home when on leave? From what I recall this might be something that should be improved upon.

[nadinbrzezinski]

54. Some answers

What are the benefits that they receive now for single and married military personnel?

Do they receive health benefits?

Yes it is called needs of the service, and until relatively recently the medical personnel of higher rank were not precisely the best. That is until a wife found how to sue the Navy.


Do they receive merchandise at reduced prices? Or have the PXs been eliminated?

The PXs are a good deal to a point. Having used it from time to time I know that they have not been that much more of an advantage for some time. Also they are critical to deliver certain goods and services to places like oh Bagram Base. Or would you rather this be done by I don't know Blackwater?

One example... electronics, they are priced one way by the companies. The "break" the PX gets is that sometimes they get a couple bucks off, and of course it is tax free. But more than once it is advisable to check on the price on base and off base. More than once the prices off base are better. We call them sales you know.

Oh and the PX there is another reason, it is YOUR local Ralphs for the military family, and even with the good deals, you know the amount of people who use FOOD STAMPS? Hell, when I have gone to the PX near the end of the month I have found myself buying milk and other goodies for lower enlisted who can't afford that stuff for the little ones. It comes from the special chief's fund (yes it is budgeted for) that many upper rank members and retired happen to have.

Oh and by the way the PX system is a NOT FOR PROFIT system. But I am sure you knew that.


Do military personnel receive free education?

The Montgomery GI Bill gives a soldier up to ten years to take advantage of it, and most of the time it will cover, best case 50% of the cost. The new GI bill is better since it's been modeled on another GI bill you may be more familiar with, post WW II. The return on investment on that one for the nation was huge. Are you making the same argument the GOP tried to make that this was a waste of money?

As to in service training, again goes with the needs of the service, but for officers it requires two years of service for each year of education we give them. So a flag officer who does a 30 year career, well think of a military academy and a MA or PhD, and you will understand that part of that service is to pay for that schooling by actually serving. The same goes for enlisted Specialties hence some specialties require a minimum six year contract because they are very technical, while others require three (see infantry troop) since they are not that technical, and you can have that trooper in the field within 13 months, and one three to four term is enough to get your money's worth from training that soldier.

What you think the military does not have a return on investment analysis?

Do they receive free travel back home when on leave? From what I recall this might be something that should be improved upon.

No, not all the time, and the allowances are not where they should be. We have found ourselves helping service members get back home. We have also bought a soldier, sailor, marine, airman or coastie food at airports. Somebody did that for my husband way back early in his career. But I am sure this is just strange to you.

[Obamanaut]

8. Military pay is not nearly as bad as some people think. If one adds

in the subsistence allowance, housing allowance, and considers the tax advantage, overall it isn't too bad.

http://militarypay.defense.gov/pay/bp/01_activeduty.html

There is a calculator at this site (in addition to the various pay tables for basic pay, allowances, etc). I typed in an E5 with 4 years, family size of 2, average CONUS, and it gave me $50,000.

[Angleae]

14. You should try single enlisted.

They don't get allowances. They live in the dorms and eat in the mess hall (neither are too appealing).

[flying rabbit]

46. True that

one of the main reasons I got out.

[Angleae]

47. Me too

[Obamanaut]

62. I retired in 1988. I knew many junior enlisted (E4) who lived off

base, and they were single. They rec'd BAH (housing allowance) at the "single rate" as well as BAS (subsistence.) If they wanted to eat in the dining hall, they paid by the meal.

ETA The basic pay chart at the link provided earlier shows the base pay for an E4 under 4 at nearly $2,000/month. He/she pays no medical expenses, dental, can eat free, has no rent expense.

The example I used for the single E4 living off base does not apply when we went to sea (I was in the Navy.) We all lived on a ship then.

[nadinbrzezinski]

51. WOW have things improved that much from oh 2004 when hubby retired?

He was an E-7 and we got 50K

Oh did I mention that was after 21 years of service?

[Statistical]

57. Well E-5 in most branches is a non commissioned officer.

Most don't make it in 4 years (it is possible. I made E-5 in 3.5 years, some make it even faster) but a LOT of soldiers don't make E-5 in 4 years (at least in the Army).

[Obamanaut]

63. During my Navy career I knew many who made E5 in under four

years. It is possible.

[Statistical]

64. It certainly is possible but I wouldn't was it is routine or an entitlement.

Simply enlisting for 4+ years is no guarantee you will end up at E-5+.

Now E-4 that is almost an entitlement. Keep your nose clean, know your job and you will make E-4.

[Obamanaut]

76. You're right, there are no guarantees re advancement. I picked

that as an example to reenforce my statement that military pay isn't all that bad. For example, I retired E9 with 28 years. The calculator at the site I gave earlier gives pay for that at over $108,000, with base pay in the $6,000 range.

[Statistical]

77. Yeah as you get up the ranks it is a living wage.

Those first few years especially for young soldiers with families on E1-E4 pay can be rough though.

[Obamanaut]

78. I did not start at E9. The thing to do involves prudence - do not

start a family until you can afford it. This can apply to all walks of life, not just military and the first few pay grades.

[Statistical]

79. Oh I agree. I have no kids yet and I already got out of the military (E-6).

Still I knew a lot of soldiers who felt "having a family" is the right thing to do.
Societal and family pressures can be a lot especially on the young.

Pretty sad when I as an NCO had to help a junior soldier fill out paperwork for WIC so his family could eat properly.

[Cid_B]

11. Yeah... military families get all the breaks..

freakin moochers

:eyes: :sarcasm:

[951-Riverside]

17. Many women marry men in the military for the benefits...

So you're kind of right. :eyes: :sarcasm:

[Cid_B]

65. So?

Just because a few are looking for a ticket to the golden PX doesn't mean other families are any less deserving...

[nadinbrzezinski]

52. Tell me about it

I had fun with all the moving...

:-)

And that is just an example.

[Cid_B]

9. Last i heard...

this program is set to be reinstated but will not accept new applicants.

[laughingliberal]

12. Yay! A NEW group of welfare queens people can blame shit on!

When do we learn?

[patrice]

13. Tuition assistance/career advancement for folks pre-disposed to support Militarism is ok as long as

it equals tuition assistance/career advancement for folks not pre-disposed to support Militarism.

[Dappleganger]

18. Not even close.

Many of these families come from dirt POOR areas of the country and the only way OUT is to join the military. They're not joining out of some insane desire to conquer the world, shoot up some ragheads or become a Rambo wannabe. They know it's a steady job (where else can you find that in this economy?), good bennies and possibly a chance to go to college which otherwise they wouldn't have even dreamed of before.

The only thing which would equalize this is a DRAFT.

[patrice]

21. Okay, so the criteria is bieng POOR? Why discriminate in favor of the Military Poor?

[Dappleganger]

24. Straw man.

They joined because they come from poor towns or families.

This will by my last reply to you on this topic.

[patrice]

31. You're the one who said they deserve it because they are Poor; that makes it your Straw Man.

[patrice]

23. Tell me exactly what it is about the Military that makes them, all other factors being equal, more

deserving of this help than ANY other American?

[Dappleganger]

25. If you don't agree with military benefits...

stop paying your taxes. That'll show them!

[patrice]

27. I agree with MIlitary benefits. I disagree with others being DENIED the same "Socialism".

[Dappleganger]

30. Then call your congress critter and whine. nt

[patrice]

36. Whining is something I'd expect from a person who insults others rather than engaging the

issue by answering a few issue related questions.

[Cid_B]

49. The military...

works directly for and in support of the US government and thus receives benefits from the government.

Thats like walking off the street into Mc Donalds and asking for the 10% employee discount on a Big Mac. What did you do to earn it? Nothing....


edit: typo

[Raineyb]

83. Other countries manage to give the benefits that we save only for our military

personnel to ALL their citizens. Why do you think it's asking too much for ALL citizens to have such benefits?

Your attitude is part of the problem here. NO ONE should have to join the military to get these benefits in the first place. THAT would I think be the point of this sub thread.

[patrice]

86. This is something else isn't it. All these guys did was prove my point about PRIVILEGE.

Even though I yielded that they could have this benefit, the posters in this thread could not yield that OTHER Americans deserve as much too, just on the grounds that they ARE Americans. This country is supposed sacrifice the well being of the people now and for all time to come to the Military (because we're talking about education here and that means the future). My estimate of this reaction is a hypothesis no more; it's a fact. The U.S. Military is regarded as Holy. It has privileges (such as job guarantees and benefits) not accorded to regular citizens and we get to pay for all of it.

Royal privilege, It's something else to behold, isn't it.

[patrice]

90. No it's not.We are talking about, Education, the means by which to create a livelihood, not lunch.

Why don't you just go ahead and admit that you're scared of someone, whom YOU judge as "not worthy", is going to get something, for what you think of as "nothing". This is, apparently, a bad unacceptable thing to you, EVEN if said un-worthy person MAKES BETTER WITH THE OPPORTUNITY (produces more and better solutions and values for the whole group) than those whom YOU DEEM are "worthy" of whatever the opportunity is.

It appears the fact that someone is what you think is "un-worthy" of that education (or burger) is more important to you than the possibility that they might do more with it than your chosen privileged, and possibly mediocre, class. It's not about merit; it's about Position/CLASS.

That means you ASSUME the right and ability to Judge the value of human lives you have no actual knowledge of AND you assume the ability to predict all possible outcomes of a set of factors so big as to be, to all practical purposes, infinite.

In order to do that you'd have to think of yourself as either God or a King, which makes it pretty clear why you're into granting and defending PRIVILEGE, even for what COULD turn out to be Mediocrity, just as long as you/yours deem them "worthy".

[Cid_B]

95. I admit...

to defending rewards for people who have done something to earn them.

The shame and horror of it all.

There are only X amount of benefits and they can only be distributed so many ways. Makes sense to me to distribute them to people who have done something to earn them. IOW they are more likely to do something that "produces more and better solutions and values for the whole group" than a person who just has it handed to them.

Also, its not as if the military is the only place one can gain educational opportunities. Hell, there are opportunities for those who really have done nothing aside from be born. I see no need to draw away from those who have shown initiative to the benefit of those who haven't. Most especially when there are other opportunities outside of the military.

[patrice]

96. We agree on your first sentence, with one footnote: YOU do not have the EXCLUSIVE "right" to

define what the word "earn" means.

[patrice]

28. I disagree with Institutionalized Privelege.

[Dappleganger]

32. Ok then. nt

[Raineyb]

82. I guess I won't be seeing one. This is a piss poor answer to the question.

Of course I'm using the word "answer" rather loosely as you haven't actually answered the question.

[Raineyb]

81. I'd like to see a good answer to that question. n/t

[Cid_B]

85. I refer you to post #49...

Already answered...

[Raineyb]

92. I specified a GOOD answer. Post #49 simply doesn't qualify. And I've already

made a statement in rebuttal to that post.

[patrice]

87. I honestly thought I'd get one, but just got insults instead. wow.

[Dappleganger]

16. Here's one big reason why I support this free tuition.

Navy brat here, grew up in a Navy neighborhood with lots of retired too.

There are a lot of military families who break up for one reason or another (and that topic alone is an OP unto itself). Many military wives have NO training, no college and married right after high school. If they get divorced there is no way for them to get money for re-training or college tuition. Many, many military wives are very reluctant to leave because they cannot support themselves if they do, no would they every have a way to go to college on their own. When the spouse is gone they are a single parent 24/7/365--usually in a town far, far away from any family support wrt childcare. They do it alone.

These military spouses NEED this benefit to help them have a chance to support themselves or to add to their family's income when needed.

[patrice]

19. Okay as long as we decide to save ALL Americans from their own BAD CHOICES.

I'm very tired of this notion that all military are somehow holy. I'm a veteran. There's a LOT of military in my family. These are people just like the rest of us - LOOKING FOR A JOB.

On edit: typo

[Dappleganger]

22. They're not 'holy'

Wow, you sound so bitter.

They get the benefits because of the high risk factor. BTW, I have a feeling that if we weren't involved in multiple, illegitimate wars that your attitude would be a bit different. I don't support American imperialism at all but do believe that we owe military FAMILIES these benefits.

[patrice]

26. You say that they deserve special privileges on the grounds that they are Military alone. What do

you call that?

Yes, I'm bitter, we are a nation oppressed by MILITARISM.

These people CHOSE. They KNEW what they were chosing. If they could have done better elsewhere, they had a responsibility to choose elsewhere.

It isn't that I object to them receiving this kind of help, it's that I object to it being denied to other persons who are like them in all other regards, except that they didn't join the Military.

If you think they should be PRIVILEGED over ALL other Americans, for NO reason other than that they are Military, you need to step right up and admit that you regard them as better, holy, royal . . . whatever you want to call it, it IS Privelege.

[Dappleganger]

29. That argument is ridiculous.

Obviously you have no clue what it means to be in the military and I suspect you are too thick-headed to get it.

Being in the military does not equal militarism. These soldiers and their families have no choice whatsoever in military policy or American Imperialism. They are not pulling the strings.

But they will defend your right to ignorance to the very death, and defend your right to protest as well. As I said before, if you disagree so vehemently about what military benefits they get, then stop paying your taxes or move to another country.

[patrice]

33. Do you think that people in the Military vote for candidates more likely to support increased or

at least the same (50% of all Federal revenues) Military Budgets? Or do they support candidates who say something like "I think we spend too much money on something called 'national defense'".

Q. Who do you think it is that peoples War Profiteering Corporations and weapons lobbying and international arms merchants?
A. ex-Military.

Again, I have no objection to military spouses receiving this kind of support as long as it is given equally to non-military spouses on the basis of need.

[Cid_B]

50. Of course military vote in their interest..

That is what voting is for.

Do you think folks on welfare vote for more welfare? Of course

Do you think farmers vote for bigger subsidies and benefits for famers? Of course

Do you think left-handed red-headed people vote for left-handed red-headed benefits? Of course

What's your point?

You have no objection to people receiving benefits for work done as long as people who did nothing to earn those benefits receive them as well? Well golly, how gracious of you.

[patrice]

67. You asume that they have and could do nothing. Wrong. And what work is a spouse

doing that other spouses don't deserve credit for too?

AND, if people aren't working, maybe a few of them would work if they had appropriate education, and if work is so valuable, why is it okay to throw away the work of those who would work if there were appropriate jobs available and they had the skills necessary to get them?

Or is it REALLY just competition that you fear?

Remember, if those folks are disposable, so are you.

[Cid_B]

70. I think you are missing a basic point

The primary goal is not to educate spouses for the spouses benefit but rather for the Soldier's benefit.

IOW the Soldier can perform his mission (whatever is in the interest of the US govt) better if he knows his family is taken care of. Providing education benefits to a spouse accomplishes this. If PVT Snuffy knows his wife has a better job than she might have had without the education then he is better able to go out and do what Uncle Sam needs him to do and it is an incentive for him to continue to accmplish that mission next time reenlistment comes up.

[patrice]

71. I'd agree to all of that if there were the same kind of Conscientious Objection to War taxes that

there are for tax money that could go to Abortions.

Since there isn't, I have to say that this is INSTITTIONALIZED PRIVELEGE that favors and PERPETUATES into infinity certain kinds of work and, HENCE since there are "limited" resources, OPPRESSES other kinds of work.

[Cid_B]

75. I refer you to post #72

Take a few seconds... think about what you want to say and give it another shot.

In other words... WTF? As much as I'd love to have a conversation about "Conscientious Objection" that funds abortion and "PERPETUATES into infinity " I still think you need to take another shot at this one. I'll be back later to check your work.

[Cid_B]

72. You wanna give that another go?

I'll check back later and see if you've made some headway into that monstrosity you call a sentence.

In other words... WTF are you trying to say in that rambling mess? Competition from whom and for what? And who the fuck are you referring to as disposable? Military? Spouses? Civilians?

I'm sure it made sense in your head but give it another shot and I'll clear up the rest for you.

edit: typo

[patrice]

89. You assume that all of those fields are at equal states of systemic inertia, so advocates

in each start at the same point in the race for resources, when some indeed have a great deal more, much wider, and more deeply programmed power and start out in a position of advantage compared to other fields.

50% of ALL Federal revenues for more than 2 decades, not to count all of the Black Ops stuff, and DOE WEAPONS budgets, pretty much proves that the Military far out-classes the other areas that you list. It's a Black Hole of Power and it's too damned bad that all of that mojo is going to the top, to Cheney's buddies in the Pentagon and amongst the War Profiteers, rather than to the Troops who do the dying, but that's no justification to deny other Americans the same GOVERNMENT GUARANTEES, a.k.a. SOCIALISM, that the Military gets, because WE ARE the ones paying out the ass for ALL of it AND, Sad to Say, supplying the Cannon Fodder too for un-necessary wars of Choice to defend trans-national corporations' profit margins.

Now you go right ahead and tell me again. Admit that what you are saying is "Military are better/higher/more valuable than non-military Americans, so they deserve the privilege of more of our resources than other Americans."

[patrice]

34. Insults are THE sure sign of a Loser.

[nadinbrzezinski]

53. Holy? You got a problem, definitely you do

have a good fucking day, and welcome to my ignore list.

Jesus Christ on a crutch, get that fucking stone off your shoulder...

[patrice]

68. Oh God, I'm broken nadinbrzezinski put me on her ignore list! So you favor PRIVELEGE.

[patrice]

69. BTW, n-, you prove my point. There ARE things you MUST not think, let alone SAY, about US Military

That makes them Holy.

[patrice]

74. BTBTW, n-, do you think it possible that people with big Ignore Lists have a pretty frakking HIGH

opinion of themselves?

[kevinbgoode]

35. so....how many GLBT spouses of gay servicemembers

get this kind of assistance? And don't 20-30 million adult gay Americans pay taxes too?

[Dappleganger]

37. They should.

ALL spouses should get equal bennies, period. Of course that means they should be a spouse, and of course that won't happen until there are equal civil rights for ALL.

[nadinbrzezinski]

55. They should

you will not have anybody I know defend DADT.

And lord my hubby served with gay members... and he, or his shipmates, did not give a fuck as long as people did their job.

[Raineyb]

84. A lot of people marry right out of high school, have no training and end up divorced

or alone for some other reason trying to raise their children. They too do it alone. But we don't make it easy for them to improve their station. In fact, we make it more difficult and we call them names like "welfare queen" yet you seem to be making the argument that these women who you just argued made equally bad life choices should get help. That's fine but we don't do it for everyone and merely having made these bad choices because the person with whom or for whom the bad choices were made are military is not a good argument for this benefit.

I have no issues whatsoever with the notion of making money available for people who want to go back to school. But to argue that being a military spouse makes one more deserving of this type of benefit is ridiculous. And frankly, is probably part of the reason why our military is obnoxiously large in the first place. The last thing we need to do is continue to feed the beast when a smaller military and more domestic spending would benefit a hell of a lot more people than feeding the military to the detriment of everyone else in the country.

[kestrel91316]

20. Gates is an ass, but then that shouldn't surprise anyone. He's Bush's boy.

[Thothmes]

40. Your are wrong, He is Obama's boy.

Obama nominated him for SecDef and the Senate approved him for that post.

[kestrel91316]

41. Why am I thinking he was SecDef under Bush, also???

[Thothmes]

42. He was

He was confirmed in Dec 2006 as Bush's replacement for Rumsfelt.

[kestrel91316]

45. That's what I thought.

[Liberal_in_LA]

38. increase from 10K a month to 70k in apps is HUGE. I'm just saying...

:eyes:

[Taitertots]

39. More people complaining they don't get something for nothing

Oh no they will have to pay for college like EVERYONE else.

Why don't we just put them directly on the payroll?

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Selatius]

66. You can still get private loans. But federal assistance operates differently now.

That is, rather than pay student loan companies run by banks an incentive to give student loans to college students, the federal government cuts out the for-profit middle-man and simply offers loan money directly to college students, at lower cost. If you fill out a FAFSA form for federal assistance, you're likely affected by the change in law. However, if you simply went to private lenders for cash, you're not affected.

[madokie]

73. I'm not so sure as I can take this as fact

but thats just me

[lonestarnot]

80. So a DOD program, not VA?