There's a plan in Congress to start charging troops for their GI Bill benefits

So this draft came from the House Veterans Affairs Committee, the linked story puts it on the chairman Phil Roe. What we don't know is if this was designed by the rest of the committee or if this is just him trying to make a name for himself (in that position) since he had just got the job in January.

Most drafts never even make it to a vote but if this one does hopefully it gets shot down.

originally posted by: ketsuko
Maybe we should start investigating why the cost of tuition is so high and we'll come back around to the government writing blank checks via student loans.

Perhaps we should start our cutting there?

Student loans aren't really an issue. Decades ago, states and the feds were subsidizing huge chunks of university budgets. Loans aren't additional free money, it's just shifting things around so that only people who use colleges are paying for them rather than the general population.

a reply to: Aazadan

No, since the government is playing the bill, the university is pricing the tuition into government pockets. Has government ever said, "Now wait, I think that $50,000/year in tuition and fees is ridiculous and I won't pay for that?" Nope. They simply approve the loan.

It's the student who graduates with a buttload of debt and no prospects to pay it off who gets burned by it, not the government.

And for the ones who can pay it off, the government gets double taxation -- annual taxes AND loan payments for often well more than 10 years.

As it has been stated before, the GI BILL was never free. I joined the Airforce in 1993 at which time the GI BILL was offered at $100 dollars per month for one year. After the payments were complete the Airforce turned that $1,200 into $12,000 as the total benefit. A despicable amount in my opinion and I just didn't see the value in it.

The Army at that time was giving as I recall somewhere around $38,000+!! I had no desire to join the Army (wanted civilian applicable job training) and had entered the Airforce with an Associates degree giving me the rank of E-3 after basic.

Say what you want about Obama, but he did push to give the Veterans Administration funds in excess of 80 billion dollars.

Personally I became, and still am, involved with VA programs that still exist as a result of that funding. The ONLY thing I appreciate is that I'm able to help and support my fellow vets.

The REAL problem is the VA bureaucracy and staff. All that money mostly went to facility improvements and the construction of new facilities.
I'm currently under the most basic care the VA provides. No dental aside from them yanking your teeth out so they can give you dentures and be done with it. No fillings, no crowns, no cleanings.
I have a serious ongoing knee problem, service related, and I was scheduled for surgery as it is repairable, but I'm not covered for that type of care so they gave me a brace to wear for the rest of my life apparently. Unreal.

My personal experience and the stories I hear DAILY is f#ked up.
Vets make up a very small percentage of the population, and I don't want it all or feel entitled, I and others just want to be treated fairly. Just because some didn't RETIRE from the military shouldn't mean we are less than a human f#king being.

a reply to: Aazadan

Ketsuko mentioned that as well which I didn't address yet so will now. I agree college costs too much and while we live in a capitalist society there's gotta be reasonable solution to bringing the costs down or raising the standard of living up.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Aazadan

No, since the government is playing the bill, the university is pricing the tuition into government pockets. Has government ever said, "Now wait, I think that $50,000/year in tuition and fees is ridiculous and I won't pay for that?" Nope. They simply approve the loan.

It's the student who graduates with a buttload of debt and no prospects to pay it off who gets burned by it, not the government.

And for the ones who can pay it off, the government gets double taxation -- annual taxes AND loan payments for often well more than 10 years.

The government always paid the bill. As they pull out from directly subsidizing tuition costs, they've instead paid the loans that cover tuition costs. From the colleges perspective it's basically the exact same thing.

a reply to: EternalShadow

This is in reference only to the post-9/11 GI Bill which is supposed to be free.

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: Kali74

Jesus, a 100 a month? I remember I paid a one time fee, about 1000 if I remember right.

Thanks Trump and the GOP! Scummmmmbagsss!!!!!!!!!

We got money for days to fuel more war and teh MIC, give tax cuts for the wealthy but everyone else is constantly being screwed.

Trump and the GOP, along with establishment Dem's, all of you will rot in Hell!

There is no hell or punishment for evil men after death. If we are going to punish them it has to be done now, while they are alive,
when it really maters.

Mankind: still blowing it at every chance we get.

a reply to: MOMof3

The number of people that voted against their own interests is depressing.

a reply to: Aazadan

And if they stopped doing that or capped what they would loan per semester?

Maybe it would put some pressure on the universities to reign in costs because they can't just expect the student loan mill to cover whatever increases they propose.

Have none of you ever noticed that when government steps in to make something affordable, it rapidly becomes unaffordable for pretty much everyone, even those who could afford it before? That's not a coincidence.

a reply to: ketsuko

Isn't that anti-capitalist though?

The Montgomery GI Bill cost me 1200. This isn't new, and 100 bucks sounds better than 1200.

Edit:
It all depends on the term of the payment. Longer term mean more paid in. But it may also mean an increase over time who would make it more expensive than the Montgomery.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Blueracer

Many young enlisted troops have to go on food stamps as it is if they have a family. Taking another $100 a month is going to make it even worse.

Exactly what I was thinking. I served in the Army for 10 years. $100 might not sound like a lot to many people, but to a young GI, especially one with a wife and maybe some kids, that actually represents a significant amount of their income per month.

a reply to: Kali74

I agree.

Next, when no one voluntarily joins, then comes the draft-with no vet benefits. What are we turning into? A fascist government?

Cut out all that fat in our spending-no PBS artist give-a-ways, all that junk.

Our vets are shamed every day and now being killed in the Middle East-We have no business there-Ever visited a vet hospital? I was in the USO at the end of Viet Nam-you will hate war. A whole generation of destroyed young men. And disgusting conditions. We must take care of our protectors.

We will have millions leave the US if this kind of thinking even exists in those hallowed halls by men who are too old to remember.

a reply to: Kali74

I dont see what the problem is. This isn't a socialist/commie country. If people want something they have to pay for it.

a reply to: Kali74

The pioneers of a warless world are the youth who refuse military service - Albert Einstein

Todays youth should take heed of governments intentions, they are fodder for the military / industrial complex's intentions.

a reply to: Kali74

No.

No more than when you get a credit card and it has a limit.

And, of course, having the government involved in the market in the first place is anti-capitalist because the government is not constrained by the same constraints as an actual business. Government, as we can see by the existence of an every growing debt and deficit, can operate in the red with impunity. It has no shareholders it is actually beholden to in any meaningful way, does not have produce any actual return on its investments, and when it needs more money, it can always legally steal it from existing private sources like you, me, and private business interests in the form of ever increasing taxation.

No private business can play by those rules and actually expect to stay in business.

This is why government entering any market always distorts it so badly.

a reply to: projectvxn

Right but we're talking about the post 9-11 GI Bill which isn't supposed to cost you anything.

a reply to: ketsuko

The flaw I see is that if a government is going to exist, it has to buy things... right? So how does government stay out of the market?