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?
 >> Stay informed about: GI Bill 

On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 08:22:34 -0600, Vic Smith
<thismailautodeleted RemoveThis @comcast.net> 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.
 >> Stay informed about: GI Bill 

On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 16:01:14 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
<email.RemoveThis@swsports.org> wrote:

>On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 08:22:34 -0600, Vic Smith
><thismailautodeleted.RemoveThis@comcast.net> 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
 >> Stay informed about: GI Bill 

On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 16:01:14 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
<email DeleteThis @swsports.org> wrote:

>On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 08:22:34 -0600, Vic Smith
><thismailautodeleted DeleteThis @comcast.net> 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
 >> Stay informed about: 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!"
 >> Stay informed about: GI Bill 

On Feb 13, 11:43 am, Tim <tschna... DeleteThis @gmail.com> 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"......
 >> Stay informed about: GI Bill 

On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 11:32:10 -0500, John H.
<jherringnumericalone RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 16:01:14 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
><email RemoveThis @swsports.org> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 08:22:34 -0600, Vic Smith
>><thismailautodeleted RemoveThis @comcast.net> 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
 >> Stay informed about: GI Bill 

"Vic Smith" <thismailautodeleted.RemoveThis@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:nu56r3hheflnjjfhg4v0i01oteu6acl36i@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 16:01:14 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
> <email.RemoveThis@swsports.org> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 08:22:34 -0600, Vic Smith
>><thismailautodeleted.RemoveThis@comcast.net> 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
 >> Stay informed about: GI Bill 

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
><email RemoveThis @swsports.org> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 08:22:34 -0600, Vic Smith
>><thismailautodeleted RemoveThis @comcast.net> 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.

--

Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC.

Homepage
http://pamandgene.idleplay.net/

Rec.boats at Lee Yeaton's Bayguide
http://www.thebayguide.com/rec.boats
 >> Stay informed about: GI Bill 

On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 10:35:49 -0600, Vic Smith
<thismailautodeleted.TakeThisOut@comcast.net> wrote:

>On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 11:32:10 -0500, John H.
><jherringnumericalone.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 16:01:14 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
>><email.TakeThisOut@swsports.org> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 08:22:34 -0600, Vic Smith
>>><thismailautodeleted.TakeThisOut@comcast.net> 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
 >> Stay informed about: GI Bill 

On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 11:38:45 -0500, "Eisboch" <rce RemoveThis @nowhere.com> 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
 >> Stay informed about: GI Bill 

On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 11:52:40 -0500, Gene Kearns
<gene.boating.TakeThisOut@myworkshop.idleplay.net> 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
>><email.TakeThisOut@swsports.org> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 08:22:34 -0600, Vic Smith
>>><thismailautodeleted.TakeThisOut@comcast.net> 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
 >> Stay informed about: 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.
 >> Stay informed about: GI Bill