Military Officers Association of America endorses Webb’s GI Bill.
By on Jun 10th, 2008 at 9:48 am
Military Officers Association of America endorses Webb’s GI Bill.
The Military Officers Association of America (MOAA) has announced that it “strongly supports” Sen. Jim Webb’s (D-VA) 21st Century GI Bill. MOAA said they “understand the concerns of those who would prefer to see enhanced GI Bill benefits tied to extended military service” but “the GI Bill has always been a veterans’ benefit, not a military retention benefit“:
MOAA is, indeed, concerned about the serious potential for a retention downturn among today’s forces, but believes strongly that any such downturn will be due to too-frequent extended combat tours and family separations that have been imposed on a too-small force.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Health Care
Hoffman
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
It is only fair to give the military the GI Bill benefits.
June 10th, 2008 at 9:52 amMcCain’s argument against it is short-sighted and hypocritical — but what else have we come to expect from him?
Why does the military hate the military so much?
So, let’s see… in the past year, not only has McCain actively opposed a well-deserved series of benefits for veterans, he’s also opposed a bill that would have raised the pay for actively serving military personnel.
Way to support the military, John…..
June 10th, 2008 at 9:58 amI suspect this is because the Military Officers Association of America is capable of doing basic math. While they may acknowledge that there will be some troops who would prefer to leave at the end of their enlistments and go to school instead of re-upping, this will be more than offset by the number of fresh recruits they will get.
And the recruits they get will be fairly intelligent, ambitious, enthusiastic young men and women who are attracted by a benefit that helps them meet their life goals. In other words, the kind of recruit our military wants. Instead of criminals and others who can’t get a job anywhere else.
Yep — the MOAA appears to have more brains than GOP Senators. Of course, they are free to operate on common sense, and they aren’t beholden to a criminal political party.
June 10th, 2008 at 10:00 am#2, Damm Yooooouuuuuuu!!!!!!!
You beat me to it. According to the GOP, The Military Officers Association of America hate America.
Gee, How’s that working for you Sen. McCain?
June 10th, 2008 at 10:01 amI’ve known several people who were promised the GI Bill, but discovered that there were ridiculous conditions attached to their service that caused them to end up with nothing.
I hope Webb’s bill also fixes those sorts of problems. Because what good is a GI Bill that doesn’t actually work?
June 10th, 2008 at 10:03 amGive Sen. McCain a day — he’ll claim he’s always supported Webb’s bill.
In the meantime: BOO-YAH!!
June 10th, 2008 at 10:03 amMcCain is gonna loooooooose!!!!! everything that comes out of his mouth is full of fail!
June 10th, 2008 at 10:10 amFinally a veterans group that is not being pandered to by oldman johnny and they back a G.I. bill with some fortitude that will make a difference to the brave men and women who serve our country.What is really applalling is the fact that old man johnny didn`t even bother to show up and vote but Hillary and Obama did, Sen. Kennedy couldn`t for obvious reasons and one other Senator was at a funeral and old man johnny was to damn busy to vote. I hope you losers on the Reich are proud of him for not showing up to vote,our soldiers will remember this in November!!!!!!!!
June 10th, 2008 at 10:14 amunbelievable Says
June 10th, 2008 at 10:03 am
I hope Webb’s bill also fixes those sorts of problems. Because what good is a GI Bill that doesn’t actually work?
__________________________________________
It does what our leaders want it to do — give recruiters a selling point to get people to sign up, but like bait-and-switch scams, minimizes actual payout as much as possible (hmmm…I think there are health insurers that operate this way as well).
The problem is that this only works until people get wise to the scam.
What we really need is a G.I. Bill that actually works. Not just because it’s the right thing to do from a moral standpoint (which it is), but because building a well-educated middle class workforce filled with veterans will benefit our economy. It always has.
June 10th, 2008 at 10:16 amHere in MN, we had a National Guard unit return from ‘extended’ tours of duty in Iraq. They were told they didn’t qualify for GI benefits, because the active duty requirement of 730 days was not met…they served 729 days!
June 10th, 2008 at 10:19 amSen. Amy Klobuchar went to bat for these kids immediately, along with Rep. Earl Pomeroy & Sen. Byron Dorgan. The Army eventually waived that decision, but my point is ‘certain people’ don’t really want our soldiers to get educational benefits from serving. These people never really come out to explain why they’re against it, but prefer backrooms, private calls and secret meetings to coordinate their efforts.
Good for the MOAA! Did they all do ‘terrorist fist bumps’ after their decision?
Looks like the MOAA is another “terrurst Group”, according to BushCo and Johnny Boy, the ex-Aircraft crasher.
BTW, isn’t he also a member or past member of MOAA? HMMMMMM!
June 10th, 2008 at 10:27 amI believe the MOAAs stand does a good job of explaining that the difference of bills is about more than money or helping veterans. It’s about Iraq.
I believe that opponents of the Webb bill oppose it because they are concerned about staffing levels and want to structure veteran’s benefits to promote retention.
The MOAA makes a good point when it questions that premise.
But, opponents to the Webb bill are still committed to staffing Iraq. As the MOAA points out, they have cause to be concerned.
I agree with the MOAA that we shouldn’t tie veteran’s benefits to retention. But, without doing that, it seems that we are forcing our hand to withdrawal.
It’s not about money. It’s not that republicans hate veterans. It’s about wanting to fulfill the obligations in Iraq.
The question seems to be, “Do we continue to ask our veterans to give more to pursue Iraq” or “Lacking the troop strength, do we begin a forced withdrawal regardless of the conditions”.
The MOAA makes a strong argument. Those that want to continue Iraq, have to find another way. Without some compelling arguments to continue to staff the effort in Iraq, it’s becoming increasingly difficult to justify the continued overuse of our current military members.
Justify the continuation. Recruit more. Or start planning the withdrawal.
June 10th, 2008 at 10:31 amVeterans for Obama!
June 10th, 2008 at 10:41 amI don’t believe this was an accident either.
June 10th, 2008 at 10:43 amUh-oh, Bushies – you know you’re in BI-I-I-I-I-G trouble when the cannon fodder starts thinking for themselves…
June 10th, 2008 at 10:52 amVeto it, you criminal bastard. Then McIIIrd will be tied with barbed wire to your sorry ass for the duration of the election cycle.
June 10th, 2008 at 11:25 ambackup Says:
I believe the MOAAs stand does a good job of explaining that the difference of bills is about more than money or helping veterans. It’s about Iraq
Poor dear, thinks he’s still relevant, and that anyone cares what he has to say.
You have lost the right to voice an opinion, after being so wrong all these years.
You are an unserious intellect, and should be ignored.
June 10th, 2008 at 11:50 amWhen Cheney was told of the endorsement he said, “So.”
June 10th, 2008 at 11:53 amOBAMA/WEBB ‘08
_AIO_
June 10th, 2008 at 12:56 pmMcSame is like all Rethuglicans, a greedy sob.
June 10th, 2008 at 1:34 pmbarfly. Quite possible. But, don’t let your myopic focus of discrediting those that disagree with you, rob you of your own relevance.
The thread seems to be about the MOAA and their position on the Webb bill. I took a stab at it in my post. Now, how about something relevant from you.
June 10th, 2008 at 2:02 pmmissmolly.
you’re right.
June 10th, 2008 at 2:12 pmBut, don’t let your myopic focus of discrediting those that disagree with you, rob you of your own relevance.
The thread seems to be about the MOAA and their position on the Webb bill. I took a stab at it in my post. Now, how about something relevant from you.
How childish. Did you think turning it around would somehow make you relevant? Your opinions are worthless. And you have no right to offer them at this late date. You had years of chances to offer your concern, but it’s only when your side is about to lose power that you’re suddenly concerned about the issues. Too little, too late, my little intellectual fraud.
June 10th, 2008 at 2:59 pmI apologize if, at some point in our discussions, you got your feelings hurt. That was never my intention.
Although, I still hold out hope that we may someday overcome our differences and engage in a more meaningful exchange of ideas; please feel free to ignore my irrelevant postings, in the meantime.
June 10th, 2008 at 3:37 pmOnly Possible Explanation: if you scramble the letters of the Military Officer’s Association of America it spells I love Osama.
Clearly a terrorist group set out to destroy the military.
June 10th, 2008 at 5:46 pm