wnyc.org / 93.9fm / am 820

Comments

• [1] darius from brooklyn July 01, 2008 - 12:30AM

  Thanks for all your work Paul!

  I've been against the war in Iraq from the beginning and I'm against the impending war with Iran but I recognize the benefits that have been earned by those in the military. Especially those who are stoploss. Everyone in our society should have access to a decent education.

  Please don't let Bush and McCain confuse people into thinking they supported the new GI bill when in fact they were the biggest opponents! Along with Lindsey Graham of SC who denounced the very premise the bill on the floor of the Senate. Bush couldn't even be bothered to recognize Chuck Hagel's contribution to the bill. Be proud and take credit where credit is due. Thanks Jim Webb.

  
  
• [2] David Hume from Staten Island, NY July 01, 2008 - 09:17AM

  Brian,

  Ask him about the 10 year expiration date. I paid in to my GI Bill and then never used it. 10 years has gone by, Can I do anything with it?

  David

  
  
• [3] hjs from 11211 July 01, 2008 - 10:03AM

  is mccain still against this bill?

  
  
• [4] chris o from New York City July 01, 2008 - 10:48AM

  It does strike me as a little over-generous that you can serve 3 years and be entitled to 4 years of paid college education. Of course, with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan going on, it is not too generous for the combat veterans of today and the last several years. But let's hope these won't go on forever.

  McCain was against this bill, I believe, because he thought you should serve 6 years to get the college benefit. I tend to agree with him. With only a three year requirement, too many people will want to get out right away after 3 years, especially with the wars raging.

  
  
• [5] Robert from NYC July 01, 2008 - 10:50AM

  McCain finally voted it with a grunt. He was not very happy with it but he talked about it yesterday as if he wrote the damn thing. You should have watched Olbermann's interview last night with Sen. Webb co-writer of the bill on McCain and this bill. Bush also touted McCain and a big supporter on this biill which he really wasn't (isn't)

  
  
• [6] Robert from NYC July 01, 2008 - 10:53AM

  I'm happy it finally got through. I don't know why people still join the armed services the way they get shafted is disgusting. These are people who put their lives on the line and get shafted by this government at every turn. John McCain was on the shafting end along with Bush and this is a guy who was a POW?

  
  
• [7] Steve from Manhattan July 01, 2008 - 11:09AM

  McCain and Bush tried to block the bill, then tried to take credit for it when they couldn't stop it.

  http://thinkprogress.org/2008/07/01/webb-bush-blew-it/

  McCain didn't even show up for the vote.

  
  
• [8] J July 01, 2008 - 11:12AM

  4 year degree? Does that only cover your presumably first BS/BA?

  
  
• [9] antonio from park slope July 01, 2008 - 11:12AM

  Hopefully THIS GI bill will allow people of color to take advantage of the same benefits whites were given in the original. (mortgage loans, college etc.)

  
  
• [10] clay williams from http://www.ultraclay.com July 01, 2008 - 11:13AM

  If veterans get into private colleges and universities, will the GI Bill pay towards that?

  Given the budget cutting at public universities around the country, how great a benefit are they getting?

  
  
• [11] chris o from New York City July 01, 2008 - 11:13AM

  It's pretty lame that McCain opposed the bill on a very supportable principle, then changed and voted for it. But Obama has been doing lame things lately, too.

  
  
• [12] Jeff H from Lincoln, Nebraska July 01, 2008 - 11:16AM

  What benefits will those in the military who already have a college education receive from this bill?

  
  
• [13] michael pidel from yonkers July 01, 2008 - 11:17AM

  does this new gi bill cover reservist and nation guard?

  there are many reservist in Iraq.

  the benefits for reservist and active duty are quite different.

  the reservist actually spend a longer tour of duty in iraq than the regular army.

  many of the reservist are on their second and third tour.

  hopefully they are included in this gi bill

  
  
• [14] darius from brooklyn July 01, 2008 - 11:21AM

  I have to agree with antonio...

  my grandfather and his 4 brothers served in WWII but couldn't take advantage of the GI Bill because of their race. My family considered it essentially affirmative action for white vets. We aren't surprised or angry about it anymore but it's humorous considering the fervor around affirmative action for women and minorities nowadays.

  I'm glad that Paul and Jim Webb have given the GI Bill a new legacy even if it not as "generous".

  
  
• [15] isaac from Harlem July 01, 2008 - 11:22AM

  There are already so many veterans from this 5-year-old war who are in college now. Is there any debt relief to vets who went back to college several years ago?

  
  
• [16] Christine from nyc July 01, 2008 - 11:23AM

  Did they approach the Private schools to see if they would do a deal with the vets?

  
  
• [17] chris o from New York City July 01, 2008 - 11:23AM

  thanks darius for the clarification; 12 years is way too much, i think 6 years sounds reasonable, although with the wars going on, since 2003, I could see 3 years being more than enough service to gain this benefit.

  
  
• [18] Barbara from Rockaway Beach, NY July 01, 2008 - 11:24AM

  I respect the bill and recognize that this is a small way in which our country can reward those who served. However, I feel that it is extremely wrong to lure people into joining the army for a benefit that should be available to all without the risks of loosing ones life. The reasons for which many young people are joining have nothing to do with patriotism. Enlisting in this case is erroneous and is merely for the benefit of getting education in this case. Many young people who are joining only to get education don't realize that they risk their lives.

  
  
• [19] bkershnar July 01, 2008 - 11:25AM

  I think the last caller who made the point about "full" benefits was actually referring to the time the veteran's are required to serve to receive these benefits. He mentioned that a soldier putting his/her life on the line for 6 months or even a year is a big sacrifice...and should therefore receive "full" benefits.

  
  
• [20] Fred from Hells Kitchen July 01, 2008 - 11:25AM

  You gentlemen aren't being completely honest. Conservatives opposed this bill. Most of them Republicans, many of them were Blue Dog Democrats. But Bush and McCain didn't want to give in until it was clear that they would lose -- only then did they cheer for it (shamelessly). Really, there are people who are right on this issue and people who are wrong. Tell us who.

  
  
• [21] Voter from Brooklyn July 01, 2008 - 11:25AM

  What about 5 year programs? Architecture and certain engineering programs, for instance.

  I agree almost whole heartily with #1. This is the absolute least we could do for our men and women serving in the armed forces.

  
  
• [22] Jade from NJ July 01, 2008 - 11:29AM

  It's ridiculous to suggest current vets should receive the same benefits as WWII vets. Or that they should receive benefits to go to private schools.

  By setting themselves above folks who are hurting here, the vets will create enemies. Times have changed. They already receive benefits (housing etc) that WWII vets never got.

  
  
• [23] Matt from NYC July 01, 2008 - 12:39PM

  What makes WW2 vets service more worth of compensation then current soldiers? The first GI bill allowed vets to attend private schools, although a lot has changed in higher education since then it seems to me like some allowance should be made to apply the current GI benefits to privet schools as well.