Actually this makes sense to me.

Also, providing ways for active duty service members to become better educated while serving can only help the service.

I know when my husband was on shore duty in the Navy they had a program that would pay for college tuition and books at certain area colleges. He didn't have to do anything other than show he was accepted into the college and registered for classes to have the tuition paid for. I think he had to request reimbursement for the books, but not sure.

I also know while he was serving the larger ships would have college courses taught by satellite. I don't know if other moves have been made to provide more of these opportunities or not.

Also there were several enlisted to officer type programs, but the problem of course is the military only needs so many officers so the programs are limited by those needs.

The evidence in the comments shows lefties eager to trash anyone who speaks of reasoned, measured thinking in this bill. Legislation should not be based solely in emotional arguments but in facts and logic as well.

The program hasn't been paying enough to cover college for years. When my husband got out of the military in the mid 90's his GI bill payments (through the Navy) wouldn't have covered the full tuition at most universities. It was in the long run moot, because he is disabled and qualfied for the Veterans disabled veterans assistance which by the programs rules paid for full tuition at any college or university willing to accept payments in addition to paying for books and a small monthly stipend.

But I do think the question of cost and affordability are worthwhile questions to debate.

Also, there is still huge variation in college tuition payments. In state tuition in some states is thousands more per semester/quarter than other states. Which state should be used? Which is why I think if the program is going to be revamped it is better to negotiate with the states for a certain tuition payment amount and have the universities write off any difference (or use foundations or whatever to make up the difference).

So, I guess my point is that I think the current system as it currently works is inadequate.

I am not sure just upping the amount of the payments alone is the best solution. I think there are other ways to reach the same goals that may not be as costly and over the long run may do more to meet the goal of providing for a veteran to recieve a college degree.

I do not think retention rates should influence whether or not the program is improved or how it is improved.

So do we support the troops with words or with dollars?

Surely a lapel pin and yellow ribbon magnet on our car is enough?

After all, "Support" means never having to say "I'm sorry".

Its a win/win, don't we want more college educated homeowners anyway? Well, apparently McCain does not... keep 'em poor and keep them fighting.

We did manage to come up with 250k a month to pay an Iranian agent to feed us false intel, did we not?

I think the two main questions are-Should benefits be increased and whether that increase can be paid for.

I think there is a good argument to support an increase.
I think there may be a good argument that it may be too costly, but I also think the Federal government could possibly work something out to make what benefit there is stretch farther in various state university systems.

heh. I wonder if this argument of his got applied by the left as regards John Kerry.

An excellent question, as I myself cannot stand John Kerry (and didn't vote for him).

Quite the cheap shot there, against Mr. McCain and Mrs. McCain, don't you think? You had a good policy argument going right up until the end when you decided to get personal.

heh. I wonder if this argument of his got applied by the left as regards John Kerry.

I'm not sure I share Alex's probem with Mccain's statements here. Should we or should we not be concierned about what effect our generousity has on natinal priorities? I don't get that this is an issue of the bill being ramped up, but when...

You see Alex, a reasonable compromise must be struck on what benefits to give out soldiers. Now we can have a civil debate about what is reasonable or we can take cheap shots. I think our soldiers deserve the respect of a grown up discussion about policies such as these.

Steve, if John McCain had said, "I'm concerned that we don't have enough money to pay for expanded benefits," then I would have accepted that. I have no issues with that. That is perfectly understandable.

But John McCain's motive to oppose this benefit is, in essence, "we need to diminish economic opportunities for our troops so that they have more motivation to stay on the battlefield."

That's just horrible on a number of levels, not the least of which is the smear on the honor of every man and woman who puts on a uniform.

You see Alex, a reasonable compromise must be struck on what benefits to give out soldiers. Now we can have a civil debate about what is reasonable or we can take cheap shots. I think our soldiers deserve the respect of a grown up discussion about policies such as these.