Lv 5
Uptown asked in Politics & GovernmentElections · 1 decade ago

Does John McCain look foolish, after voting against the new GI Bill?

25 Republican Senators voted for the Bill, 48 Democratic Senators voted for the Bill, and 2 Independent Senators voted for the Bill. In all 3/4 of the Senate voted for this new GI Bill that will give greater benifits to the men and women serving in the Armed Forces.

18 Answers

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago
    Best Answer

    Yes, I can't believe he would oppose this, while at the same time asking our troops to serve 3,4, and 5 tours in Iraq for the next 100 years.

    Is this how he plans to get elected?

  • Anonymous
    4 years ago

    Because .. the Democrats had "attached" a bunch of "special interest" GARBAGE to the valuable legislation !!! .. BLAME THE DEMOCRATS !!! Democrats are TRYING to BLAME Republicans for the FAILURES of the Socialist / Communist / Liberal / Marxist Democrats of the last 65+ YEARS !!! Democrats have to recognize that since the 73rd Congress in 1933 ... for a MAJORITY of THE LAST 65 YEARS ... Democratic Houses of Representatives and Democratic Senates have ... CONTROLLED the nation and the President. A TOTAL of 38 Sessions ... with Democrats in CONTROL for 28 of those! WE need to inform/TELL our political representatives that WE NEED TO PASS a Constitutional Amendment for the LINE ITEM VETO. This will keep the SPECIAL INTEREST GARBAGE from being attached to valuable legislation. If Congress wants to give the president that power, they will have to pass a constitutional amendment, Supreme Justice John Paul Stevens said. "If there is to be a new procedure in which the president will play a different role in determining the text of what may become a law, such change must come not by legislation but through the amendment procedures set forth in Article V of the Constitution," Stevens said, on June 25th, 1998. IF your special interest is SO valuable, why do you have to HIDE it in valuable legislation? So, with them REFUSING to PASS the Line Item Veto, in reality, the House and Senate have REALLY been controlling the country!! AND, with the CURRENT Senate and Congress having the WORST approval rating in HISTORY, hopefully we will see a LOT of changes after the general elections. A recent Reuters poll is out and Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have pulled an upset: They have managed to make George Walker Bush twice as popular as CONGRESS. RECENTLY - - JUST 8% of Likely Voters now say the DEMOCRATICALLY CONTROLLED Congress is doing a good or excellent job. Democrats generally believe in heavy fines for honest work, while rewarding sloth and indulgence. Do YOU think that people should be able to do absolutely nothing productive and get government hand-outs for sloth and indulgence - healthcare, tobacco, alcohol, drugs, STDs, etc. ?? Do YOU want to have YOUR MONEY TAKEN from YOU and YOUR FAMILY to FINANCE these people ??? .

  • spanky
    Lv 6
    1 decade ago

    If all he wanted to do is look good for his campaign he would have voted for it the way Obama did. It was too liberal even if Republicans voted for it, I agree with McCain that to give a college scholarship for only three years in the service will not only be very expensive (tax payers eating the bill for it) but will also reduce the size of the military because people will only stay in for 3 years...it should be on a graduated scale according to time served. But, remember who will be paying for this college education and if you are in college or have been in college you know how expensive it is. And I am a Viet Nam Vet.

  • 1 decade ago

    No, those who look foolish are the ones who don't even know what was in that bill that would cause John McCain to vote against it.

    He opposed full college scholarships plus the cost of books,etc, and a monthly stipend, earned for 36 months' active duty, that would cover tuition for up to four years at a level to match tuition at the most expensive in-state public school. The average across states is about $1900 a month.

    Webb's bill also would pay to cover living expenses with the above mentioned stipend that would reflect local housing costs near school and would be set to equal military Basic Allowance for Housing for married enlisted in grade E-5.

    $1900.00 a month plus living expenses for four years. That's nice little chunk of change.

    I agree that veterans deserve benefits but I prefer McCain's more fiscally sound idea that would offer full benefits at ANY point to service personnel injured or disabled in combat, and to able-bodied service personnel on a sliding scale directly proportionate to time in service.

    McCain objected to that part of Webb's enhanced GI Bill that would be available to any member, active or reserve, who has served at least three months on active duty since Sept. 11, 2001.

    That's three (3) months, not three years.

    But the main thing McCain objected to was an exorbirant military funding amendment (which was not budgeted for) tacked onto the bill by Democratics in an effort to prevent President Bush exercising veto upon the bill and to the attachment of Amendment AgJOBS by Senators Dianne Feinstein, California Democrat, and Larry Craig, Idaho Republican. (remember him?)

    Not only would this bill grant temporary legal status to 3 million illegal aliens, but a clause in the bill also would have made illegal aliens that have committed identity theft, immune to prosecution for crimes such as stealing someone's Social Security number.

    Do you like that part of the bill? It passed. And now people are upset that McCain opposed it?

    Edit: Aw, a thumbs down. Truth bites, doesn't it?

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    No. The biggest problem I have with this bill is that the democrats tied the bill to War funding and a proposed time table for withdrawl from Iraq..issues completely unrelated to education benefits. That is slimy. That is BS. I'm all for increased benefits, but let the benefits stand on their own...not tie it down with a bunch of unrelated crap just so they can play their partisan games.

  • 1 decade ago

    No. The new GI bill is an election year giveaway. McCain has shown himself to be a man of priciple. In this case, the principle is fiscal responsibility.

  • 1 decade ago

    The New GI bill had a whole lot of completely unrelated stuff attached to it AND it offers only short term immediate benefits to GI's NOT long term. I AM A VIETMAN ERA VET and I would have voted against it.

  • 1 decade ago

    Where's all the neo cons on this question. In his interview he said if they gave full college after serving 3 years that 16% would chose to go to college over reinlistement. That sounds like a Compasionate Conservative to me.

    Where are you Obama's Pimp on true issues.

  • 1 decade ago

    It absolutely does, because he was the one who said he wanted to stay in Iraq as long as it took. So why vote against a bill that could be helpful to our troops? It just doesn't make sense. You would think that if he supports this war he would at least be more supportive of the brave men and women that are in Iraq giving up their freedoms just to protect ours. Its amazing how he can be so double minded about these issues...

  • 1 decade ago

    He voted against this bill, in order to advance his own GI bill. He wants to offer more benefits, for more time served in the military. I'm sure he is aware that the more time served, the more chance of not coming home at all, thus saving those benefits. I think he's such a penny pincher he is banking on not having to pay as much in benefits!

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.