Don't worry, you can trust me. I'm not like the others.

Banned In China

Tuesday, May 27, 2008

Trolls and the GI Bill

Well I was reduced to spluttering after repeated responses to a troll on Hullabaloo concerning Webb's GI Bill.

The incredibly bland response by the troll continued to be that really people in the military got paid for their time, so they really don't need all that largess from the poor government. He also went off (or maybe it was someone else) on whether volunteers should get the money as opposed to draftees, and whether or not you should get benefits if you were not in combat.

He was called a libertarian by several of the posters. I'm not sure that he isn't just a jerk.

Now that I've calmed down somewhat I wonder what kind of game he was really playing. It was clear that he was never going to serve in the military so everything he argued was simply thought games. He clearly didn't have enough of a felling of empathy for anyone outside his close circle.

All though I am not particularly found of Kipling one is reminded of his "Tommy."

As far as the current bill? McCain and Bush are amazing (as are apparently 41 other senators). In the middle of two wars (let us not forget Afghanistan) they are against giving benefits to the people who are actually fighting those wars. What is even more shocking is that they have been getting away with it. Their reasoning is that people won't be forced to stay in the military if they are provided benefits that more or less equal those given to soldiers during the Vietnam era. The phrase indentured servitude comes to mind.

From what I can see the bill doesn't provide all the original bill provided for WWII vets. That is amazing when you think about it. The original GI Bill benefited the entire country in ways that went way beyond the benefits given to the service men directly. Teachers, builders, people who worked in factories and the people who owned the factories were all benefited by the money spent by the returning vets. How little we want to give now. How short sighted we are now.

Of course the other possibility is that McCain/Bush know exactly what they are doing and they are simply lying to the rubes who follow them. In order to maintain an aggressive empire we have to maintain a large military it is better to pay them less and to force them to stay in. It appears cheaper to those who now rule us. The rulers of today do not have the foresight that those of yesteryear did.

If the bill falls just one or two votes short of the super majority in the senate, do you think that Reid will force a real filibuster? Oh come on let's get real shall we. Say when did the definition of liberal include "give up?"

No comments: