GI Bill benefits legislation

[Dill]

(05-10-2017, 05:55 PM)Au165 Wrote: We can literally do that about everything relating to military compensation, but that isn't how the world works. In a perfect world they would make more, have better benefits, and would be treated better. Hell we could make the same arguments for Cops and Firefighters. The issue comes when you look at things in a more cold business approach. They are employees of the U.S. government not conscripts. They chose to enroll and accept all dangers that came with the job at the agreed upon rate and benefits.

One could argue if we reduced the number of god damn bombs we felt the need to carry we could probably afford to pay them a bit more. I have been a part of the military purchasing process and the waste in that process along could probably be a significant raise.

1. Respectfully disagree on this one. Some military jobs, many nowdays in fact, are safe and routine--"corporate." But deployment to a war zone is qualitatively different from any civilian job, especially for anyone who spends much time "outside the wire."  

18-year-olds who "choose" to accept the dangers that come with the job have no clue. And if they did that would be a recruitment problem.   As they become older, and they do get a clue, their views of the agreed upon rate and benefits often change. If they change because the soldier has lost a leg, I don't want to tell him he "signed up for it."

2. You are on to something with waste in the purchasing process. And I might add that I am very skeptical of all the "savings" we supposedly accrue through privatization. All that should be looked at before tinkering with the post 9/11 bills. Congress should be showing the resolve to do that first.