The office comes with responsibilities so serious that the occupant can't always take the politically easy route without hurting the country he is sworn to defend.

which is why he failed to show up for the vote instead of vote against it.
takes a brave man not to show up for a vote and McCain is the bravest man in the Senate this year.

McCain to Obama: "You're naive, and you don't know what it's like to be President, PANCAKES"

devil's advocate, McCain has been President before just as much as Obama has, no?

rawkus: devil's advocate, McCain has been President before just as much as Obama has, no?

Mmm. Would you like the student that has no experience, or the student that has been taught by the fool (G.W. Bush) and has developed bad habits?

I agree with Obama here, and for the most part I guess I agree with the author, but damn that was irritating to read.

"When I was five years old, a car pulled up...

Holy crap. He goes into a rambling story right in the middle of a press release.

All of the horseshiat about voting for or against a bill is horseshiat because of the riders, earmarks and other crap that gets stuffed into a bill.

Tastes Like Chicken: I agree with Obama here, and for the most part I guess I agree with the author, but damn that was irritating to read.

I agree with you.

HulkHands: rawkus: devil's advocate, McCain has been President before just as much as Obama has, no?

Mmm. Would you like the student that has no experience, or the student that has been taught by the fool (G.W. Bush) and has developed bad habits?

When in doubt, take your chances on the really really smart guy.

McCain has sold his soul.

No benefits for you, because you didn't serve in war enough!

He really is turning into a senile dickhead.

This is gonna be a damn fun GE for the photoshoppers. You can headswap Mccain to anybody for comedic effect.

Skleenar: McCain has sold his soul.



It's Bush's scent, it's intoxicating...

HulkHands: Mmm. Would you like the student that has no experience, or the student that has been taught by the fool (G.W. Bush) and has developed bad habits?

^{(^)}

"How can you fill your cup when it's full?"

Did McCain buckle his onion belt too tightly again, and is it cutting off his circulation or something?

burndtdan: HulkHands: Mmm. Would you like the student that has no experience, or the student that has been taught by the fool (G.W. Bush) and has developed bad habits?

"How can you fill your cup when it's full?"



/stupid dropped images

Wow. Takes a lot of balls to lash out like that when you didn't even bother to show up and vote.

Unright: "When I was five years old, a car pulled up...

Holy crap. He goes into a rambling story right in the middle of a press release.

He was 5 when Pearl Harbor was bombed. That guy is oooooooooooold.

quickdraw: This is gonna be a damn fun GE for the photoshoppers. You can headswap Mccain to anybody for comedic effect.

you do have a point...

letdown102: Wow. Takes a lot of balls to lash out like that when you didn't even bother to show up and vote.

I wish I had the guts to be crippled like John McCain.

No, I don't know why I thought of this.

The most important difference between our two approaches is that Senator Webb offers veterans who served one enlistment the same benefits as those offered veterans who have re-enlisted several times. Our bill has a sliding scale that offers generous benefits to all veterans, but increases those benefits according to the veteran's length of service. I think it is important to do that because, otherwise, we will encourage more people to leave the military after they have completed one enlistment. At a time when the United States military is fighting in two wars, and as we finally are beginning the long overdue and very urgent necessity of increasing the size of the Army and Marine Corps, one study estimates that Senator Webb's bill will reduce retention rates by 16%.


If I understand McCain's reasoning here, he's basically saying that the longer you stay in, the more benefits you should accrue. Ok, I can see that. But how does he plan on dealing with someone who's on their third tour of back to back (to back) duty in a heavy combat zone? They've earned all these credits and now have the spiffy brass ring prize....but they get popped by a sniper 2 months into their tour. So does that solider's family get his super spiffy benefit package, or do they get the basic 'thanksforyourservicesorryforyourlosscanyoumoveoutbytuesday?' hand off?

Here's what I would like to see: Regardless of length of service, if a service member dies in a combat zone then his immediate family (wife and kids, if any) don't pay taxes for 10 years. That's it. No federal taxes of any sort. No exceptions. They get a free ride. Period. Think anyone up on capital hill would vote for that?

Hobodeluxe: The office comes with responsibilities so serious that the occupant can't always take the politically easy route without hurting the country he is sworn to defend.

which is why he failed to show up for the vote instead of vote against it.
takes a brave man not to show up for a vote and McCain is the bravest man in the Senate this year.

He bravely ran away...

Weaver95: Here's what I would like to see: Regardless of length of service, if a service member dies in a combat zone then his immediate family (wife and kids, if any) don't pay taxes for 10 years. That's it. No federal taxes of any sort. No exceptions. They get a free ride. Period. Think anyone up on capital hill would vote for that?

i wouldn't mind seeing them get more than that, but i would certainly back that idea. too bad i'm not in congress.

Weaver95: Here's what I would like to see: Regardless of length of service, if a service member dies in a combat zone then his immediate family (wife and kids, if any) don't pay taxes for 10 years. That's it. No federal taxes of any sort. No exceptions. They get a free ride. Period. Think anyone up on capital hill would vote for that?

So the rich get more than the poor? I'd say just giving them all the same amount of money should be fine. Possibly some nice benefits for the kids (free school/medical benefits until they are 21), stuff like that would be enough in my mind.

burndtdan: Weaver95: Here's what I would like to see: Regardless of length of service, if a service member dies in a combat zone then his immediate family (wife and kids, if any) don't pay taxes for 10 years. That's it. No federal taxes of any sort. No exceptions. They get a free ride. Period. Think anyone up on capital hill would vote for that?

i wouldn't mind seeing them get more than that, but i would certainly back that idea. too bad i'm not in congress.

Not paying taxes of any sort on anything they do, profits they make, or how much they earn for a decade is plenty support enough. Hell, just being exempt from FICA payroll taxes should help them get thru the inital rough period. It's not too much and it's not too little. It's a nice way of saying thank you to the family for their sacrifice.

burndtdan: quickdraw: This is gonna be a damn fun GE for the photoshoppers. You can headswap Mccain to anybody for comedic effect.

you do have a point...

[McCain/Ninja Turtle Image]

BWAH HA H AH AHAHAHAHA!!1!!1!

Ryan2065: So the rich get more than the poor? I'd say just giving them all the same amount of money should be fine. Possibly some nice benefits for the kids (free school/medical benefits until they are 21), stuff like that would be enough in my mind.

I don't say this often and mean it, so pay attention: STFU.

No, really. STFU.

I say that because it isn't about 'rich' or 'poor'. What I propose is nothing less than a very heartfelt thank you to a family that has made the ultimate sacrifice for this country. Sure, I could quote you endless statistics about how the majority of servicemembers come from lower income families or tell you story after story after story about how losing someone in a combat zone is a huge loss for a family in such a position. But you want to make this a 'rich vs poor' issue. STFU. Someone who's lost a father/mother or a husband or a wife or a son or daughter in combat shouldn't pay taxes for a decade. That's the LEAST we can do for them. And if that offends your lame ass class warfare socialist IRS kissing stanky ass, then so be it.

Weaver95: burndtdan: Weaver95: Here's what I would like to see: Regardless of length of service, if a service member dies in a combat zone then his immediate family (wife and kids, if any) don't pay taxes for 10 years. That's it. No federal taxes of any sort. No exceptions. They get a free ride. Period. Think anyone up on capital hill would vote for that?

i wouldn't mind seeing them get more than that, but i would certainly back that idea. too bad i'm not in congress.

Not paying taxes of any sort on anything they do, profits they make, or how much they earn for a decade is plenty support enough. Hell, just being exempt from FICA payroll taxes should help them get thru the inital rough period. It's not too much and it's not too little. It's a nice way of saying thank you to the family for their sacrifice.

except what Ryan2065 pointed out, that if that's all they get, then the rich get more than the poor. but beyond that, a great deal of people who enlist in the military don't make enough money to even pay federal taxes in the first place.

i think it's a nice idea and a good step, but not even handed enough, and would probably end up screwing a lot of families out of receiving any real benefit. mix that idea with some housing and health care and maybe you're on to something.

Weaver95: I say that because it isn't about 'rich' or 'poor'. What I propose is nothing less than a very heartfelt thank you to a family that has made the ultimate sacrifice for this country. Sure, I could quote you endless statistics about how the majority of servicemembers come from lower income families or tell you story after story after story about how losing someone in a combat zone is a huge loss for a family in such a position. But you want to make this a 'rich vs poor' issue. STFU. Someone who's lost a father/mother or a husband or a wife or a son or daughter in combat shouldn't pay taxes for a decade. That's the LEAST we can do for them. And if that offends your lame ass class warfare socialist IRS kissing stanky ass, then so be it.

This is an appeal to emotion. Telling the person they don't have to pay taxes for 10 years is the same exact thing as telling them a rich family will get a few million while a poor family will only get a few thousand. I think each family should get the same amount and we shouldn't give more to the rich just because they make more money. It makes more sense to give the families a set amount of money and extend the benefits to the family (veterans benefits are pretty darn good) than just keep them from paying taxes.

I also don't think the "combat zone" stipulation should be added. If they die while in the military, this should be given to them. The non-combat zone people are needed just as much as the combat zone people to keep our military running.

Ryan2065: I also don't think the "combat zone" stipulation should be added. If they die while in the military*, this should be given to them. The non-combat zone people are needed just as much as the combat zone people to keep our military running.

*while in the line of duty

Ryan2065: This is an appeal to emotion. Telling the person they don't have to pay taxes for 10 years is the same exact thing as telling them a rich family will get a few million while a poor family will only get a few thousand.

No, it's not. And you know it. But whatever dude. that class warfare bullshiat is exactly what's wrong with this country.

feh. done with you.

Weaver95: Ryan2065: This is an appeal to emotion. Telling the person they don't have to pay taxes for 10 years is the same exact thing as telling them a rich family will get a few million while a poor family will only get a few thousand.

No, it's not. And you know it. But whatever dude. that class warfare bullshiat is exactly what's wrong with this country.

feh. done with you.

Class warfare? Huh? His point is entirely correct. Little to no advantage for a poor family, tremendous advantage for a rich family.

Weaver95: Ryan2065: This is an appeal to emotion. Telling the person they don't have to pay taxes for 10 years is the same exact thing as telling them a rich family will get a few million while a poor family will only get a few thousand.

No, it's not. And you know it. But whatever dude. that class warfare bullshiat is exactly what's wrong with this country.

feh. done with you.

actually, for a lot of military families, it's telling them "you will get nothing because you don't make enough to pay income tax and probably don't own any property."

did the son of a rich family die a somehow more heroic death than someone who just immigrated here, or the son of a family living in a trailer park? of course not.

Ed Finnerty: www.dtdstudios.com

rofl. this will be a really fun general election.

Weaver95: No, it's not. And you know it. But whatever dude. that class warfare bullshiat is exactly what's wrong with this country.

Your plan is just not well thought out. It favors the rich more than the poor.

It is a fact that under your plan (no taxes) the rich would get millions more than the poor. Do you really think they deserve any more than the poor or do you think they should get a set amount rather than less taxes?

Weaver95: feh. done with you.

Don't run away, have the balls to argue for the plan you came up with or agree it wasn't well thought out.

another thing that just occurred to me while reading the USA today article on this...

mccain was saying obama has no right to attack him about this because obama didn't serve. except... obama didn't write the bill, nor is he the primary voice for the bill. and i'm pretty sure jim webb and chuck hagel DID serve, and i'm pretty sure mccain would have to salute both of them.

Weaver95: No, it's not. And you know it.

No, he actually makes a point, whether you agree with it or not. But since he doesn't agree with your narrow and often underinformed world view, you reflexively dismiss it (in this instance as "class warfare bullshiat").

As far as your original proposal goes, you offer far too little to these families for their sacrifice. For many families, you're talking about a sole provider in a low tax bracket. With normal deductions, their federal tax burden is going to be in most instances will be in the low four digits. I'd rather see a more substantial additional benefit, something along the lines of free college education for their dependents.

Im a disabled vet, so I'll chime in here. I think the current system of paying someone out on the percent of damage you received in the line of duty, regardless of how long you served works pretty well. It stands to reason the majority of us that get hurt or killed are first-termers in a combat situation, so affording them less for the same sacrifice isn't such a great idea. To me anyway. I foresee it becoming rip off for the young guys who end up just as hurt.

I do like Weaver95's idea though, but who's to say that the dependants of said dead soldier are working and earning income to be excused from? What then? There needs to be a proportional benefit to the family members in that event though. I'm just not sure how to make it fair, but the families income outside of the soldiers shouldn't be the basis for judging what they get. One man's life isn't worth more than another's. It has to be framed that way, or it would be a nightmare.

burndtdan: you do have a point...

LOL

Nestea Plunge: ranted about how candy bars only cost a nickel

Now, to take the ferry cost a nickel, and in those days, nickels had pictures of bumblebees on them. "Give me five bees for a quarter," you'd say.

"The Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2007 (Senate bill S 22)"

Elimination of the $1200 program enrollment fee paid by the veteran at the beginning of military service currently required by the Montgomery GI Bill.

Interesting.

Okay, where did the "PANCAKES!!!" meme come from?

it's funny because he's old

guilt by association: Okay, where did the "PANCAKES!!!" meme come from?

That all came about a long time time ago, they day I caught the ferry over to Shelbyville- I needed a new heel for my shoe. So I decided to go to Morganville, which is what they called Shelbyville in those days. So I tied an onion to my belt, which was the style at the time.....


/yeah, puffy, I know.

Obama is an active member of the Senate's Veteran's Affairs Committee. He worked with fellow committee member Jim Webb (the primary sponsor) to get this bill passed. Obama is *not* clueless on Veteran's matters.

McCain is the ranking GOP member in Armed Services, though I fear he'd need a map and a GPS to find his way to the meeting room after these AWOL years.

Blues_X: No benefits for you, because you didn't serve in war enough!

He really is turning into a senile dickhead.

Don't lie, dick. More benefits for the guy next to you, because he served twice as long isn't the same as no benefits for you.

Weaver95: No, it's not. And you know it. But whatever dude. that class warfare bullshiat is exactly what's wrong with this country.

feh. done with you.

I agree with the sentiment behind your post, but Ryan is entirely correct. A gesture like that would be very little help to very poor families (where the majority of the military comes from) but a huge bonus for families of rich servicemen. A person's life shouldn't be valued based on how much their family makes.