Fantastic, more government welfare for the rubes and bubbas.

Gaetano Calabresi in comment #11 of this same thread:

… I no way look upon with contempt or derision at those who serve in uniform. To reiterate, I have nothing but admiration and respect for those who choose such a path.

The “rubes and bubbas” who choose such a path, you mean?

Under the old system, you had to contribute money to your education which didn’t help some of the lower ranked married folks. Those people usually had money problems due to the fact that getting base housing was very hard.

But the main point that I want to really stress, again, is that this service is a CHOICE. While I’ll grant that there are 18 year olds out there who don’t have a complete picture of what enlistment will entail, they nevertheless have that information at their disposal. To be frank, it’s really incumbent upon them to research and reflect thoroughly the sort of things joining the military will entail.

If we’re going to apply your logic to it’s conclusion, DMZDave, then there should be a panalopy of bailouts and subsidies for all sorts of personal choices made because of imperfect information.

As for your comparison of Teach for America and military service, I have to say that what you provided is at best an incomplete picture. Yes, it’s true that those who join Teach for America or the Peace Corps are usually afforded nice amenities. But then again so are military personnel. How else do you explain the PXs, the signing bonuses, and generous housing allowances? Even in active war zones such as Iraq, U.S. military personnel are afforded the sort of luxurys that the average Iraqi could only dream of. Why else would they call Al-Asad Airfield “Camp Cupcake”?

Futhermore, your assertions that the job prospects of former Teach for America volunteers far out pace that of former U.S. military personnel is also flimsy. It seems to have elided you DMZDave, but from my understanding the United States has a huge military industrial complex made up such companies as KBR, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northup Gruman and Booze Allen Hamilton. I have many friends and acquitances who work at these companies and have personally done subcontracting work for Booze Allen Hamilton, and I can assure you that these places actively recruit from not only the office ranks but the enlisted ranks as well. And to boot, these companies pay and give competitive wages and benefits. Even when you look outside of the military industrial complex there are all sorts of companies that value former military personnel for their experience and maturity level.

I have a nephew in Iraq and a niece in the Teach for America program and have a pretty solid basis to compare as I have spent much time with both. The niece taught in New Orleans during Katrina and then in Houston and eventually in inner-city Washington. Throughout, she lived in a very upscale apartment, ate in nice restaurants and generally enjoyed a high standard of living for a recent college grad. She has been given some very generous educational benefits by the Teach for America Program but more importantly, as a Teach for America volunteer, she was both heavily recruited by graduate schools and offered additional scholarships and assistance. The majority of people in her orientation group quit the program in the first year - which is not an option for a soldier in Iraq. Teach for America is a good program but you can’t seriously compare the level of sacrifice and risk.

My nephew serving in Iraq will get the new GI Bill but you should know that young people who volunteer for four years and train in a shortage specialty can’t really count on going back to college after four years. No one is heavily recruiting my nephew because the educational establishment generally shares Mr. Calabresi’s ignorance of and even contempt for the worth and character of our soldiers and believe they are a bunch of WallMart stockboys driven to the military for economic reasons and not patriotism or valor.

In my nephew’s case, his original 4-year contract was up soon after he was sent to Iraq so he gets to add on nearly another year to his original obligation. Then when he gets back to college, he will still be subject to recall to active duty for 4 years as a member of the Individual Ready Reserve and he knows there is every chance that will happen. So on top of his 4 years plus 10 months involuntary service, he can probably look forward to one more involuntary tour of Iraq. I’d say we owe him big time.

These kids serving today deserve every benefit we can give them and we do so because it’s in our nation’s long term interest to do so.

Well said Dan85. And since the two aren’t “comparable” stop comparing one form of service over another by saying that one is more valorous than the other and therefore merits large quantities of federal assistance.

You know, I really wish those in the military would simply cut the bullshit and call a spade when it’s a spade. I’m sure that for many who decide to go into uniform patriotism does plays a factor. But from the individuals I’ve talked to and the studies and accounts I’ve read, those who enlist mostly do it for economic reasons.

As for those who went to school on the original GI Bill, I think that your missing one crucial difference between today’s GI Bill and the one that was implemented after WWII. In the case of today’s GI Bill, the legislation is for those who knew full well of the hardships and burdens that they would have to endure should they VOLUNTARILY enlist. In the case of the original GI Bill, the intitial impetus of it was to recompensate those individuals who had NO CHOICE but to put their lives and careers on hold in order to come the nations defense.

You speak of the hardships and burdens, but you really have no idea what those hardships are. People like you will never understand.

The veterans that went to school on the original GI Bill helped build the nation into what it is today.

That’s an excellent point. Those individuals are no more deserving of federal largesse than the average American who enlists in the military.

As to the point of whether “the burdens of citizenship fall disproportionately on those who serve in the military”, I think this a red-herring. Yes, I grant than military service has with it it’s particular hardships and burdens. But to go from that and say that the sacrifices made by men and women in uniform are more worthy and commendable than the sacrifices of others who engage in other forms of public service is misguided.

According to the logic you employ, DMZDave, the Ivy League graduate who forgoes the six-figure salary at a Wall Street or high powered consulting firm and joins Teach for America to teach in some the U.S.’s most impoverished and dysfuntional schools is making a less worthy sacrifice than the Wal-Mart stock boy who joins the Navy simply for the signing bonus.

Now, as far as I know, that Ivy Leaguer who joins Teach for America doesn’t have at his disposal the vast amounts of federal largesse while in or after Teach for America. Despite the sacrifice he/she made, and the burdens they carried, their payback is relatively miniscule in comparison to military service personnel.

I just wish the benefits were retroactive. I also wonder what pork was tacked on it without the average Joe knowing about it. Earmarks they’re called.

I admire those who choose to serve their country. I just don’t think that such a choice automatically entails someone to a special buffet of copious federal largesse. If you’re going to serve then go serve. But don’t sit there and tell me the nation at large owes you additional favors for a life you “choose(sic)..on their own…”