Jump to content

Talk:Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2008

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Improve

[edit]

At present the article is just a copy&paste from this page at Thomas.loc.gov. I would dearly love to delete it as a copyvio but its .gov so I cannot. Please re-write as a Wikipedia article, explaining the background and giving independent references. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 01:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I could have deletd it as copyvio. It came from here with the <summary> tag and the silly (for Wikipedia) Points in Favor / Against sections left in place. And that page is marked "© 2006–2008 WashingtonWatch.com" at the bottom. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Future of Proposed Legislation

[edit]

It will never pass, article needs more information and external links. (Pavelow235 (talk) 05:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Did you just correlate the passage of this bill with the state of its Wikipedia article?--72.35.67.9 (talk) 15:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then we'd better work harder at improving this article! :) ~PescoSo say•we all 01:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its looking good to me :) Will say so pleased it passed before this financial meltdown. It would never make it if it was on the House floor now ! Oddly, I think it will be seen by history to be an engine behind a Future US recovery.., duty calls - go to School ! uaflyer (talk) 14:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Separating objective stuff from Supporters/Opponents

[edit]

Some stuff about this bill is objective, e.g. its provisions. They should come first. Other stuff about this bill is somewhat different, notably the supporters and their arguments, and the opponents and their arguments. I've therefore added a couple of sections and moved the text around to fit. I hope this is helpful and objective. rewinn (talk) 04:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I felt it nessicary to re-word the oppenents section that i origanlly wrote. Does anyone think it might be a good idea to mention that Sen. McCain was at a fund raiser during the actual vote as a political manuever not to look like a dick while still trying to hold onto the conservative vote, or would that make the article to biased to one side? Schmeebs84 (talk) 16:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think "look like a dick" would generally be considered POV. :) To say that he was at a fundraiser during the vote would be factual, though. But you would have to find reliable citations that say that the fundraiser attendance was deliberate in order to miss a particular vote. After all, presidential nominees often miss votes while campaigning. By the way, which vote are you talking about? Are you talking about the last time the Senate considered this bill? If so it was important at the time but it's now moot since the bills have been passed in other forms now. Next week the Senate will vote on the House version bill passed today. Now that the bill enjoys bipartisan support, including from the White House, I doubt Sen. McCain will oppose the bill, present to vote or not. ~PescoSo say•we all 01:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes in a couple of weeks we will have to completely re make the page:) I have found a couple of FAQs on the GI bill. I added an overview and a FAQ from military.com, but if anybody can find a better one i would be interested in reading it. I am really curious to see how the benefits will transfer into graduate degree programs or law schools. Also information on numbers of degrees one can recieve with GI bill benefits. I know in the montgomery GI Bill you were allowed benifits for B, M, and PHD if it was in the same subject. The also supported several J.D. and other law programs. There should also be information on how much can go to specialty programs and trades, or if someone uses 18 months of their benefits to get a master's degree and then wants to learn how to be a carpenter.Schmeebs84 (talk)

Matching for private institutions

[edit]

I am not so sure about what this means

  • One for one matching of additional tuition at more expensive private schools, up to 50% of additional cost.

Based on reading the law and some other articles on it. The spirit of the law is the cost sharing for more expensive schools is to make it so the Veteran pays nothing. Please consider deleting the "up to 50%" part and let the VA explain that. uaflyer (talk) 14:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC) The law also says it must be a participating school for the 1 to 1 matching to occur. uaflyer (talk) 14:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Qualifying reserve service

[edit]

For sure, this can use more citations. In reviewing the revisions, some seem to try and reword what is there and change the meaning. Please do not simply delete citations. uaflyer (talk) 16:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This statement was put back in: It is plain WRONG

  • For reservists, all service on active duty under a call or order to active duty[Note 1] counts towards the eligibility requirements, earning the same benefits as active duty members.

I am not going to take the time to put it back in. (the note makes sense) Someone please READ the citations to understand what the meaning of the law actually is. There is no issue of same or equal benefit, but you create one with wording like this. Mr Webb himself noted 50% of all active duty is being done by Reservists in combat zones. (there is no dividing line)uaflyer (talk) 16:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Uaflyer. First, please add new discussions to the bottom of a talk page. If people see that there are changes to a talk page, they look to the bottom of the page first. Thank you for trying to make this point as accurate as possible. I agree that the law makes no distinction between active duty and reservists on the right kind of active duty. I wasn't trying to make a distinction as much as trying to keep the text as simple as possible; it's very possible I oversimplified. I just knew that previous legislation did make a distinction between active duty member and reservist, so I thought the article should speak to the change. I like legal citations, I just like them as a note or a reference for the most part. I'll take another stab at the problem sentence. Articles like this are problematic because while we want to be thorough, it's not the place of Wikipedia to sound like the law itself or a VA guidebook. People should become minimally informed here and then go to more specific sources for more detailed information. ~PescoSo say•we all 21:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC) I've tried to resolve the issue; please let me know what you think. ~PescoSo say•we all 22:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know you have worked hard at this in some ugly topics. My angle: I understand making it publicly consumable. The larger issue is that in a search this article comes up on top and what is written here is interpreted and published elsehwere, along with Veterans themselves making decisions with it.

Hey, I got a bunch of answers from the VA this week. There is an explanation why they are so vague. Apparently the law can be changed between now and Aug 1, 2009. They cannot change the Title and USC call-outs, only add or clarify. There are two areas:

  • Include AT/ADT not currently counted from Title 10, section 1209
  • Expand the one time certification of $2000 to include credit/non credit bearing training

Veterans don't trust the VA so much, its a controversy in itself. Hence even what they print is often different than what they do. I have asked for who to write to underscore issues. Do you think it would be okay to publish this feedback address ? uaflyer (talk) 08:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that would be good information to relate somehow. As editors, though, we have to be sure not to include original research into the article. Can you find a good, reputable source of information? A Wikipedia article can only be as good as the best reliable information available. Along that line, the "Controversy" section is problematic. The first paragraph of the section doesn't say where the info comes from, and the 2nd paragraph contains the phrases "Many Reservists believe that..." and "This may be based on chat forums or misinterpretations..." Phrases like this shouldn't really be in the article, and if they are, they have to have a reference showing what people or organizations have that specific opinion. ~PescoSo say•we all 01:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More pertinent information for veterans please

[edit]

One such passage states, "However, if you exhaust all of your MGIB entitlement(Chapter 30), then you may be entitled to a maximum of 12 additional months of entitlement under the Post-9/11 GI Bill." What does this statement mean, if one uses ALL of the 36 months of Chapter 30 then they can use a additional 12 months of Post-9/11 GI BILL.....I'm confused, clarify someone, thanks.(Pavelow235 (talk) 04:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Controversy section

[edit]

in this section, it states that there is no longer a buy up refund. This is no longer the case. [1] Sephiroth storm (talk) 12:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:45, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:52, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Post-9/11_Veterans_Educational_Assistance_Act_of_2008&oldid=1205933874"