Originally Posted by IQof1
Entitlement is being used as a description of benfits, NOT the same meaning as welfare, unemplyment etc...
after paying your dues or serving in the military, you are granted these benefits as part of your service agreement thus, you are "entitled" to receive the bennies.
it is NOT an entitlement in the sense of welfare. the OP is just trolling and trying to stir the pot so to speak.
You are getting at the root of the argument.
The GI Bill (and other military veterans programs) IS an entitlement program. By law, by definition, by wording it is entitlement. I highly suspect if you read your contract the US govt is allowed to change entitlement benefits as they chose in the future.
It is the same as social security.
What you are complaining about (and other posters below you) is WHAT you did to get that entitlement program
What people have done to think they are entitled to the benefits.
Military Entitlements: You served in the Military
Social Security: You paid SS TAX
Can you see how people feel entitled? They did what was asked of them and then they want what they were promised in return.
Where you get upset is the equating these entitlements to programs that most of the population looks down upon. But look, people who receive these entitlements had to so something to be entitled to the benefits.
Welfare: Be born in USA and not work. It helps to pop out a few babies along the way.
Free Telephone: Be born in USA and not work.
The argument is not if the GI Bill is an entitlement (it is, end of story...you can say what you want but it is defined in law as such), but whether the entitlement was an earned entitlement vs an unearned entitlement.
It is such a hot topic because "conservatives" in general dislike welfare and other entitlements. I suspect .mil guys like them (welfare recipients) even less from the ones I know. Since they so despise them, they dont want to be seen as taking entitlements and being "one of them".
Again, I am in my own small world, but I see military service as something we owe soldiers for. Essentially, they have given up the best years of their lives to do something for society. I also believe the USA as a whole benefits from soldiers getting college education. I believe giving money for school to people who have given to the country is a better way allocating scholarship money than Pell grants.
But I also believe that as Americans our best chances for the future is to educate our children. They are the next generation(s). I would prefer to see universities andtrade schools follow the European models where a young adult starting out doesnt start in the hole. I would prefer to see university/trade school be free for all students (legally in the USA). Of course that said, our education system needs some serious fixing.
I know that I am a raving communist saying that, but some things are worth the price society has to pay. Paying our soldiers what we owe them = yes. Getting every child educated to be a productive adult = yes. Paying $1M to keep someone mother alive an extra 2 months = no.
To determine if a program is worth while, I ask myself, does SOCIETY benefit or are only individuals benefiting.
Take a free cell. Society does not benefit one bit, only individuals. = Not worthwhile.