my. god they. get cut. cut cut. cut cut. cut. thank you thank you sir are you. just my opinion. i just wonder what i ve. found that if you look at the michael jackson family. i would visit cuttings i hope . i m going to define a song. you re
get cut. the actual benefits won t get cut in the future. the new proposal changes it in that way but the previous proposal, correct me if i m wrong, did not require any fees or pay reductions for eligibility. for many of the troops post 9/11, i it, an important benefit got me through college. i would not be where i am today without the g.i. bill but i had to pay into it. in the last 6 or 7 years, they haven t had to pay into it. to begin with, but $100 every month is not taken out so it is being handled differently. $100 every month when the first 12 to 18 months, this one proposal is only a proposal would be for 24 months but once you are out that money would not be taken out for other benefits, it would only be while you are
the other problem with a governance perspective it s kinds of what people talk about when they talk about the demise of earmarks. they were the grease that made congress work. without them we re finding it s harder. there are other causes, but that is probably one. a lot of the relationships that get built and deals that get cut, if you can t have some maneuvering room to say some things you probably want to be public, it might further hinder legislators abilities it seems like an argument for a certain amount of efficient sleaziness in politics. well, or at least a process that you know you don t want your opponent to put in an attack ad. that s right. but when bill was it one of the past, it was bill frist made a promise to bill bradley. even of a bradley was out of office he said remember that promise i made, it s going to come due. this guy is making promises to democrats, that would hurt him. but is that is the grease of politics. it s true.