Talk:G.I. Bill

message: First, the articles on VEAP and MGIB should remain on their own as they are legislation passed many years after the Serviceman's Readjustment Act of 1944. Any vet knows of the MGIB today and will likely have never heard of any "readjustment act".  I suppose the article on the Serviceman's Readjustment Act could have a short discussion on how education benefits have morphed into today's GI Bill but todays benefits are only a legacy of the 1944 legislation.
I hate to sound critical but there are serious problems with the entries on MGIB, VEAP and the MGIB comparison table that is attached to the Serviceman's Readjustment Act of 1944 article. Some of the information is inaccurate and it is entirely incomplete.
Wikipedia should consider sticking to some basic facts about each of these programs and not try to enter into specifics. The rules in dealing with the payment and entitlement of these benefits are contained in thousands of pages of combined Regulations, US Code and finally the manuals used by those at the Veterans Administration who actually process the benefits for our veterans. With every rule there is an exception and for every exception there is another rule and they change constantly! What few words spoken of on the MGIB article regarding entitlement and the time limit within which benefits are required to be used is inadequate, inaccurate and incomplete.  The problem I am trying to get across is that in order to make it complete would require volumes which already exist and are maintained by the experts.
In closing, please cut these articles out as they exist and provide basic facts about each benefit type and possibly a historical reference.  Anything a person needs to know and a link to ask someone a question can be found at http://www.gibill.va.gov/ Wspruce 21:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: '''Too Complicated and Incomplete'''

message: Less talk, more action, and Yes I take offense to what you wrote.  
When a person think of GI BILL they think of educational benefits. As a result of an ever changing environment, politics, and incentives by the Military and U.S. Government;  The GI BILL has evolved as well. Now if you feel like the table does not provide a brief overview of what is available, and different characteristics among the different types incentives available. Then feel free to do something about it. But I seriously doubt that you can do anything better.  
I do not have direct experience with every different type of educational benefits, the one's I do have direct experience with is as follows: CH 30, CH 1606, CH 1607, Tuition Assistance, and Student Loan Repayment Program. And I assure you Tuition Assistance, and Student Loan Repayment Program, is not found on the VA website, however they are educational benefits provided by the military. 
Also what is written, and what is done are two different things in the real world. And I can assure you I know this for a fact, because I am a (44C) Financial Management Technician in the Military.  Service Members come to me and ask me how you do this, in order to get this. When I have to explain to an Reservist, that if they decide to go in the IRR or not extend there contract, guess what your Educational Benefits are terminated. "But, but my recruiter said I have 10 year to use it. " guess what the recruiter did not tell you everything, and sometimes when I talk to the VA rep, I know more than they do. But you are right there is alway an exception, but how many service members know about it. That chart is only basically a rule of thumb, you click on the link for more detail.  Paul.Paquette 23:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: And your experience comes from what?

message: I notice that the use of "GI" w/o periods is quite common out there (like on the illustration in this very article), so we might consider using that instead of the punctuated variant.
Also, if sticking with a punctuated variant, shouldn't we rather use "G.I." w/o a space in between the letters? Looks much better IMO, and perhaps it is just as grammatically correct? --Wernher 20:31, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, on second thought, maybe we should just stick with the present article name--G. I. Bill of Rights. I'll make a few more redirects. --Wernher 15:28, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: G.I. (with the dots) is the preferred form when talking about a soldier. For the "act", either GI Bill or G.I. Bill is used. --Uncle Ed 18:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, with periods it does read more unambiguously. But all of the printed literature reads “GI Bill” with no periods, and always has. I’m editing a book, and the current state of this article has caused serious confusion on this point. Further discussion, please! I myself am not bold enough to do a move to a different title, which is what this change would require. MJ (t • c) 16:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: How about "GI"? and: "G. I."-->"G.I."?

message: The whites had introduced racial policies to shut out African Americans from suburban communities but it should be argued that Amendment 14 guarantees the rights of all citizens of United States: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. 
Of course African Americans buying suburban homes not unconstitutional! So what is written is simply fact.
It is only the barriers set by property companies that bar African Americans buying houses. Then the governments did not stop this. Sigh!
Concerned 07:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just a note of explanation: (1) Amendment 14, which you quoted above, prohibits the U.S. (or individual State) government from making or enforcing any law abridging the "privileges and immunities, etc." It did not apply to individuals, whether people or private companies. Consequently, there was need to pass more comprehensive Civil Rights legislation, which was done in the 1950s and 1960s (public accommodation, housing, employment, etc.). With respect to the subject you raised (housing--restrictive covenants), the "landmark" case of Shelley v. Kraemer ruled that the use of courts to enforce restrictive covenants in housing developments is unconstitutional. This was in 1948. So by that time, black (or Jewish, or Japanese) families could no longer be excluded from purchasing a home (whether with the help of the G.I. Bill or through any other means) in an area in which the residents wanted to exclude them. For whatever comfort it is. Progress proceeds slowly.  66.108.4.183 12:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hmm... 

message: I added the Mergefrom tag for a bunch of articles (to which I added mergeto tags.) All of the proposed-merge articles are short and with little relevance to anything other than the larger G.I. Bill. It appears that they should all be merged into this article.
Separately, shouldn't this article be renamed "Servicemen's Readjustment etc etc..." ? Paul 04:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would take serious effort to combine all the GI bills into one article. Let's shape it as a series, with the 1947 bill as the first. (I removed the merge tag.) --Uncle Ed 19:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mergefrom 

message: I thought GI Bill was the best, but Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944 is more formal, hence more "encyclopedic". Note that the text calls it the "GI Bill" throughout (with one reference to "GI Bill of Rights". 
Ask any American about the "GI Bill" - especially in connection with college tuition assistance, and the 1944 act as what they think of. 
I used a similar program called VEAP in the 1980s. --Uncle Ed 18:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Name of article

message: :The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the proposal was Move. Much more common name in English. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 09:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally, article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.
Clearly, G.I. Bill is "what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize."  The lead of the article says as much. JCO312 21:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: The article contains the phrase "[t]he bill helped to democratize the 'American Dream' primarily for white Americans."  This charge of racism needs to be clarified.  For example, (1) was the program administered in a racist manner, (2) what was the total number of blacks who received a benefit from the program, (3) for those persons receiving benefits, what was the level of educational performance, broken down by race?  Without this type of support, the implication that the bill was primarily for the benefit of white persons is merely racist rhetoric that should be eliminated.130.13.4.45 (talk) 17:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  To be fair, for much of the early part of the war, Black/Hispanic/Native American/Asians were prohibited from Combat roles. They were assigned to Service support roles ( Launcdry, Cook, Drivers)
until FDR started creating black combat roles in all areas.  Being a cook on a warship at Pearl Harbor was just as dangerous a job as running an Anti-Aircraft gun, but, it's clear that the law was
treating these servicemen differently.  It's not hard to document discrimination in administration of the GI Bill benefits,  and that history deserves to be written in.
--Patbahn (talk) 16:45, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: the great majority of WW2 and postwar veterans were never in combat. there was NO combat requirement at any stage. Rjensen (talk) 17:47, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Charge of Racism Needs to Be Returned and Supported

message: Would editors here feel favorable to a major re-write effort that would work ot incorporate all of the various veterans' education programs?  Of course the WWII one was the actual "GI Bill" that the lead paragraph talks about, but the term is commonly used to refer to them all.  I'm thinking the article could use a rewrite to better give a clearer history & outline of each program, especially since the passage of the Post-9/11 "GI Bill". ~PescoSo say•we all 00:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major rewrite 

message: It seems like he was the senator which introduced the later-approved version of the G.I. Bill in the senate:
To the time-honored list of things which U.S. politicians may be counted upon to denounce relentlessly—the housefly, the common cold, the man-eating shark—Washington's Senator Homer Bone in 1937 added cancer. When he introduced a bill for a National Cancer Institute, it bore the sponsoring signatures of 94 Senators. (The other two hastened to add theirs before the bill came to a vote.) Last fortnight Missouri's Bennett Champ Clark hit on something which politicians almost as unanimously favor. He introduced a veterans' benefits bill, jointly sponsored by 80 other Senators. Last week, amid plaints by the remaining 15 Senators that they had not had a chance to sign it in advance, the Senate passed the bill unanimously. The House is expected to follow suit this week.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.52.84.151 (talk) 18:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: What about senator [[Bennett Champ Clark]]?

message: WAVES, Women Airforce Service Pilots (WASPs, WFTDs & WAFS), SPARS (the United States Coast Guard Women's Reserve) -- were they eligible for original GI Bill?--S. Rich (talk) 21:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: WAFs, WAVEs, were all eligible for the GI bill---it was NOT limited to combat service. The WASP, Red Cross and USO however, were civilian groups that did NOT get the veteran status or veteran benefits. (The WASP got veteran status decades later and are now eligible for veterans hospitals). Rjensen (talk) 20:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  WAFs, WAVEs, etc -- were they eligible 

message: It should be noted that the MGIB was developed as a recruitment tool, not as a way to send veterans to college  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.103.180.10 (talk) 17:29, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: What evidence do you cite for this assertion?  In my history of higher education courses, we always discussed the original GI Bill as mainly be a way to deal with all of the returning soldiers who needed something to do (e.g. work, school); this was particularly important given the unemployment that had rocked the country during the Great Depression that immediately preceded the war. ElKevbo (talk) 19:06, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  MGIB and college 

message: Should African Americans and the G.I. Bill be merged into this page, or at least warrant a subsection here? It's a significant part of the bill's legacy, but only receives a nod in the "see also" section.Sanderphi (talk) 14:15, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it should be merged. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

text: I agree, but I think the full text from :African Americans and the G.I. Bill should replace the Racial discrimination text in this article; it's more complete. Schazjmd (talk) 00:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  African-Americans and the G.I. Bill 

message: I changed the link for vocational rehabilitation from rehabilitation counseling to vocational rehabilitation. Patience456 (talk) 23:35, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chap 31 vocational rehabilitation link 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on G.I. Bill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.dcmilitaryed.com/cms/storyHE.php?county=DCMilitary&school=25
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150620024645/http://www.gibillforum.com/ to http://www.gibillforum.com
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:16, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on G.I. Bill. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121028044521/http://gibillmaze.webs.com/ to http://gibillmaze.webs.com/
*Added  tag to https://www.armyreserveeducation.com/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gibillforum.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on G.I. Bill. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120131131445/http://www.usmm.org/urgent.html to http://www.usmm.org/urgent.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:36, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on G.I. Bill. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161127024308/https://www.whitehouse.gov/video/President-Obama-Launches-Post-9/11-GI-Bill to https://www.whitehouse.gov/video/President-Obama-Launches-Post-9/11-GI-Bill
*Added  tag to https://www.armyreserveeducation.com/Unsecured/Login.aspx?ReturnUrl=%2fMGIBWeb%2fCH_1607_Notification.aspx%3fSessionID%3d34ef341d-60ac-497e-a660-19450135795c&SessionID=34ef341d-60ac-497e-a660-19450135795c
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:30, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hi. Currently, there is no legislative history at all in this article. Instead this article is inundated with information that should actually be in another article altogether. At one point in the last 40 years GI funding was significantly reduced (I believe it was entirely renamed and financially reduced), which in a quick glance, doesn't even seem to be mentioned. 
Shouldn't there be legislative history to accompany the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944, as is the customary procedure for all Wikipedia articles that entail US legislation? First of all, with nearly every article - especially significant ones - there is an Infobox that accompanies the article with its legislative history, such as the name of the bill, the numbering of the bill in the House and the Senate, the dates of passage, the dates of signage, etc. Shouldn't that really be included in this article? The initial legislation was one of the most important legislative feats in U.S. economic history, so shouldn't this article reflect that? Thanks for listening... Stevenmitchell (talk) 22:19, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Legislative History 

message: This topic provides wonderful opportunities for promotion of one's own tribe, at the expense of one's perceived opponents; the existence of mountains of literature on the G.I. Bill makes it very easy to find one or two references supporting almost any point of view. Just for starters, consider these three sentences from the second paragraph of the lede: "It was largely designed and passed through Congress in 1944 by conservatives led by the American Legion who wanted to reward practically all wartime veterans. Since the First World War the Legion had been in the forefront of lobbying Congress for generous benefits for war veterans.Glenn C. Altschuler and Stuart M. Blumin, The GI Bill: A New Deal for Veterans (2009), pp. 54-57 Roosevelt, by contrast, wanted a much smaller and more elitist program.Suzanne Mettler, "The creation of the GI Bill of Rights of 1944: Melding social and participatory citizenship ideals." Journal of Policy History 17#4 (2005): 345-374." I find these claims, which hang, severally, by the flimsy threads of two references, highly suspect. Oh yes, we all know that conservatives have always been first in creating expensive social programs. Oh, and (Franklin) Roosevelt is of course well known for depriving the masses of benefits, in "elitist" fashion. What a bass-ackward fantasy! And a very easy one to support, if a single reference suffices for every claim or two, since thousands of sources exist on this subject, written from every possible polarity.
At a minimum, much more thorough citation is required here, from a wide variety of widely recognized sources. But there needs to be a rewrite here, since it is not at all hard to find sources that credit that penny-pinching elitist, FDR, much more than the generous conservatives.
It is not just a diametrically opposing point of view that should receive balancing representation here, however: It's also not difficult to find sources that credit the G.I. Bill to concerns that were shared by interests from across the political spectrum: The U.S. was about to have hundreds of thousands of (mainly) men return home and begin looking for work, in a rapidly cooling postwar economy. Hearts filled with gratitude, for sacrifices made and a job well done, might've been a motive for some; but a very big incentive, for leadership across the board, was the fear of massive unrest, even widespread rioting. This concern is well documented, too. Let's have a little balance, and some nuance, here.--IfYouDoIfYouDon't (talk) 04:34, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: If you see more than two references below, that is because they have accumulated from further up the page, to include ref's from someone else's posts. The only two that are relevant to my (immediately preceding) post are first Altschuler, then Mettler.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by IfYouDoIfYouDon't (talk • contribs) 04:51, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:   "IfYouDoIfYouDon't" seems to think there are lots of RS that he could cite--but he cites zero of them. He is right about "FDR - not elitist".  I fixed the mistaken reference to FDR's ideas as "elitist." He was anti-elitist to him the college alumni were elites. FDR wanted welfare-like programs for poor people with vocational ed for jobs like mechanics. The bipartisan conservative coalition controlled Congress and opposed "welfare". Instead they wanted rewards for specific national service--especially military service. The GOP was based in among college alumni who were eager to grow their colleges. The key agencies designing and passing GI Bill were the American Legion and the VFW, which are typically called "conservative."  There were lots of conservative Democrats in those days and they made the GI Bill bipartisan. A few more RS: 1) "The American Legion, which played an indispensable role in helping to lobby the GI Bill proposal through Congress" [Olson, 1973]; 2) blacks were neglected because GI Bill was "closely linked with the leadership of the avowedly segregated American Legion and the VFW" [Journal of Blacks in Higher Education 1994]; 3) "The American legion's version of the bill was introduced [in the House] by John E. Rankin, Democrat from Mississippi" (a leading conservative) [Ford & Miller - 1995]; 4) "the legislation was drafted by a representative of the American Legion " [B Bannier 2006]; 5) Theda Skocpol, Protecting Soldiers and Mothers: The Political Origins of Social Policy in the United States (1992) emphasizes role of veterans groups; 5) " historian Kathleen Jill Frydl notes that the American Legion continued to fight against civilian benefits long after the GI Bill was enacted; it opposed not only the “intermingling of civilians and veterans” but also “the granting of any greater benefits to civilians than those given to veterans" [Canaday Journal of American History, 2003].  6) "Veterans benefits were a bargain for conservatives who feared increasingly high taxation and the extension of New Deal national government agencies....Veterans benefits would go to a small group without long-term implications for others, and programs would be administered by the VA, diverting power from New Deal bureaucracies.  Such benefits were likely to hamper New Dealers in their attempts to win a postwar battle over a permanent system of social policy for everyone." [Bruce Amenta Bold Relief (1998)  p247.] Rjensen (talk) 01:25, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I see you're still pushing this partisan angle hard, in 2023.  Based on https://fdr.blogs.archives.gov/2020/11/10/fdr-gi-bill/, it seems specious.  It indicates FDR had put together and announced a large program.  Reverting.  Please don't put this partisan stuff back, at least not without sources.  I don't see the sources you cited above long ago supporting this angle, and in part refute it-suggesting it was conservatives who didn't want a large program. Avoid WP:SYNTH. RudolfoMD (talk) 00:35, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please! →More balance, more nuance, more thorough support. 

message: This article does not seem to say anything about educational benefits for Vietnam War veterans... or the period between the mid 1950's and the mid 1970's.
Also the VEAP period is not described in adequate detail. I joined the Army in 1983 and fell under that. I don't know the exact details but we had to choose to participate, we had to pay into the program, and I recall the total benefit was uselessly low, like in the $5000 to $8000 range maybe. Basically we got the shaft.
I assume the various "chapter" headings are accurate, but wouldn't it be less confusing to downplay the legal chapter bit and instead put the major programs/eras in a chronological sequence?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.213.20.170 (talk) 00:35, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vietnam Era? 

message: Re. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=G.I._Bill&diff=next&oldid=1176246252 some of that may be true about contemporary VA benefits, but this is about the GI bill. RudolfoMD (talk) 00:09, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @RudolfoMD, your comment is unclear. Are you objecting to the restored content in the diff you link or supporting it? Schazjmd (talk) 13:54, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither.  It's complicated.  And since I posted that, my view changed -- a bit. I noticed:  The article is about the GI Bill, but kind of also but mostly not about what are still called GI Bill benefits. (The article notes, "The original G.I. Bill expired in 1956, but the term "G.I. Bill" is still used to refer to programs created to assist American military veterans." and the gov't has a popular "GI Bill Comparison Tool" for example.  So the text the link I gave highlights supports some key claims in the removed content, but with respect to current GI Bill benefits, AKA VA benefits. And it provides valuable context and is perhaps relatively balanced on the topic it addresses.  So I'm just noting a source that provides useful content for future improvements.  But with respect to how the original GI bill helped with housing, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e68CoE70Mk8 is informative too, though I presume CollegeHumor is not RS. RudolfoMD (talk) 21:26, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article is fair.  

message: — Assignment last updated by Heinzam (talk) 19:57, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: HIST 463 Consumerism in Modern America