fred8033

Our house is littered with the lower leggings of switchbacks. Trying to match sizes and leggings gets to be a real pain. We are now in the mode that we just never remove themm or we never put them back on. Sure we unzip partially for venting if it's really hot out, but we never fully remove. It's just too easy to lose and just too hard find the right set to get them ready to go again.

JoeBob raised a good point. Our council copy of the national training data has been horribly hit and miss. They will have some, but not others. It's like national has a data feed to the council that runs nightly or weekly. And it fails now and then (i.e. read as September & October). So what I saw is training done in July or November is showing up right now. Training done on MyScouting.org in Sep or Oct was not showing. Very frustrating. Hard to take the whole effort seriously when the data quality is so poor.

This is what I've done. For the next committee meeting ... or the next time you see them ... make sure you have WiFi ... bring a laptop. As soon as they show up, pause for a moment and get them signed into myScouting.org. If they have trouble signing in, get their password reset and get them connected to their email to get the password. If still can't get in or they don't show up, call their house, go visit and wait as they complete it. Their seeing you show up at their house will help them realize how important it is. Hopefully, they won't be such a pain two years from now.

Does Patrols in your troop stay together for a long time, or are the members moving around a bit more? ... Long time, six to eight years. Do you feel like this is a good thing for your troop or not? ... Very good. What does your troop do with an inactive or disfunctional patrol? ... We would reflect on the troop program, offerings and scout retention. Patrol organization is a scout matter. Who does it? The SPL and PLC or the Scoutmasters? ... None of those. Scouts organize their own patrols and choose their patrol leaders. ..... Age based patrols. New scout patrol. Scouts are free to change patrols at any time after discussing with SPL / scoutmaster. Scouts that join when older (not a Webelos cross over) can choose the patrol they join. Generally though, our patrols last about six to eight years and then die off. Most scouts never change patrols. Remaining scouts are welcome to stay in their patrol whether it's a one or two person patrol, join another patrol or serve in a leadership role, if applicable. It's funny to watch older patrols in the last two years as scouts age out. They fairly quickly go from six to eight scouts to four to three to two to one. Scouts seem to take pride in it.

duplicate.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

Beavah wrote: "Yah, but apparently da inference was right, based on what yeh report above. Yeh have zero experience with troops that don't run NSP, and zero experience with troops that run mixed age, stable patrols" Are you confused or just wanting to confuse. You did not ask about new scout patrols and it was not mentioned once in your post. You asked "Have yeh ever had any real experience with a mixed-age patrol troop?" I did list my experience with mixed-age patrols as an ASM. I did not itemize my outside experience as it didn't seem necessary but I've done the WB bit (bobwhite), been on district leadership for 5+ years now and been involved helping teaching classes and coaching units. ----------------------- Beavah wrote: "In Patrol Method scouting, it is NOT normal and natural for patrols to die" Say's who!!! Prove it!! Your comment replies to a deformed caricature of jblake47's original comments. Neither he or I infer that patrols should regularly reorganize. Patrols are best when they exist for the scout's whole career with mostly the same scouts and it's a set of friends who want to do things together. *** EVERYONE *** Read what jblake47 wrote earlier. Read what BSA says. Now if you're talking the Queen's scouting program or a scouting program from antiquity or the military, fine. Not everyone on this forum is with BSA scouting. Or the 21st century. ---------------------- Beavah wrote: "There's a reason why WB has permanent patrols " What? Dude, your pulling this stuff out of your Canadian back side or did you just inhale too much on a trip thru Denver. Woodbadge does NOT have permanent patrols. W.B. patrols are created and die off with each class. If not a single person continues in the patrol from the previous time the patrol existed ... it's not the same patrol. If it's not the same troop or W.B. class, it's not the same patrol. If ya don't have the same patrol flag ... or patrol yell ... or patrol equipment ... except a name, it's not the same patrol. If ya don't have a single continuous patrol member to teach the new members, it's not the same patrol. Instead, WB teaches the new scout patrol method! W.B. patrols don't have four members from the previous class and four members from the new class. Everyone in the patrol is new to the troop / class. The patrol gets a troop guide immediately to help orient you. And the members elect their own patrol leader immediately from their own neophyte group. The troop guide helps mentor the patrol and the patrol leader. And when the class is done, the patrol dies off. WB teaches same-age patrols!!! I think WB is a great example too. I've got good close friends from my time in the Bobwhite patrol. We still chat, visit and give each other hugs. Guess what though. We only passingly know others from the WB class ... because we were a patrol from the start, tented and stuck together thru the whole thing and functioned as a patrol of equals (similiar experience trying to learn the same things and do the same things). That's a patrol. ---------------- Beavah wrote: "It also isn't made up for by quotin' isolated guidebook sentences" Issolated? Criticizing for quoting the official materials? Like that's a bad thing! It's the scoutmaster handbook. It's the root source that says how BSA has the program designed. Yeah, you can find dated materials that say otherwise, but I can also find medical text that talk about bleeding the patient to let out the bad blood and that talk about the benefits of all male skinny dipping. There's a reason the materials are dated and old. Ya use what's official and current. Anything else is just wanton negligence. You can also use the Patrol Leader Handbook. It says the same stuff as the Scoutmaster handbook. The only difference I see is that the Scoutmaster Handbook uses the newer term Venture patrol and the patrol leaders handbook says older / senior scout patrol. But the description and intention are the same. http://dna.engr.latech.edu/~bishop/BSA-Troop45/Patrol%20Leader%20Handbook.pdf I love how it says the Venture / senior / older scout patrol may not got to a regional summer camp and instead choose to do high adventure or something new fresh and challenging. Huh. It's hard to follow that suggestion in a mixed age patrol. But I guess you can just mash together an impromptu patrol that just exists for the adventure and then dies out. Which patrol then takes pride in their adventure and accomplishments? You did say that my views contradict what some of the current BSA literature and training says. Fine. Prove it. ------------------- I'll agree with this. Patrol is the home of scouting. A gang. A team. A family. BUT ... it's not strongest when it's the tradition. And it's definitely not the strongest when you go elsewhere for friendship and activities. It IS the strongest when it's with those that share friendship, similar experiences and a purpose. Heck, I remember my whole son's patrol going as a unit winter camping. The older scout patrols didn't go as they'd already done that program three times. http://scoutingmagazine.org/2012/04/how-scouts-friendships-strengthen-patrols/

Beavah - How quick you are to infer ignorance or lack of experience by someone else! That's pretty small. You may have more years of experience, but more years doesn't make it right. It just makes it entrenched and one-dimensional. ===================== Yes, I've been involved in both stlyes of troops. My oldest joined in a troop that had scouts start in a new scout patrol. From there, the scouts could change to other patrols if and when they wanted. Most stayed together their entire scouting career. My son and his patrol buddies did not know each other before boy scouts, but they have been best buddies ever since. And their non-scouting buddies have become friends with their scouting buddies. Heck, my son drives his truck to another patrol members house now to change the oil. A neat thing to see happen especially as the spilage is over there and not at my house. My second son joined a troop that temporarily started new scouts together but they "assigned" older scouts to their patrol because, as they asserted, new scouts don't have enough leadership to lead themselves. Hogwash. Later, the scouts got split apart into mixed age patrols. With all the bouncing around the scouts never built the close bonds that is one of the main attractions of scouting. From what I saw, scouts never formed bonds to their patrol because it was at least their 2nd or 3rd patrol. At that point, it takes more years then left in boy scouts to build the same patrol pride. From what I saw, the patrol was more the-work-unit than anything meaningful to the scout. Maybe other troops can make it work but I saw alot of power trips by older scouts and scout leaders. Leadership "because I said so" or "I'm the senior scout" and the assumption that the junior scouts didn't know enough. That was their concept of leadership and their way of teaching it. I just don't care for it though. ===================== Anytime people are arrogant enough to say "Have yeh ever had any real experience", watch out. You might want to think whether you want their advice guiding your scouts. ===================== BEAVAH ... I accept some troops do mixed age patrols. Said it repeatedly. I seen one troop in-depth and others from the perifery. I haven't seen it work in a way where I'd want my sons part of it. QUESTION ... Where in the BSA documentation do you find the mixed-age patrol concept documented and/or recommended? Where do you find the recommendation for assigning scouts? I'm doing my best to interpret and implement what BSA has written ... and guess what ... I find it works pretty darn well. Page 8 - Method 2 - The Patrol Method Page 20 - 24 - The Boy Led Patrol http://www.people.vcu.edu/~albest/Training/ScoutmasterHandbook2010.pdf http://scoutingmagazine.org/2012/04/how-scouts-friendships-strengthen-patrols/ .... The rest is just blowing hot air.

I'm amazed how people assert things such as "Same age patrols tend to have an environment of slower scout growth..." or "Mixed age patrols should encourage the patrols to recruit new scouts every year to keep ages balanced". Some very authoritative statements are made that are opposite of my experience. Perhaps it all comes down to Your milage may vary and do what works for you. I'm comfortable with similar age patrols and letting scouts choose the patrol they want to be in if they want to change. It works well for us. I like the environment it creates. Scouts get to start practicing leadership immediately and see what works and what doesn't. Troop guides are around to help. PLC is around to help the new PL learn his role too. Training and mentorship is key is always key. ...... Beavah wrote: "In a mixed age patrol troop, boys naturally select that way,eh?" Boy's naturally select? It depends on which side of the decision the boy is sitting on. If you ask the SPL/PLC to "assign" boys to a patrol, they will do mixed age. Just like at work or military or most other areas, leaders want balanced teams. But patrols don't need to be balanced across each other. IMHO, patrols need to be balanced within so that they naturally are interested in the same topics, same activities, want to spend time together and do things together. If you ask the boy select where he goes, 80%+ will choose to go with their same age or with their buddies. And ya know what, I'm perfectly fine with that because those are the people the scout would naturally spend time with. As such, I'd rather have them together responsible for each other than responsible for others and then ditching those people to be with each other. http://scoutingmagazine.org/2012/04/how-scouts-friendships-strengthen-patrols/ .................... I guess it really depends on the environment you want to create. I'm very comfortable with how BSA describes it. Other's don't like it or have had trouble with it. That's their unit though. Scoutmaster Handbook, page 8 of the 2010 edition... "Method 2The Patrol Method "Within the larger community of the troop, the patrol is a Scouts family circle. Often made up of boys who are close in age and experience level, each patrol helps its members develop a sense of pride and identity. The boys themselves elect their patrol leader, divide up the jobs to be done, and share in the satisfaction of accepting and fulfilling group responsibilities."

We've done that before. Many scouts said it was the best camp out of their scouting career. - Really think. What do you want to accomplish? What you want to keep like a summer camp? What you want to keep like a normal troop / patrol camp out? - Choose specific specific badges to work on. We choose fishing, motor boating, water sports and canoeing. - Choose a good location. We choose an issolated state park group camp site that had a nice short walk to a small store that the scouts would visit to buy treats now and then. - Variety - Have plenty of activities. We did day trips to local historic and natural attractions. - Keep the cost down. We found we were able to do seven days for about $130 including cost of entry into local attractions. - Plan the menu well. Scouts initially planed it and then led and did the cooking, etc. But we did handle the acquisition and packing of the foods ... because there was alot of food. 30 people for seven days is alot of food. We cooked as a troop to keep cost and packing down. At a scout council-run summer camp, everyone eats together as a unit. So we did the same for this camp out. SPL created duty rosters and responsibility was shared. Meals were a fun opportunity to everyone to get together and re-sychronize events. Low stress. Lots of activities. Lots of fun.

We've done that before. Many scouts said it was the best camp out of their scouting career. - Really think. What do you want to accomplish? What you want to keep like a summer camp? What you want to keep like a normal troop / patrol camp out? - Choose specific specific badges to work on. We choose fishing, motor boating, water sports and canoeing. - Choose a good location. We choose an issolated state park group camp site that had a nice short walk to a small store that the scouts would visit to buy treats now and then. - Variety - Have plenty of activities. We did day trips to local historic and natural attractions. - Keep the cost down. We found we were able to do seven days for about $130 including cost of entry into local attractions. - Plan the menu well. Scouts initially planed it and then led and did the cooking, etc. But we did handle the acquisition and packing of the foods ... because there was alot of food. 30 people for seven days is alot of food. We cooked as a troop to keep cost and packing down. At a scout council-run summer camp, everyone eats together as a unit. So we did the same for this camp out. SPL created duty rosters and responsibility was shared. Meals were a fun opportunity to everyone to get together and re-sychronize events. Low stress. Lots of activities. Lots of fun.

chaoman45 ... Just ready the scoutmaster handbook on The Boy-Led Patrol and you will do fine. http://www.zion412.org/Library/BoyScoutLeaderHandbooks/ScoutmastersHandbook1of3.pdf -------------- chaoman45 ... You've hit one of the big eternal debates: How to structure patrols? People will look at the exact same situation and see diametrically opposed interpretations. Some want older "experienced" scouts to lead these groups. Others are okay with same-age scouts leading each other. In the end, most people just defend what theyve always done as the right answer. IMHO, read the BSA Scoutmaster Handbook on "The Boy-Led Patrol". Its hard to go wrong if you implement the program thats documented and dont over think it. Scouting has a lot of nuances, but its really not that hard. With that said, I just dont understand how to make mixed age patrols work well. You have to assign scouts and essentially break up friendships and clicks. Further, you break up people who are the same level. It just makes no sense to me because if a patrol is anything, a patrol is a set of kids that do things together. Id assert its more than just cooking and tenting. Its hiking, learning, swimming, canoeing, high adventures, etc. My experience with mixed age patrols is that the patrol disintegrates during down time as scouts go hang with their friends who are usually the same age. IMHO, that is the number one sign of a strong patrol. Its a set of kids who stick together and do things. I also just dont like assuming you need older scouts to lead younger scouts. Scouts learn by doing. That includes leadership. Having an older scout in charge is not so much about leadership as it is about submission. Smaller, younger, newer people in any group will often submit to the opinion and direction of the bigger, older, tenured person. Its not so much about leadership as much as about power. I'd rather turn that position on it's head and say that you need the confusion and the lack of "that's how it's always been done" to teach lessons about leadership. I had a friend who defended assigning older scouts into the new scout patrols as patrol leader because it was unreasonable to expect new scouts to know how to lead. IMHO, that is exactly the time to let them lead as they will be the most fresh and excited about scouting. Who else is motived to do a great job following thru on commitments than a brand new scout? That excitement easily brings them over any leadership deficiency. The rest can be quickly taught. One thing that Ive seen happen in mixed age patrols is the same thing Ive seen happen with the SPL position. The younger scouts elected their own guy. Older scouts and parents were miffed. Scoutmaster was frustrated because it wasnt supposed to work that way. My reaction was that thats exactly how its supposed to work. Of course, that group always tried to stack the deck so that the elections were strongly guided to who they thought should be SPL or PL. Just so happens now and then the scouts thought differently. Then, what do you do? Over-ride the election? Anyway, its an eternal debate. Just ready the scoutmaster handbook on The Boy-Led Patrol and you will do fine.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

IMHO, so what if a patrol dies as scouts age out. New scout patrols work well as they have enough members. I've seen three scout patrols of 16 year olds that seem to work fine. They just happen to also then be the scouts that often take up troop leadersihp positions. IMHO, the real key is let the scouts work it out and preferrably, let the scouts choose what patrol they want to be in. If each scout chooses such that it becomes age based, so what. At least the scouts get to experience the decision process and the results of their decisions.

Merlyn_LeRoy .... Merry Christmas.

My experience this year was ... my home town YMCA ... which was connected strongly to the city churches when I was young. Now, the title is just "The Y" and the sign says "Happy Holidays". They are trying to market Christian and Christ out of the equation. Under history on their web site it says: "The Y was founded in London in 1844 by George Williams and a small group of his friends to help young people find a positive foundation for their lives. The YMCA came to America in Boston in 1851, and quickly spread throughout the United States." Positive foundation? It was a Bible study group. The only mitigating positive is that it linked to this page that does mention the Christian basis. Sadly, the rest of the history is white washed of the strong church involement. http://ymca.net/history/founding.html I think they are staying true to their mission, but the mission was to promote Christian values. One Christian value is not being embarrassed to be a Christian. Anyway, that was my sad holiday moment.

Sentinel947 wrote: "... mentally challenged ..." I think we've all said it. I just want to be careful. It's not the mentally challenged ... or the physically challenged. They do fine in scouting. In fact, they are often the best scouts in the troop. It's the scouts with EBD, emotional behavior disorders. - Scouts that become majorly fixated and then can't listen to direction. - Scouts that are quick to lose it and don't handle stress. - Scouts once they do lose it, swear, hit, throw tantrums and potentially hurt others. - Scouts where these behaviors are "clinicially" significant. (beyond just having a bad day) Remember - Scouting is not a treatment program. - Scouts need to work with other scouts, independent of adults. - We are all volunteers. - Adult leaders are not trained to handle severe psychological conditions. - Youth leaders are not trained to handle severe psychological conditions.

You are better then me then. It's the scout's own work product, so I'd let the scout use it at any time. I can't think of a "memorize" MB requirement, though there is probably one out there. Host are discuss, show, list, name, etc. So if the scout wants to use his own work product for that or something else that helps, fine.

You are better then me then. It's the scout's own work product, so I'd let the scout use it at any time. I can't think of a "memorize" MB requirement, though there is probably one out there. Host are discuss, show, list, name, etc. So if the scout wants to use his own work product for that or something else that helps, fine.

Beavah, ya just like arguing. Exec salaries are rallying cry for the "tax the other guy" cause. And an exec with an eight figure income would be at the 35% (39% after the cliff) tax rate. He could only achieve a rate around 17% if it was mostly from capital gains. But you know that. And ya know why people argue that capital gains should be a lower rate. If you have a solution for CEO pay, great. Put it on th table and let's see if it could become the law of the land. I don't have the answer for executive pay, but you don't create a tax system for 330 million people based on the income of 100 people and then call it fair to the rest. Sit and complain about the other guy if ya want. It's just a grumbling distraction.

Beavah ... I fully agree with "to whom much is given, much is expected." IMHO, that's a faith and moral decision. I'm 100% fine with that and I try my best to honor that with my time, my effort and my money. But I'm not okay with philosophies that say "tax the rich" and "they need to pay their fair share". It's the philosophy of blame the other guy. I just don't like those philosophies at all. Democrats have gone a long way from Kennedy's "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country." Now, Kennedy's quote is more like "Ask what others can do for your country." FDR's SSA concept of everyone paying in to get support later in life is now regressing into a general tax, not an insurance program at all. I guess when 47% of the population has zero tax liability and another 26% get more out then pay in, there is nothing that's fair. Morally, those who have much should be do more. Sure. But governments that legislate morals are dangerous and better be prepared to create re-education camps and execute those who disagree. And from what I read in the press these days or hear on NPR, there is alot of hatred toward those who disagree. Of course, many conservatives bring it on themselves with some of the worst candidates and policies I've ever seen. But I get scared of the "take from the other guy" concept. .... Warren Buffet ... in 2010 Buffet ONLY paid $7 million in taxes, about 14% on roughly $50 million of income. Is that fair? He also owns 23% of his investment company and that company paid $5.6 billion in income taxes in 2010. Fair? I don't know, but I have a heard time saying he didn't pay enough. As for Mr. Buffet, there's a good man who feels responsibility to help others. But I'm amazed that the case example of him and his secretary was not torn apart more. Investment income versus wage income. How much does his secretary earn? Over $100,000 probably, if not over $150,000. http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2012/01/25/warren-buffetts-secretary-likely-makes-between-200000-and-500000year/ Anyway, we can go round and round on what's fair. Referencing Buffet is a classic debate techniques right out of "The Art of Being Right". We can pull single cases out from each side to argue points and then never establish what's fair. .... Back to scouting and our youth leaders.... I've seen many youth leaders stand up in front and tell others what to do. The best few have been the ones who set the direction and then get invested in working to get it done and thus leading others in doing it too. So when Buffet puts his own money where his mouth is and gives the government another $5 million a year consistently for say 10 or 20 years, then I'll start listening. Yeah, he's donating to charity. I know many rich people who do exactly the same thing. Instead, let's see him give it to the government.

Scoutingagain... ... I'm referring to this extension that added a tax to recapture the 2% cut. http://www.irs.gov/uac/Payroll-Tax-Cut-Temporarily-Extended-into-2012 ------------------ Tax analysis is not simple. But ... even before that change, the Bush tax cuts had $11,440 paid in social security for their income. That's 10.4% ... their 4.2% and the company match of 6.2% ... which in my view is still their taxes paid because it's part of the cost of the employer paying that person. It's just reported in the employers taxes, not the worker's taxes. IMHO, it should be listed also on the earners W2 as it's part of the cost of employing the person. The company doesn't see a single difference between paying the tax and paying it out as pay to the person. It's just cost of that person. Before the Bush tax cuts, it was 12.4% FICA plus the 2.9% Medicare. That's 15.3% or $16,830 of payroll taxes for that person. Then add income tax on top of that. Higher earners don't pay FICA over that amount because SSA program was not designed that way. FDR promised it would never exceed 3% each for earner and company and it was capped at the first $3,000. One main reason is that high earners don't benefit from SSA for all their income. They are maxed out. SSA was designed to be financed thru payroll taxes. Payroll taxes is the FICA tax, not the income tax. It was designed with a limit. Originally it was 1% each (worker, company) on first $3000 of income. Then it went to 3% of income income in 1949. Then 6.2% for atleast 30+ years until the recent Bush era tax cut. ................ If people want ALL income to be FICA taxable, then one of two changes should occur. ---- Every retired person gets the exact same amount independent of what they paid in. So some people might actually get more income AFTER they retire. This is a change in program concept. Before it was you pay in to get paid out. ---- Every person should get income based on all the income that was taxed. Pay in on more you should get more out. Without one of these changes, the program would just not be logically consistent. ................ As for the rest over $110,000, they pay income tax on that amount and at a significantly higher level. So a family earning $25,000 has a marginal tax rates of 10% and 15% on their income and an effective income tax rate of ZERO. A family earning $110,000 has marginal rates of 10% thru 20%. Income over $110,000, your tax rate is 28% to 35%. The top rates more then make up for the FICA change. ................ Anyone making a slight against people earning money that they don't pay their fare share are just showing the ugly green face of jealousy. ................ I must admit that I'm a flat tax person. I like the concept of payroll taxes and believe the income taxes should be eliminate and we should change the payroll taxes (FICA, Medicare, etc) to a flat 20% for everyone on all income and 10% on the employer side. ................ I'm barely in the top 15% but I find the "tax the rich" position ugly and offensive. People claiming that the rich don't pay their fair share are generally uninformed of the specifics. Now if you want to say they need to pay more ... fine. But to say they don't pay their fair share is just offensive. ................ I find it interesting that the Bush tax cuts were overwhemingly mocked by the Democrats originally and now the "Bush" tax cuts are being defended and Republicans are being demonized for putting them at risk. The short term memory is amazing.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

Papadaddy wrote: "...but I cannot be a part of your treatment program." I think that is a good consise statement that we can reuse. We can accomodate disabilities, but we are not trained or to be part of a treatment program. A correlary to this is that you are always accepting responsibility for the scouts. Parents attending does not relieve the unit leaders of their responsibility. And, IMHO, parents attending does not guarantee safety as the parent is not joined at the hip to their scout. Most importantly, scouting is about scouts being with scouts. Our job is to encourage scouts working independently with other scouts and need to separate parents from the scouts to achieve that. So if we are successful, parents won't be there to handle their child's emotional behavior disorders. Essentially, if you are uncomfortable accepting responsibility for a scout, then watch out because having a parent present does little to mitigate behavior and other dangers and does not relieve you of the responsibility for that scout's behavior. Most importantly, it does not protect the reputation of your troop from that scout.

CalicoPenn wrote: "start treating the lad as the individual he is and things will be much better for all." Fully agree. Individual clinical labels are not the cause. Plus these days, almost everyone could be clinically labeled. .................... BDPT00 wrote: "Scouting is the one place these "different" kids can feel safe." Fully agree. Scouting needs to be the "safe" place. .................... BDPT00 also wrote: "Of all the kids you serve, these kids need you the most. Don't turn your back on them." I disagree and we need to stop using this statement. I understand and generally agree with the attitude, but every time we've had trouble with a scout we've also been saying "if anyone needs scouting, he does" for at least six months to two years. The key is that if the scout can't function "INDEPENDENTLY" within the scout oath and law, then scouting is not a good match and they will drive away other good scouts. Now, some of our best scouts have major mental and physical disabilities. I am excited and proud to have them in our troop. We go the extra length by doing things such as bringing orange road construction cones to put by their tent so they remember which tent is theirs. Or they bring a service dog. Or we keep their pocket knife for them and help them use it when they want to use it. Or one of many other things. But in the last year, my attitude has changed on other boundary cases. I propose a few rules of thumb... - If mom and dad need to come with to help them change their clothes, toiletries or help them with the program, fine. Glad to have them. - If mom and dad need to come with because we don't trust the scout, then scouting is NOT the program for them. Scouts need to work with scouts and our volunteeer scouts are not taught to handle mental illnesses. - If an otherwise intellectually normal boy can't respect the personal space of others or won't stop swearing or won't stop intimidating others, then scouting is not for them. They might need scouting, but they are driving other kids away that also need scouting. If kids are willing to work within the scout oath and law, they are very welcome. If not, then they need to move on. I think we as scouters need to start taking a harder stance. In the long run, it will help the program and help restore the good name of scouting.

perdidochas wrote: "..." I fully understand ... but a family of four with income under $25,000 does not pay any income tax. They pay FICA and Medicare tax (payroll taxes) but so does everyone. The difference is the increased child CREDIT, from $500 to $1000 per child and the 2% lower FICA tax (from the long term 6.2% to the recent 4.2%). I fully understand life is hard at $25,000 per year. 2% lower is $500. At $25,000 per year, the child credit is 100% back to the tax filer. The new tax law represented another $1500 back to the family each year ... beyond what they paid in FICA or income tax. So not only did they not contribute to the federal budget, they actually got $1,500 MORE back beyond what they paid in via income tax or payroll taxes. From what I see, ... and I could be wrong because many specifics play into taxes ... but when a family of four files a tax return with $25,000, they owe zero income tax and get about $5,000 out. Life is hard at that income level. But I've seen my payroll taxes increase by double due to the FICA taxable limit raised from $65000 in 1997 to $110,000 now. That was about $3000 more in taxes then 15 years ago without any income increase. Families over the $110,000 per year never got the 2% lower. That's a $2,200 impact. ............... I have a hard time giving credence to those who don't pay taxes.

I thought I was the only one. My view ... take the cliff. I'm a life long republican and it seems like the responsible thing to do. Last I heard ... and I could be wrong ... we're running a 180 billion deficit a month right now. That's about $570 per person in the U.S. ... $1250 per working person in the US ... or about $2400 per person who pays income tax ... or (very rough guess) $5000 to $10,000 per person per month who makes about $100,000. (I'd be more precise, but I don't have the time or data with me). I'll never hit the 1% club and probably not even the 2% club. But it seems like we all need to kick-in to solve the budget instead of the democrat position of tax the rich. IMHO, that's really just another version of irresponsibility and blaming someone else and choosing a policy because it doesn't affect me. IMHO, that's just not intellectually or morally honest. And to be honest, I think it's sleazy. IMHO, the cliff tax chainge is only talking about returning to the higher payroll tax rates of year 2002. We're spending more on social programs. Wouldn't it be right to return to the levels we were at for 30+ years?

I don't, but I do know a scouter who extremely discretely carried one on a week long canoe trip. Just in case.