fred8033

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.

... duplicate ...(This message has been edited by fred8033)

For me, it's not the badge. I like any badge where I can get to know the scout, provide a bit of my life experience, guidance and wisdom ... and make a difference. I'm sad when a scout shows up with a completed workbook from MeritBadge.com. I'm impressed with the scout, but it means I'll have little chance to make a significant contribution. Basically, if it says "discuss" and the scout wrote his answer all out, then he can just regurgitate the words and be done. Do I reject him if he just reads the words written? Do I demand more? I don't think that's legit. If the scout is not in a hurry and we can have a good discussion, fine. But more often then not, my experience is that scouts that have the requirements written out want to be done with the badge. They are not focused on learning or chatting. They just want to be done. I'm also sad when a scout shows up for a merit badge where they've done it in school multiple times. It feels lame to make them go thru the same hoops again to earn the merit badge. That seems so true for communications, citizenship in the ###### and numerous other eagle badges. I'd like to see more badges like tracking, welding, wood working, carpentry, fishing, climbing, cooking, camping, canoeing, hiking, etc. More doing. More showing. More practical. More fresh topics that will be new to the scout.. Things where the scout can't just show up with a completed worksheet and where the scout can't just re-hash what they just did in school or found via Google. If it is a discussion related badge like any of the citizenship badges, I'd like to see more requirements like attend a city council and visit national historic landmarks.

Twocubdad - Your right. From a few of the hints in the original post, it's really hard to give good accurate advice without knowing more of the details. I'm afraid this situation falls into the mess category in which everyone contributed some amount and now people are stuck with untangling the issues.

I have a hard time with this. I don't personally care about a person's orientation and I'm definitely not going to spend time weeding them out. It does not affect me. But, it would definitely be a significant deciding factor if I was at the time choosing what troop to put my sons into.

Huzzar wrote: "Have two or more adults joined at the hip on every trip?" Isn't that what we're trying to avoid happening at our scouting events? Sorry. Had to add some levity.

Kristian wrote: "Defining and actually enforcing the active requirement is whats going to help here." Kristian is absolutely right, but if you don't have them already defined for since the scout joined your troop and you knew about it, then it's sort of moot for this specific incident. VigilEagle wrote: "I think the big thing here is sitting down with the Scout and understanding the situation." I think that's the best answer. Not necessarily sitting with the parent. Sitting with the scout and understanding the situation. You will probably need to talk with the parent too to learn more. But they are separate conversations. Once you deal with the situation mess, then look at the advancement questions. Advancement is individually pursued and earned by completing the requirements. Maybe he has done that and that's absolutely fine. It really depends on his situation. There's nothing wrong with getting a rank advancement on his 1st meeting as long as he has completed the requirements. By the way, he has to attend a meeting to have a SMC and/or a BOR.

I've got to admit that our pack plays slightly lose with the dues. Though we won't sign anyone up for summer camp or other explicit activity without receiving payment, we are flexible with re-charter. - If a scout is attending meetings and/or involved, we recharter them. We treat dues as a separate issue. - If they paid dues but we haven't seen them for a long time, we recharter them. They paid and that was the purpose of the money. - Only if they don't pay dues and they are also not involved at all, then we drop them. No communication necessary as they are not communicating with us. I'm not a collection agency. We do our best. We notify parents and maybe send a 2nd request. We deal with parents the best we can. But if parents don't bother to pay dues or pay attention, then the kid is not going to go very far. We just want him around as long as he is interested and benefitting from scouting.

Saw two district changes. One just before I became a leader but I saw the results. One while I've been active at the unit and district level. The 1st was a split. It went smooth but there was lingering problems as neither district had sufficient quantity of units to put on a really good roundtable with good breakouts. Other issues too such as friendships not seeing each other. Generally, life went on. Those who grumble, grumbled. The 2nd was a merger with another district. The other district was most of the old broken off district and part of another. Those districts had been re-aligned again. It was fast and quick, but handled well with sensitivity. Again those who grumble, grumbled. One memorable problem was that the OA chapter which had been once one chapter, but had since split, was again one chapter. The OA advisor claimed it would be too big of a chapter. It worked though. I think the OA advisor was more concerned with his position and having to deal with change then anything else. The biggest problems were with people. Change leads to two questions. #1 What job will I have in the new district? #2 Is this a good time to step away? From what I saw, if two districts had each 15 committed volunteers, the new merged district will have 20 committed volunteers. Not 30 volunteers. BUT, now you have more units to pull help from for roundtable and camporees. IMHO, it's been a huge success and the new district is much better then the smaller older district.

EagleLeader wrote: "..., so until recharter rolled around I totally forgot about him." Plus EagleLeader wrote that the registration process caused some "tension" with the troop committee. So, your leaders knew he was on the roster and official per BSA. So now it's moot who signed the app and how he joined. By doing nothing and leaving him on the roster for an extended time, the troop accepted the scout. That raises the question was the scout ever ever attending your meetings or ever ever went on a camp out. If not, then you can start the relationship as Beavah said. The challenge is what to do with rank advancement progress that has been made since his last rank advancement and his last troop. It could have been partly in the last troop. It could have been after his last troop but done using the same mechanisms. What I'd have hardest with is the "active" and "POR" for Star and Life and "with patrol/troop" requirements. You need to use your judgement, but ... depending on the situation ... I'd let the requirements decide. THEN... THEN... I'd reset expectations so that everyone is on the same page. Leaves the scout with a starting positive experience. BUT if he does not plan to be an active member of your troop, drop him from the roster. Better now then later. Better now then the headache questions that will happen later. I say let the requirements decide because every rank has expectations for troop involvement: "10 separate troop/patrol activities" ... "On one campout, serve as your patrol's cook" ... "one of these campouts, select your patrol site and sleep in a tent". Star and Life requires "active" (hard to define) and to complete a POR. If you really follow the requirements, it's impossible to become a paper Eagle. ===================== The original poster raised a red flag for me and it is a classic example of why I hate the Webelos transition. She asked about his advancement when she had her Webelos den visiting. That's an implicit statement of you better keep me happy if you want my Webelos to join your troop. I've seen this year after year with Webelos den leaders that try to negotiate or sweeten the pot. We are at the point now that our troop has a good program and it is what it is. We'd love your scouts to join us but we won't jump thru hoops to make it happen. I just have contempt for the whole Webelos process in general(This message has been edited by fred8033)

If you get a 10-12 person adventure, you only need two adults. Just say'in.

We don't mind one parent coming with. Maybe two. BUT we try to separate the parents from the scouts. We don't even want the parents hanging near by quietly. It's a distraction. So if the parents come, we usually break out a game of hearts, spades, cribbage or similar. I enjoy it and the real purpose is to let the scouts bond and learn from each other.

qwazse had great advice. IMHO, ultimately the ones that go are the ones that commit. It's an educational point that others will need to learn. That to achieve and be part of something special, you need to invest yourself long in advance. It's the same for jobs, relationships, education and anything worthwhile. It is always easier to stay non-committal, but then you automatically lose. That's life. Try to get more to sign up. If you are borderline for a 2nd group (one or two short), open it up for cousins, non-scouting brothers or former scouts that just turned 18 or similar. I'd rather stretch the rules slightly then to have scouts that want to go lose out because of a numbers game. I've been to Sea Base and I loved it. MUNSON. munson. MUNSON. munson.

OldGreyEagle ... I'm often confused by criminal prosecutions for causing the death of a fetus. Or the driving laws for negligence and death of a fetus. http://criminal.lawyers.com/traffic-violations/Vehicular-Homicide-Laws-and-the-Unborn-Child.html

Cambridgeskip wrote: "In short, none of them could understand what the fuss was about. They were actually a bit surprised to learn that religion was any problem in terms of joining anything. They are used to people having different beliefs and are all quite able to discuss theirs without being nasty to each other. " That's what I'd expect. The push to remove reverent and God from scouting is not a scout based push. Scouts deal with these situations all the time. It's a political push. I find that interesting.

Nike has one view of the question. "Who has more right to control what's going on in that uterus? The woman? The fetus? The man? The State?" That's only one policy question. From my view, the question is worded as does one life have the right to end another life in the interest of their own freedom? The question is political and a matter of policy ... not a matter of science. We know when a unique human being is created. We know where the major transition from two separate people, two separate parts into a new single UNIQUE living entity occurs. We also know when the heart starts beating. We know when the fetus can start feeling pain. OldGreyEagle ... I find these articles are very useful when distinguishing the "science" view from the "political" view. These articles are from Princeton, about as authoritative as you can get. http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/wdhbb.html So... The science is clear. The policy is clear. But the combination is a mess. Obviously, women have a right to control their bodies, absolutely, as does anyone. BUT .... the state recognizes the duty to support the lives that people create. For example, mothers and fathers are routinely forced by the state to financially support their children for 18 years. Parents can be jailed for "abandonment". One famous case was in our local newspapers this year. But we hear all the time about the deadbeat dad (or mom). So one life is 100% dependent on another life for nine months. Instead of 18 years of support, we are talking about nine months. Or probably only seven months more by the time of abortion. Or only four months more of support if you already consider the child a life not worth aborting in the 3rd term of pregnancy. From what I understand, most abortions are driven by the economics or the wrong time of life or wrong situation. So if the economics or situation was different, the child would be wanted. That itself itself becomes pitiful. That's playing russion roulette with human life. Obviously, I view abortion as murder. I'm not ready to walk the steets in protest or picket planned parenthood. But as my children grow to adulthood, I find abortion a ghastly concept.