packsaddle

Gold star to Beavah for math correction. However, caution flag for thinking that the Tea Party approach either can or intends to address the moral obligations Beavah mentions. A casual glance at our labor or civil rights history shows what most of us really DO - with respect to that moral obligation, if simply left to our own conscience. We make the token contribution and feel good about it.

You are retired at 63????

For me a weekend needs two nights out. Get to the trail early and get a few miles in before dusk on Friday. Friday supper: Steak, ribeye at least 1/2 lb - grilled over an open bed of coals (steak is frozen but thawed by suppertime) Baked potato, big one, in those coals, butter, salt, pepper Fresh tomato, baguette, fresh milk, maybe hot chocolate, really long, deep sleep paper milk carton is burned, the other waste is small amount of foil and plastic wrapper. That evening meal serves two purposes: It took up a lot of space in the pack as well as weight. Now the pack is lighter and there was no temptation to fill that space with other gear while I was packing. Sat breakfast - remember, this is still at the first campsite and serves the same purpose as the previous night pancakes with the rest of the butter and maple syrup, plenty of it. Bacon, as much as I dare to carry, possibly use the bacon grease instead of the butter the syrup is in a container that is now used for clean water or drink mix. Waste consists of small amount of plastic wrap. Utensils are wiped, boiled and then dried. paper towels burned in the fire before it is extinguished. lunch: very light lunch, gorp, crackers, anything left of the baguette, maybe an energy bar, lots of dilute lemonade or similar drink. Waste is small amount of plastic wrapper. Sat dinner: rice with chicken or tuna, lots of it. cookies. Lemonade or instant tea. Waste - foil bag. another high-carb, deep sleep. Sun breakfast: oatmeal (apples and cinnamon or raisins, extra raisins too, brown sugar) hot chocolate. Waste - foil packets or ziplocks. Sun lunch: dried fruit, nuts, energy bar, whatever is left, tea or lemonade. Waste - perhaps some ziplock bags. Homeward bound. Pack is a whole lot lighter now. I might not be.

Beavah, if you had grown up when I did in the South, you would recognize that 'social stability' is NOT a phrase that was used by 'liberals'.

Wow!

Scoutingagain, I agree. Perdidochas, as I've written before, it's because the plan IS to have no plan. If things chug on like they are, there will be no further agreements on the budget and the across-the-board cuts will begin. It's that simple. I hope I'm wrong, however, and they would do well to at least follow Simpson-Bowles. But I agree, it pains me to listen to Alan Simpson's good sense and then see it ignored and worse, wasted. Too bad for us. Edit: Brent, I admit I'm perplexed. You're one of the last people I would have expected to push for a special interest like this.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Hallelujah!

Beavah, Calico gave you a start in his post. In addition, Perry organized Three Days of Prayer for Rain that began back on Earth Day. Needless to say, the response from the Almighty was...well...with a 'dry' sense of humor. He also decided to pray for the markets and the following Monday they lost over 600 points. I'd really like him to stop doing us favors. There is another really interesting statistic too: he has presided over more executions than any other governor, ever...even Dubya. Of course, this just puts more shine on him for some of us. The secession thing, I think, was the best one of all, though. I'm thinking, Oh please, oh please!

"Removing the interest deduction would have the same effect as raising interest rates. If I couldn't deduct my mortgage payment, my real purchasing dollar would be worth around 30% less, depending on my tax bracket." This is confusing. First, the interest deduction only applies to interest - while the interest 'rate' applies to the entire amount you still owe. Those are not the same thing. Second, I was unaware that someone can deduct a mortgage payment. But if that's possible, I agree..that would be worth some serious cash. Correct me if I'm wrong because if I am wrong about not being able to deduct the mortgage, I need file a whole bunch of amended returns. I have always read economic analyses which conclude that the mortgage interest deduction tends to lead to greater property prices and that its removal would cause prices to decline. If so, the removal of the deduction might just make ownership a little easier for those poor people you're so concerned about. As it is, the greatest benefit of the deduction tends to go to people who are wealthier, right? Just think, more of those people might be able to afford to live in Dunwoody! Woohoo!

Shortridge, the suicide numbers are under-reported. For a variety of reasons, a coroner has informed me, the determination of suicide is sometimes set aside if they can find (rationalize) another cause of death. This is not to say that the prevalence of suicide is MUCH larger than the CDC figures, only that there are likely more of them than is reflected in those numbers. A few examples: a boy is found hanging in a makeshift rope web. No suicide note, but a history of depression and self-threatening statements. A boy is angry and distraught and jumps into his car and goes into a curve at about 110mph, no skidmarks. Two boys, having just fought over a girl, driving separate vehicles, decide to play 'chicken' at high speed on a straight-away. First case, accidental death. Second case, accidental death. Third case, two accidental deaths. But none of them are clearly unintentional because in each case, the boy(s) made conscious decisions to place themselves at risk. I could go on about this with a much longer list. In retrospect, I see the concept of suicide in terms of a broad category...one which might include many more results of self-destructive behavior than the ones that are patently obvious to the coroner.

I'm curious to understand where the figure of 25-30% comes from. Really? Please explain how eliminating the mortgage deduction would have that much effect. I am willing to accept Brent's numbers as real, after all why would he exaggerate about something like this? I just want to be able to understand how he got to those numbers. As for the effect on the construction industry, Hey, that is the American economic system. Love it or leave it. Heh, heh, I've loved repeating that little nugget every since Vietnam. But really, if the construction industry's well-being depends on being able to suck on a government teat, maybe there is a bigger problem here somewhere. (note to Tea Party: here's another government handout to eliminate!) And if someone is having trouble coming up with a down payment on a house, they need to consider that maybe, just maybe, they SHOULDN'T be able to purchase the thing. If they're having that much trouble, they're living life on the edge and as the whole housing bust has shown, those people tend to fall off, losing not only the house but most or all their investment as well. Like I said, that American economic system, the unseen hand, the magic of the free market....

I suppose in a way, I'm guilty as charged. At least I didn't start an "Eagles Against Perry" Facebook group.

I agree with Trevorum. I can't say how I would approach this until it happens and then it will depend entirely on the boy and the circumstances. I do have a question for Trevorum, how do those statistics break out for males vs females? Is there a difference?

"You just seem to be a more hands on kinda guy. A District position seems to be a waste of your talents." Eamonn harkens back to my boy scouting days as well. We camped and we did it every way there was to do it. We went to national parks, we backpacked, and we just hiked and explored. We didn't have internal frame packs, heck we had to make our own external frames out of steel conduit and then figure out how to strap the canvas packs to them. Brutal. We did almost nothing but camp and hike and camp back then. We were children of the forest, at least I was, and I and my cohort loved it (I still do). We all still revere our old scoutmaster from back then (thank goodness he's still alive). So I think Eamonn's on the right track. Kudu too, except sometimes seems a bit obsessed with trying to change what the organization has done to scouting...(my hat's off to Don Quixote, I hope he is successful). Trouble is, it is difficult-to-impossible for some populations to get access to the resources that we had literally in our backyards back in the rural South. There either has to be a mechanism for gaining that access for urban populations or else the program has to be flexible enough to allow for the lack of that access in some way. I am thankful for Eamonn's thoughtful counsel here in these threads. I can't fully understand the problems he faces where he is but I am certain that he is making the best decisions about his involvement and whatever those are, he's doing a great job at it.

This Eagle is opposed to Perry. I join Beavah on this topic. Keep the Eagle rank out of politics.

The plan IS to have no plan. To risk the use of another contentious topic, I offer 'global warming' for example. One of my favorite skeptical scientists who is brave enough to publish his views on this notes that even if he accepts the admittedly flawed climate models, IF he employs them with the assumption that we can do the impossibly difficult task of removing the equivalent carbon which 1000 nuclear plants would replace, those same models show practically no change in the predicted outcome. I am convinced that like the climate change situation, we have already 'screwed the pooch' on this. As a people we are not going to be effective at redirecting climate - it's arrogant to think that we even could, and we don't really seem to want to anyway. Likewise, as a people we have elected an assembly which could not have been better designed to do nothing if we had consciously tried to do it. We don't have the stomach for measures that WOULD make the corrections, so the plan IS to let circumstances dictate our actions and the consequences. Lifespans ARE going to shorten for both young and old. 'Quality of life' IS going to degrade on average. The tea party is little more than a political manifestation of the 'every man for himself' approach to government and life. And we have either consciously or unconsciously chosen this path. I don't see it turning around - I think I mentioned this near the end of the Bush administration: when the bus has just plunged over the cliff, what does it matter who is at the wheel?

I'd like to have a chat with the person who started this slander of Kool Aid which everyone seems to want to repeat. The people at Jonestown didn't drink Kool Aid. They drank Flavor Aid. For cryin' out loud, get the facts correct please.

So...is that an argument FOR or AGAINST means testing? How about some actual reasons one way or the other so we can try to make sense out of your thoughts? Edit: Kahuna, that's the second time I've been accused of being mentored by Grayson. The first time I had to look him up to figure out what they were talking about. Evidently we came up with this independently...convergent evolution? (This message has been edited by packsaddle)

"For no other reason than they and their employer paid into the program." Then they also should get food stamps and other forms of welfare. I think I get what you're saying. You don't like certain things so you want those eliminated. I get that. But as Beavah notes, you can eliminate ALL those things and still have the debt problem, most of it. One way or the other, the big things ARE going to get cut. Either we will do it as part of a (hopefully) rational plan or else the eventual calamity will make the selections for us.

No Kahuna, Cuts in those programs will merely result in shortened life spans. If those old people want to really do something nice for their grandchildren, if they can't support themselves without the welfare program, they should just die quickly enough not to bankrupt their children in the process. Better that it should happen to the elderly than for the children. But the cuts will probably affect both. Besides a bunch of WWI veterans already learned what happens during Washington protests. Not one of our prouder moments in history. Edit: How about this? Increase the retirement age by a couple of years. Or...No retiree who has more than $XX external income collects any SS benefits, essentially a graduated means test. I know persons who will retire with incomes in mid-to-high 6 figures. Why should they get SS on top of that? SS was originally intended to be a 'safety net' (read - welfare). Remove the income cap on contributions. Unless the statistic is wrong, the top 1% of Americans have 70% of the wealth. Why exempt them from the tax? To compensate them for their sacrifice, remove the limit to tax-free external income after retirement. Those top 1% persons (and everyone else) can then enjoy their capital gains (or any other income) completely tax free. Wow, think of the jobs that will create...in India, Singapore, China.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

"To help other people at all times" That's why we pay into those programs. They are not some kind of bank account in which we rack up credit for our own benefit. We do this for others because we collectively choose to and WE are entitled to NOTHING...unless others freely choose to provide something to us AND in case we actually need that assistance. Some of us will 'get' far more from those programs than we paid in and some of us will 'get' far less. The 'accounts' we see on those idiotic SS statements merely show they're keeping tabs on what we paid in. There's no promise of paying it back to us and we sure don't deserve any such promise. Those programs are nothing more than a glorified form of welfare and they should suffer the same fate that welfare programs suffer: cuts, means tests, elimination. Same for the military-industrialist complex. Eisenhower's speech was one of the most important speeches in the history of this country and we ignored it. Tough luck for us. I can't get over how much so-called 'conservatives' like to invoke the unseen hand and the free market but they just can't seem to stomach the consequences of those things. The spoiled children want to have their cake and to eat it as well. Sorry, facts of life: you just can't have it both ways. The Darwinian approach to society is kind of rough. Go pout in the corner. At least the so-called 'liberals' are consistent - unrealistic but consistent.

"How come no one ever mentions programs like Health and Welfare, Department of Education, Department of Environmental Quality, Army corps of engineers, Department of interior, Department of agriculture, and many other federal programs that suck money out of the system just to pay those working in the programs. Why not start the cuts in the personnel department." Not to mention that at least one of those would have to be created in the first place so we COULD cut it. Civics lesson please??? For that matter don't All federal programs suck money to pay their personnel? Well....duh! What would be more constructive is for suggestions such as those quoted above be specific about the cuts. Just what programs of the DOI would you cut? Why not D of Energy as well? Are you sure you want to cut the above aspect of D of Defense and if so how? Be specific. And I note also, that my concept of 'heaven' contains Dairy Queen, along with KFC and Krispy Kreme doughnuts, all with 'All You Can Eat' signs. So hands off that sacred cow!!!

Yeah Gunny, just think about how perfectly self-regulation worked for tobacco, seat belts, mine safety, air bags, leaded gasoline, lead paint, asbestos, pesticides in food, air quality, water quality, etc, etc. In each and every case industry took the lead in insuring the safety and health of all citizens even if it cost them profits. Government merely held back the progress.

I think the verdict on the adult behavior is clear so I won't add to that. I would like for your son to understand that his friendship and support for this boy is part of living the scout law, especially that 'brave' point. He should be proud of his loyal friendship and his honesty about his feelings and what he has seen and heard. This is a very powerful lesson that he and (unfortunately) the boy are learning about the power of hatred and how groups can take hate and make it an institutional element. A powerful lesson indeed. As a young man, I learned similar lessons from similar events, except with regard to civil rights. Sadly, the kind of malevolence that hurt so many persons on the basis of racial hatred and prejudice back then continue to hurt people today, just based on additional forms of hatred and prejudice. Leave that unit. If you think this characterizes scouting, leave scouting. But remember the lesson.

Here's the problem with comprehensive healthcare: "No program will work unless people want it to work. Everyone must have a stake in the process. By sharing costs, consumers would have a direct economic stake in choosing and using their community's health resources wisely and prudently. They would be assisted by requirements that physicians and other providers of care make available to patients full information on fees, hours of operation and other matters affecting the qualifications of providers. But they would not have to go it alone either: doctors, hospitals and other providers of care would also have a direct stake in making the Comprehensive Health Insurance Plan work. This program has been designed to relieve them of much of the red tape, confusion and delays in reimbursement that plague them under the bewildering assortment of public and private financing systems that now exist. Health-cards would relieve them of troublesome bookkeeping. Hospitals could be hospitals, not bill collecting agencies. Comprehensive health insurance is an idea whose time has come in America. There has long been a need to assure every American financial access to high quality health care. As medical costs go up, that need grows more pressing. Now, for the first time, we have not just the need but the will to get this job done. There is widespread support in the Congress and in the Nation for some form of comprehensive health insurance." Richard Nixon - 1974 Evidently, as Jon Stewart pointed out, Nixon was a communist.