Beavah

Don't sweat the small stuff, Blancmange. By all means support this family as a troop if yeh wish. Livin' by the Oath and Law is never prohibited. Beavah

Not raising the debt ceiling would not cause a default on our obligations. Yah, it would have. Yeh forget that revenues and expenses come in at different times, eh? If yeh have an expense that is due and yeh don't have the revenue to pay for it, yeh either borrow or you default. Yeh can't say "but wait, I'll have the money I owe you when I get da next quarterly tax payments in October!" So as you say, we're borrowin' 40 cents on the dollar. We spend .25 cents of that dollar on defense, .22 cents on social security, .23 cents on Medicare, .06 cents on interest, .05 cents on transportation and security, .12 cents on general welfare, .03 cents on education. Now find me 40 cents without raisin' revenues. We can eliminate every single social program and all education funding. That gets us 15 cents. Also gets us more foreclosures and personal bankruptcies and bank failures and riots in a number of major cities, plus throws a bunch of state budgets further into the red, with resultant personnel cuts and such. But that's OK. Yeh have .25 cents to go, plus a buffer for cash flow. You can eliminate the entire defense and homeland security expenses. All the way to zero. You up for that? Is that a "spending addiction?" Or you can completely eliminate Medicare and all border and homeland security. How's that sound? You'd only kill a few hundred thousand people's relatives in da next year or two. Or eliminate social security and do cross-the-board 20% cuts in the military. That's like eliminating all of Central Command, a complete cut-and-run from the middle east, on top of stopping social security checks. Just more "spending addiction" right? Don't mind da homeless elderly and more foreclosures and bankruptcies and bank failures. Yah, yah, it's fun to complain and call it the "gubmint" and talk about "spending addiction" and all the rest. I wouldn't call it "adult" or "mature" though. Gubmint? Really? What are we, two years old? Adult and mature would be paying our bills. Yah, there's room for some wise reductions in expenditures. And there's room for increasing revenues. What's not possible or rational is suddenly defaulting on 40% of our obligations. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yet at $1 Billion, 0.01% is $10 Million. Math check. I think yeh mean 1%. Either that or $100K.

I don't think the Scout Oath contemplates required support for policies of social activism by government. Yah, I agree with this, eh? But it comes with a next step. Yeh can't as a scout or a scouter just ignore all of the needs that Eamonn talks about and still live by the Oath. Nor can yeh say "well, I volunteered one weekend" or "I gave $100 to charity" but still let all those folks in need suffer. So yeh have to, as a good scout, answer what the next step is. If it's not social activism by government, then it has to be social activism by us. Not just a little to make ourselves feel good, eh? But whatever it takes to get the job done. I think the other thing we have to be careful about with a notion of personal or local charity only is that often times the folks most in need are geographically or socially separated from others. We might be happy to help our neighbor keep their electricity on, eh? But as I've mentioned before, without the charity of those who live in urban areas, those who live in rural areas would have no electricity or phone service, eh? There's just not enough business in such areas to justify the private market spending all that capital on rural build-out. So as a nation, we chose a universal service tax and federal rural electrification to subsidize those things for our rural citizens. That's a market distortion, eh? Forced charity. Now, if we choose not to do that through the government, a scout has to answer the next question. What do we do individually? It's awful hard as an individual to pay for power grid build-out to remote locations. So are we OK with those citizens not having connectivity (and the pressure it would put on rural folks to move to the cities)? Do we each buy a rural family a big generator and pay for fuel? Or pay moving expenses? It's fine to say we'd help a neighbor who lost a job. But what about when 40% of your neighbors have lost a job? In some towns that lost auto factories, it was that high or higher. Are yeh ready to give half of your income to support another family in need? Or let 'em lose everything? Do the folks who live in white collar towns that didn't lose jobs not have to help out because their neighbors aren't out of work? Lots of times, helpin' others effectively requires organization or at least coordination. Lots of individuals just doin' their own helping is nice, but it's very inefficient. It can overwhelm local areas, it can create duplication and confusion, naive citizens can give "help" that really just gets in the way or is counterproductive. So if we agree that government shouldn't lead or coordinate, who? The random citizen who steps forward? Or does that risk scamming people, as we've seen with some private "charities"? Nah, there's no Scout Oath or Law obligation to support social activism by government. But there is a Scout Oath and Law obligation to serve our fellow citizens and help others in need. So I think we can't just stop with "no government!". We have to answer the next question: Then who? Beavah

Yah, I think yeh have to not focus on "obedience". That's a four letter word for kids that's only associated with dimwitted and dull adult lectures. Instead, yeh have to work with your youth leaders and youth on relationships. If da SPL is a friend and a fellow they trust and think highly of then there's not much of an issue. A brief laugh and an "OK, come on guys" is enough for da cell phone thing. So is your SPL that sorta fellow? If not, help him to build those positive relationships. And perhaps take a look at what's up with your elections. I think, too, yeh have to let kid meetings be different than adult meetings, eh? There's going to be a bit more fun, a bit less focus, and a lot more energy. Accept that as being OK. Channel it, work with it, enjoy it. Don't discipline it. Also help da SPL with developing a workable agenda. An SPL "discussing" the importance od communication is an SPL behaving like a lecturing adult toward his peers. Of course they're goin' to chafe at that. An SPL bringing up a problem with communication and asking them for help with ideas is goin' to get a better response. For the rest, use natural consequences as much as possible. I wouldn't blah blah blah da way Eagle JCS describes, I'd just do it. Group doesn't leave. Group misses the activity. It's not like the adult runnin' his mouth adds anything to the lesson. Then da SPL leads the debrief and the guys troubleshoot. Positive peer pressure is a wonderful thing, if yeh make a space for it. Beavah

Yah, Gunny, I agree veterans benefits are an obligation we should honor. That doesn't mean they're an obligation we have to honor, eh? Remember, da tea partiers in congress were willing to default on all of our "contractual obligations", no matter who they hurt. "Starve the beast" means all of the entitlement programs are goin' to get hammered, including veterans benefits, which is our 4th biggest expense after Social Security, Medicare, and defense. Yeh remember what VA hospitals were like back in the day, eh? Or maybe you're younger than that, but I remember. Some of da most decrepit, inept, and awful of federal "services.". And that was when taxes were higher than they are now. It's like any contracted pension or retirement benefit, eh? There's no guarantee, if the company goes bankrupt. Just talk to da workers who put in 30 years with GM, the biggest car company in the world, and saw their pensions decimated in bankruptcy. Yah, sure, yeh trusted in da faith and credit of the United States. But as we saw just recently, a controlling portion of da current majority in the House are willing to break that faith just for politics. I find it reprehensible, and can't fathom how they call themselves Christians and conservatives. But it is what it is, eh? And no sooner had they done it than they promised to behave da same way in two years. Taxes, after all, are naught but armed robbery, and yeh should appeal to private charity rather than "inefficient" public service programs. Beavah

Fair enough, shielab. The correct way is whatever is consistent with your Chartered Org's mission and values and what works for the kids. The BSA offers a program to help with those things, and it helps a lot, but it's not a substitute for adults caring and being reasonable and thoughtful. Keep your focus on the boys and your desire to help 'em grow and really lead, and don't sweat the small stuff. And kudos to yeh for doin' the hard but exciting work of starting a new troop! Beavah

Yah, well. For our country, I reckon it means yeh should argue for and vote for what's best for the country and all its people. And if in the end da vote goes in favor of a program you didn't support, then yeh support the system. Yeh don't try to undermine it, yeh don't try to litigate around it, yeh don't try to bankrupt it. Yeh support da will of the majority and you do your best to try to make it work. Yeh might not have voted for the war, but given that we're at war yeh serve if called, and tax yourself to support those who are serving. B

Definitely don't leave it up to the committee! They don't know diddly. Leave it up to the boys. With only 10 lads, yeh most likely are best as a one-patrol troop rather than two small patrols of 4 with an SPL/ASPL. The small patrols would just collapse through ordinary attendance issues on an outing, and that's not good patrol method. So for right now, yeh don't need an SPL or ASPL, just a Patrol Leader and whoever the Patrol Leader feels he needs to appoint to positions to help him out. An assistant, a quartermaster, whoever. Then hold an election for PL. Yeh can defuse da popularity thing just by giving some guidance and limiting each candidate to substance. What trips did he plan and run in the last year? Can they commit to being at everything or will they miss a lot for band, Etc. No joke speeches and such, and yeh can further limit the position by rank (if your ranks mean something), or age, or scoutmaster approval in some other way. Require NYLT or TLT or a SM conference for each candidate where yeh outline expectations and such. Whatever you think it needs. The boys will select natural leaders that they'll listen to, and if you filter a bit for boys with necessary skills or responsibility yeh should get what yeh need. Then yeh work with da PL to help him select other PORs. And then yeh work your tail off on teachin' these new young leaders so that they can succeed! B

Yah, what BadenP said. Eagle92, someone steered yeh wrong back in the day. COR has always been allowed to dual register as either CC or MC. Depends whether or not he/she wants to chair meetings and do the other work a CC does. But if da committee votes, I think a COR has to avoid confusion. If he/she votes as part of the committee, it's not kosher to override the group just because the vote didn't go the way the COR wanted. Yeh have to trust your people or get new people. If it's a CO mission or policy issue, than the COR should make that clear up front so that the committee knows it's not a voting issue. So to get back to sheilab, no, the COR doesn't have to register as a committee member, and whether or not the COR votes on the committee is up to how the CO wants to structure its committee. Can I ask if this question refers to a specific issue in your unit? Maybe if yeh give us more details we can give yeh more help. Beavah

Yah, BA, I agree with yeh. Can the subsidies. Like I said, it's hard to distinguish between the destruction caused by ill-considered foreign aid in Somalia and da destruction caused by ill-considered welfare in da U.S. There's a reason why some of our big city mayors look a lot like 3rd world presidents in terms of cronyism and corruption. Rethink government, too. Limit it to da sorts of things I'm talkin' about. I'm all for that. Debate where the edges lie. Mortgage interest is out, roads and bridges are in, but now is basic health care for children and workers an infrastructure cost, because everyone needs it and benefits from it, and it reduces the burden on business and commerce? Maybe. Put that way, it sounds a lot like a road. But perhaps only basic care, eh? I don't necessarily agree with that, but I'm open to da argument. We can debate these things responsibly as citizens thinkin' about what's best for the nation. But like BadenP says, not if da point is "I want to get mine!". My subsidy, my special interest (but don't make me pay!), otherwise I'm goin' to throw the whole nation into default and wreck everything. That's just irresponsible and petty. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Nah, your taxes won't be any lower, eh? Yeh can cut all those programs and still not come anywhere near fixing the deficit. Now, if yeh are willing to axe defense, veterans benefits, social security and Medicare, that's a different story! Of course, I expect you'll find that cuttin' all the social support programs increases expenses for police, fire, prisons and the like, as well as da risks to private persons and businesses. Just look at da riots in Britain. So yeh have to be thoughtful about what falls under the "investment" and "distributing risk" categories, eh? Proper nutrition for kids might fall under the investment category, because that yields economic growth and reduced long term health costs. Subsistence housing might fall under distributing risk, as there's some risk of any of us becoming homeless. But one need only look at da completely corrupt and dysfunctional governments in many poor urban areas to recognize that we do the same sort of damage with aid here in da U.S. that we do with foreign aid in places like Somalia. B

I think SP was referrin' to personal political support rather than public support as a scout or scouter. At least that's how I read it. Does the Oath require us to vote for certain policies? I'd still say "no", but with one caveat. I think we are obligated by da Oath not just to vote our own self interest or bias, but to work hard to vote for the health of the nation. We should put God, country, and others ahead of our own self-interest or personal preference or that of our party or social group. If that means taxing ourselves and our friends, so be it. We should have Mr. Buffett's sense of duty and fairness. We swore an Oath to do our duty, after all. B

I'll be glad to give up my subsidies, if everyone else will, as well. Keep Social Security and Medicare, if you want, but sure, let's do away with all the others. What do you say? Deal? Yah, sure! But don't know why yeh want to exempt SS and Medicare. Us old folks have had plenty of time to save for retirement, why should we be subsidized? Makes no sense. If we're goin' to provide health care at all, it should be to kids and workers. That at least is an investment, because they're still contributing to economic growth. To my mind, da government role should be limited and small, to those things that are best done collectively. Defense, so long as it doesn't get too big in peacetime so that it's driving the economy and can control da populace (think Egypt). Infrastructure. Emergency and disaster response. Policing and regulation. That sort of stuff. Happy to pay for that with as much tax as it requires. Consider it my civic duty in fact. Don't mind public investment at da basic level either. Basic research, education (as vouchers for all), exploration, so long as the work product enters the public domain for all to use. No good if it's public risk and investment for private gain. Only place I think there's room for debate is with how we choose to spread risk through insurance, whether private or public. We all have risk of catastrophic events, eh? Gettin' cancer, losin' control of our car, having our house burn down, the 500 year flood, loss of work through no fault of our own, etc. Those risks can be so severe that they could leave us destitute and reliant on public charity. And da rule should always be no public risk for private gain, eh? It's not fair to make da rest of us pay for your risk taking. Especially in health areas where your not vaccinating your kid to save a few bucks can put others at risk. Sometimes we view da risk as common, and just tax everybody to distribute da risk. Like defense and disaster response and fire and police protection. Sometimes da risk is personal and we figure the group that has the risk should distribute it by private insurance. Like owning a boat. In between those two there's room for debate and experimentation and collecting evidence on what works best for protecting the public. Maybe auto insurance should be required for anyone who owns a car, or should be provided by da state and taxed as part of registration fees. Is da societal cost for uninsured motorists or MVA litigation too high? Is an individual choice to save a few bucks on insurance resulting in those dollars being stolen from others who are injured? Those are da questions we are facing now, and they're good questions that merit careful thought and discussion. But yah, definitely eliminate all the market-distorting subsidies and da public risk for private gain stuff like Fannie and Freddie. B

Yah, hmmm... me thinks yeh have the causation thing backwards there, BA. Homeowners do have higher net worth on average, because on average homeowners make more money. Not because they don't rent. In most markets, they'd have more money still if they chose to rent and invested da difference in the market. Of course, takin' big mortgages is a leveraged investment, with many folks leveraging out 5 to 1 or more with other people's money and several levels of government subsidy. They won't let yeh do that in the stock market. BrentAllen, a tax break is a subsidy. No different than the EIC. Yeh pay less than your share of taxes in return for doin' somethin' the government wants you to do. That means that somebody who doesn't own a house or take the deduction has to pay more for things like flood relief and such that primarily benefit homeowners, and for the military and everything else. It's a distortion of the market, which ultimately harms the economy. You're talkin' like a liberal with all this stuff about "social stability". Like da big government can create social stability by giving benefits to some people but not others. Yeh want the government to start encouraging marriage now? And subsidizing better schools? Sheesh. Crazy liberal. Remember, a government that uses economic policy to encourage marriage can encourage any sort of "marriage." All da new-fangled "conservatives" want smaller government, so long as they get to keep da government subsidies that they use. Then big government is OK, eh? Just as long as someone else is payin' their dole. Beavah

Yah, and here I thought the best way to make it rain was to take some boy scouts camping. B

Yah, packsaddle, everybody is a conservative until it comes to their big-government subsidy. . Can't touch that. Kinda like the tea party folks with da "no socialized medicine!" T-shirts and the "hands off my Medicare!" signs. B

Yah, interestin' BS-87. Like I said, I'm not particularly familiar with Governor Perry. Perhaps someone who is can give a summary. I figured he was a Tea Party favorite because of da ranting of the mainstream media, but apparently not? More a social conservative and an economic liberal then? Anybody want to give an ignorant northern critter a summary of da pros and cons of the governor and his positions on issues? Beavah

Yah, Eagledad, da union-based health care programs in states like Wisconsin have been a scam for years, eh? That's not news. Any district that bids out health care is goin' to improve over a captive monopoly program run by a special interest. I'm just not sure how that applies to Universal Health Care. Perhaps yeh could explain. Da nations that have universal health care are experiencing costs between a half and two thirds of ours in da U.S., with similar health outcomes and lower growth rates in expenses. Of course, they're also experiencing a form of rationing through longer delays for specialty care and lowered access to very expensive procedures, which is da tradeoff. Beavah

Yah, I wouldn't be too hard on the lad. Who among us hasn't occasionally gotten a wee bit turned around, eh? Now me, I've never been lost, though I have been a might confused for day or two. Yeh don't really figure out what to do when lost until you've been lost, eh? Beavah

We have had a LOT of boys switch from baseball to lacrosse; purely because it looks better on the college application. Huh? Yah, hmmmm.... someone is goin' to have to explain that to this old feller. B

Yah, interestin' response to this question today from billionaire investor and all and all decent fellow Warren Buffett: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html?_r=1&hp "OUR leaders have asked for shared sacrifice. But when they did the asking, they spared me. I checked with my mega-rich friends to learn what pain they were expecting. They, too, were left untouched... by legislators in Washington who feel compelled to protect us, much as if we were spotted owls or some other endangered species. Its nice to have friends in high places...what I paid [last year] was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income and thats actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent. I would leave rates for 99.7 percent of taxpayers unchanged and continue the current 2-percentage-point reduction in the employee contribution to the payroll tax. This cut helps the poor and the middle class, who need every break they can get. But for those making more than $1 million there were 236,883 such households in 2009 I would raise rates immediately on taxable income in excess of $1 million, including, of course, dividends and capital gains. And for those who make $10 million or more there were 8,274 in 2009 I would suggest an additional increase in rate." All this extra taxation in addition to Buffett's Giving Pledge, promising along with others to give most of his wealth to charity Beavah

I'll have an asset worth 6 or 7 figures that I can pass on to my kids, or downsize and use the extra equity to supplement my income during the "golden years. Yah, but only because you've been subsidized by da government, eh? Both through the mortgage interest deduction and the government intervention in da credit markets. So you have been a burden on da government and on other taxpayers. Especially on those lower income taxpayers who are renting. You have been on the dole, my friend, and like everybody on the dole, yeh want it to continue. Yeh also have been living in an unusual area. That's either luck or foresight, eh? If it was foresight, good on yeh. But it's often easy to mistake a bull market for intelligence, and da Atlanta area has definitely been a bull market. That hasn't been da average experience of most folks in the country, as Tampa Turtle points out. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Eleven? Yah, it would be hard not to smile. I think that yeh listen to the lad and counsel him as Cambridgeskip suggests. Yeh just let him know that mixed up feelings are part of growin' up and that he needn't worry about it. 17? Yeh sit with the lad and be a good listener and let him talk through his feelings. Then yeh show your continued respect for him, and yeh help where yeh can... includin' helpin' him find other folks more experienced than you are to talk with and work through things with. 18? Same deal. I tend to think of 18 year olds who are still in high school as kids, but 18 year olds who are workin' or in college as adults. For the adult case, then yeh have to be mindful of your CO and community and the BSA and the example yeh want to set. That might take some harder conversations down the road a pace, but not right at the start. Take care of da person, first. Beavah

Sure, get rid of the mortage deduction. I'm sure that everyone's already depressed house prices will only drop another 25 - 30%, and the housing construction industry will get completely wiped out. Such a small sacrifice, right? Yah, that magnitude is probably a bit high, but there'd likely be a significant drop, because home prices remain inflated by the deduction and low mortgage rates. Which just goes to show that government policies really do affect things, eh? Da mortgage deduction really does help distort the market. So if yeh believe in less government and that people should pay da real cost for things and make their own decisions without the government tryin' to pick winners and losers, then phasing out the deduction is a reasonable choice. In da modern world, people often need to move for employment, and home ownership (especially an underwater mortgage) adds friction to the movement of labor. So it makes da U.S. labor market less nimble and efficient. It's also true that home ownership is generally a poor long-term investment, absent market bubbles and distortions. Was even before the crash. So the deduction tends to encourage folks to make a poor choice, when it's likely better to pay rent and invest in vehicles that improve capital flow and do a better job of economic expansion and job creation. http://www.smartmoney.com/spend/real-estate/renting-makes-more-financial-sense-than-homeownership-21111/ Beavah