vol_scouter

Beavah, You got to be kidding me! We now import most of our steel. Textiles have left. The chemical industry has left. In fact, this country is incapable of building a large nuclear reactor without importing large components! We have been selling our technology for the past few decades based upon our lead in science. From World War II through the 1980's, the science journals were dominated by USA researchers. That is far from true now. Since the government is broke, it is unlikely that trend is going to change. Also, the brain drain has slowed or ceased because we are no longer a haven of democracy - we are becoming a socialist disaster like the rest of the world and the resulting decline in the standard of living coupled with improvements in their home countries mean that they no longer stay. We are left without goods to sell if we are not careful. If I get a chance, I will try to find references for the medicare/medicaid beginning and end of life costs. Also, I originally proposed a fair tax. Also, with freeing up the jobs taken by illegal migrants and providing incentives for people to get off of welfare, we can decrease - not increase the welfare rolls. This is not my area of expertise but it is not as difficult as it said to be. The politicians need to be interested in the country's welfare rather than establishing their socialist/fascist state.

Beavah, I have read over the years several times that ~80% of the costs of medicare/medicaid occur at the beginning and end of life and I only cut 1/2 half of that cost. Your hyperbole is just that. Physicians get upset and depressed providing critical care therapies to people who will have a bad outcome anyway. It is cruel and wrong. Keep the government out. Maybe the third time will be a charm. These measures will result in an upswing of the economy as heavy industry begins to return and business gets moving. That will increase the tax revenues. Also, I said that there could be an across the board modest tax increase so that the proportion of the population that pays no taxes diminishes. Both of those measures will increase tax revenues. So once again, this is not that hard. Will it affect people? Absolutely, but continuing down this path will result in a total economic collapse which historically results in wars.

Forgot to add, stop paying off people's mortgages. Most of us who have bought homes were responsible and bought within our means. We get punished for doing so because we end up paying off the irresponsible people who borrowed more than they could afford.

Beavah, So the medicare savings would be larger since if you cut half of the costs in the first and last months of life, the savings would be ~$320 billion (1/2 of 80% of $800 billion). I did not say cut public he alt programs which provide the most health benefits but rather make everyone pay for their routine visits. Preventive medicine does not work except for a very few things like immunizations. After a quarter of a century preaching weight loss, smoking cessation, and exercise,; I have few success stories. The cost of routine visits would soon drop because the expensive reporting and billing would be removed. There would be no death panels because the government would only provide an indemnity plan and would no longer be involved in dictating care. The savings come from enabling physicians to say that this medical situation will result in death and withdraw or not provide expensive care with no risk of lawsuits. You also failed to take into account the increased revenues as business ramps up and more people go back to work. The folks who are here illegally can be replaced by displaced Americans and folks currently on welfare. Welfare reform needs to copy our European friends who do not have a cliff for their welfare benefits (at least not Denmark where I lived for a while) but support is gradually withdrawn as folks earn a living. It can be done to reward working. The democrat party has kept people on welfare by making essentially all benefits expire if one has a minimum wage job. They then pander to this voting block - it is disgusting. Rep. West said it best. So I believe that I have met the requirements with reasonable cuts, modest tax increases which you did not consider, fewer people on welfare (and paying taxes), and the improvement in the economy. It is not that hard to solve if the two parties want to actually help fulfill their constitutional duties. The democrat party would never allow their voting block to get off of public programs so that any reasonable solutions will not be allowed. Compromise to the left means agreeing with them. The Tea Party did compromise and was then accused of being the problem. The democrats/liberals/progressives are the irresponsible ones and are successfully destroying the country.

Beavah, That is a difficult question indeed. My work is government related and so proposing cuts may well entail the loss of my own job but if they are not made, then it will not matter with my position survives or not. NPR is actually a primary source of my news and I believe that it would be worthwhile if it were to be balanced in the coverage and selection of stories. I really doubt that to be possible so cut it. The department of education is not the province of the federal government so I would faze it out over 6-8 years and return education strictly to the states. Note that the US test scores fall is approximately inversely proportion to the involvement of the federal government. The waste from what I see is due to over regulation. The government makes new regulations that make everything take longer, cost more, and require new bureaucrats to oversee it. So I would try to decrease regulations and duplicative programs. To stimulate the economy, regulations need to be decreased on the private sector as well. It is hard to know what is waste and what spending on security that is hidden in the budget. I would decrease overseas aid that seems to cause more problems in the long run than help. DoD will have savings if we get out of our 3 wars. However, considering the threats, I would increase the defense spending on R&D and the intelligence community. Not sure whether that would be a modest net savings or not. The issues of illegal migrants to the country needs to be addressed and either make them pay all taxes as a citizen must or remove all federal welfare, social security, medicare, medicaid, etc. services. Most of the money (~80%) spent in medicare and medicaid is spent in the first and last days of life. I would cut funding in these times by increasing the ability of attending physicians to withdraw medical interventions in hopeless situations (I see this all of the time). I would decrease the regulations in healthcare to decrease costs. Health insurance should be like other insurance - it should only cover the expenses that people cannot be expected to pay. Homeowner's insurance mainly covers large losses and will not pay for routine maintenance. So medicare and medicaid should be primarily a hospitalization plan. They should be changed to indemnity plans to bring the free market into the plan which has not been the case since the 1970's. REPEAL Obamacare!!!! I would change the taxation system to the fair tax and have slight increase in tax revenues from what is being collected. The Sarbane_Oxley (sp?) accounting needs to be repealed. The congressional mandate for Freddie and Fannie to make loans to folks that are not good risks. Get rid of "green energy" initiatives, tax breaks, etc., Decrease the EPA. For social security, review all that get benefits that were not part of the original intent (help at retirement). From the little that I know, enact Ryan's plan but make the age of changing it to 50 at the time it is signed which gives 25 years to prepare for an alternative funding mechanism. Pass a Balanced Budget Amendment. Nothing is so telling that the democrat party is not concerned with the longterm viability of the Republic than their intransigence to pass a balanced budget amendment. So there are my armchair quarterback changes. I do not have a CBO to score it but I believe that it would bring spending under control, not significantly impact most citizens, and revitalize heavy industry and business in the country.

Neither party garners a majority of Americans so neither the Republicans, Democrats, or Tea Party can claim to represent most Americans. That said, the polls also showed more support for cutting spending than for raising taxes. The Tea Party movement is grass roots and made a large change in the political scene. The Tea Party only got ~$21 billion in real cuts and promises for cuts in future increases in spending. Such promises are historically seldom respected. So this is just nonsense that the Tea Party forced these enormous changes. If the democrat party had agreed to large cuts to current spending, then they could have rightfully expected tax increases. However, the democrat party only gave minuscule actual spending cuts and promises for cuts in the increase in spending. Also, it should be pointed out that the same percentage of the public was opposed to Obamacare when it passed.

BadenP, The Tea Party is not a moronic group. The were elected for the reasons that you just elaborated - people are fed up with politicians who ignore the will of the people. They were elected to bring financial sense back to the country by reducing spending. They did compromise since the actual cuts in spending are only a few tens of billions ($21 billion I believe). The other 'spending' cuts were in increases in spending not in current spending. This is not what they were elected to do and so they compromised. Packsaddle, I agree with you. I think that the group of 12 should meet once and adopt the Simpson-Bowles plan which then makes it a strict up or down vote. If the committee would do that quickly and the congress were to pass it quickly, the economy might be recovering by the election. That would likely ensure re-election for Obama which to me would be a terrible side-effect. However, I believe that passing the Simpson-Bowles plan would be the best for the country from what I know of the plan.

I agree with all the others here. Having a website purporting that Eagle Scouts support ANY candidate is not appropriate. Scouting rules seem to disallow it though it could be argued that individual Eagle Scouts could ban together and say that they but not Scouting support a cause. Even though that might be alright does not make it correct. Clearly, Eagle Scouts span the political spectrum so it is not correct to imply that they support any political candidate. So please do not have a website entitled Eagle Scouts for any politician or political cause. As for Perry himself, I am uncertain. In my opinion, it is so important to elect someone who is financially responsible which so far would be any of the current Republicans who are running. Perry's social conservatism could cost needed votes though I agree with his stances more than I disagree. Also, I have a trust issue since he was first a democrat. So not sure that I want him to be the candidate but then I have not seen a Republican candidate that I am excited about.

Packsaddle, I must agree with you. There have been decades of irresponsible congresses and executive branches who have avoided the looming problems of social security, medicare/medicaid, and other social programs. They knowingly allowed this to occur, all praying that it would not happen when they were in office. Still short sighted because they likely live here or their descendents do. All will be affected in the coming economic collapse. I have the feeling that in a hundred years or so, if there is any bastion of freedom left in the world which is a gigantic if, that those scholars will be talking about the events that lead to the great recession of the 20 teens. They will talk about the lack of leadership (not limited to Obama) and ignoring all the warnings. How the two parties would not work together until it was too late. I feel that I am reading the textbook now. My even greater fear is that worldwide economic strife frequently leads to wars. The world has not experienced a war in which several combatant countries possess nuclear weapons. If that comes to pass, may God have mercy upon our souls.

Beavah, ou claim to be conservative but your posts speak otherwise. S&P's and Moody's were saying that the budget needed to be CUT by $4,000,000,000,000.00 which is what the Tea party was calling for the congress to do. Irresponsible is being kind to the democrat party. The government must cut spending by tackling the entitlement programs that the democrat party steadfastly refuses to do. The electorate spoke by sending the Tea Party into office to decrease spending - they overwhelming won the last election. Michelle Bachman is right, any tax increases need to be across the board. It is wrong for 51% of the public to pay no net income taxes. If spending cuts are deep enough, modest increases across the board in taxes will not likely cause economic problems. The democrat party is irresponsible. Al Gore is calling for an Arab spring for America - looking at Syria, Libya, somewhat Egypt, and other countries - that is armed rebellion! The democrat party under Obama seems bent on the destruction of this country and from Gore's comments it seems that they don't care if they destroy it economically or by force.

SSScout, Interesting points. So it would seem that a couple of things would help recruiting in the hispanic community. One is to make it very easy for scouts to change from one council to another so when the family moves, the youth can be welcomed by the new council and find a unit that would be a good fit for the youth. For that to work, the SE down through the scouters must make success in the hispanic community a priority. The second thing that would help is to drop the background checks for everyone. We should all be vigilant for the safety of our youth charges for only vigilance will bring safety (more often than not, people who abuse other people's children are first time offenders). Clearly these are not the only answers but would go a long way to increasing the involvement in the hispanic community.

CalicoPenn said: "I'm wondering if Hispanics look at the BSA, notices that it doesn't seem very welcoming to some folks (gays, girls, some religions) and, even if they are less tolerating of gays, wonder if "there but by the grace go I" and are wary of an organization that openly discriminates in any manner. " If that is correct, then the BSA should forget recruiting the hispanic community because they will not join because we don't accept homosexuals now and if they follow the Bible, they will not join in the future if the BSA allows homosexuals. I think that is just nonsense. The hispanic community seems to want to preserve all of its' culture and is not very interested in adopting the American culture. That is why Scientific American correctly pointed out that the illegal aliens are not immigrants but rather migrants. For the future of the country, it is important to teach American values and history which is a great place for Scouting. So in my opinion Scouting must win the trust of the community that we are here to broaden their children's understanding and not to take them away from their culture. Not an easy task.

Merlyn, So organizations with 15 or less employees could discriminate by hiring temporary lifeguards as independent contractors. If they use a commercial firm or the government running the pool, then they cannot. It is no surprise that Seattle Pioneer confirms that the left does not observe its' own laws.

SeattlePioneer, You seem to be on the right track. The values of Scouting should be appealing to the hispanic community based on their core values. So part of the problem is likely to be trust and another could be a loss of control. We will need members of the hispanic community to help make the case.

ScoutFish, Certainly, if private groups are allowed to rent the pool, then all can. The rub would come if lifeguards are required which is likely. So if the group uses the pool's lifeguards, they should not be able to discriminate. They could hire their own lifeguards, which once again they cannot discriminate. Only if the group has life guards as members who have the correct training could the group be able to discriminate. I would aver that they only allow those lifeguards that they deem appropriate and do indeed discriminate illegally. However, since the groups are the 'right' groups, i.e. left leaning then no one considers it an issue who can actually get it before the public. Just my supposition on that.

That is the modus operandi for my troop as well. Everything centered on the outings. Pack, that is such a cheery comment. Let's hope that there is a BSA and they are still going camping in 50 years.

SeattlePioneer is right. The lfet will never be happy with the Boy Scouts because they hate the values that Scouting represents. Changing the policy on homosexuals or atheists will garner few new members from the folks who use that as an excuse for their children not to join. Some areas may see a small increase in membership with the change. However, the numbers leaving in some sections of the country will be legion. The Canadian experience will likely be considerably worse in some sections of the USA. That may change with time but it is the case right now. So SeattlePioneer, how does scouting attract asian and hispanic youth and retain the program? The current efforts for hispanics seem to make scouting into a soccer league. If scouting has to lose its' identity, why do it?

I doubt that there exists any objective stuadies that determine why the dramatic decline in Canadian Scouting occured. The data provided by the scouting organization itself would have to be suspect. The folks who made the change would not like the blame to be theirs and they woiuld convey that to anyone that they hired. The temporal correlation is powerful and for me the change to allow homosexuals is causal for the decline. Those who doubt that just wish to push their agenda no matter who gets hurt.

Beavah, You are correct but society as well as parents set those norms. Scouting has enough problems trying to deal with societal norms let alone attempting to change them. So if that kind of behavior is considered inappropriate, we cannot change that perception.

Believe or not, I have heard the 'too liberal' comment not infrequently. Those of you in the northeast, west coast, and some large cities, I am certain that the Dale case hurt membership. Like some of you said, I do not buy that it made the difference that many say. Self described conservatives out number self described liberals by 2:1 so I do not see why it is so difficult to believe that other sections of the country have considerably different values and would act much differently than your area. Whether the very experienced scouters would actually leave over the change is hard to know with certainty but a few actually had plans to develop a similar program and had secured a 'guarantee' from the CO to surrender the charter. Would they do it? Many will. I am sure that national has tried to determine what the losses and gains would be and have tried to drive the membership requirements to math what they believe. It is very sad for scouting to be in the middle in this arena where there is no way to win. As to the comment about how one could recognize openly homosexual leaders. If same sexes hold hands, kiss, or otherwise as the kids say display 'public demonstrations of affection'. Smart kids and observant adults will pickup on such things quickly. So if a troop sponsored by a CO that disallows homosexual leaders has obviously homosexuals in a position to make them a role model would have a real issue. This would bring the argument within scouting. I really doubt that anything short of all troops being forced to accept homosexuals and atheists will ever satisfy the left. In fact, until firearms, archery, uniforms, fishing, and anything else that is not considered PC will the left fully relent its' attacks. The only concern that any of us should have is what is the best for our youth. We might disagree what that is and who should be allowed to be members to satisfy that but let us all remember that is why we are Scouters.

Fred, In my area, scouting has lost membership because many feel that scouting is too liberal. I know for those who live in liberal areas that this is hard to believe but it is true. I know many dedicated scouters who have been in scouting for 20-40 years or more who say that when the stance on homosexuality changes, the will leave and encourage their CO to do the same. In conservative areas, the losses will be substantial and involve many who form the backbone of their councils.

Chapel Hill is a very liberal small town that is dominated by the main campus of the University of North Carolina so it is not your typical YMCA. Eagle92 is correct. Many Scouts and Scouters will leave the BSA overnight if a local option is allowed. Many parents feel that the BSA is too liberal as it stands today. These are not Mormons and are working class to well educated professionals. I contend that many parents say that they will not allow their children to join scouting because of its' stance on homosexuals are using that as a handy excuse and would not allow their children to join no matter what the policy is. So if your CO chooses to keep the same policy on homosexuals, what will their reaction be when at a camporee or other large scouting event their children see openly homosexual leaders who are over their children? The fight will go from the BSA with a small though vocal minority group (

Eamonn, Being a republican is not a bad thing. It is important that the youth know the country's history, the founding fathers, and the concepts of liberty & individual freedoms. Being patriotic is a good thing. He will determine which party best represents his views when he is able to vote. The Fourth of July celebrations will help to encourage him to vote and participate in the system no matter the party affiliation that he eventually chooses.

Beavah, So if our congressmen really loved our republic, they would compromise by cutting spending and having an across the board tax increase. Clearly, they are more interested in their personal power than they are the republic. Sometimes I feel that we are doomed due to Washington.

moose, Eagledad is correct. If the discussion is over, then must assume that the only reasonable conclusion is that the BSA standards are the best for youth in the USA. It has not improved scouting in other places. Organizations that have accepted homosexuals have not seen an increase in scouts. So it makes no sense to accommodate 1.9% of the population when many would remove their youth from the program if the stance changed. So we agree, the issue was settled that the BSA is correct. By the way, pedophiles have sex with prepubertal youth ONLY. Homosexuals have intimate same sex relationships with post-pubertal youth (heterosexuals can have same sex encounters for power or pecking order) - not pedophiles.