83Eagle

The OP doesn't state what his position is in the Pack, which has some bearing on "what can be done." If you are a CM or similar, I might ask the DL what he thinks the boys would say if asked if they feel they are receiving "enough awards" or if they would like a token of their progress? Second, what do the parents say? They are reading the books and seeing the info about the beads as well. Since the Tiger Cubs are supposed to be a parent-run program, the parents should have an involvement in this decision. Also, ideally the TDL should come from the parent ranks as well so I'm curious why a leader would not want to do this--unless you're dealing with an instantiated TDL leader which isn't really the best way, in my experience. I will say that by the time they are Bears, many of the boys have lost interest in the totems (although we still award them) in favor of putting temporary patches on the right pocket. But having seen enough beaming faces of Tigers receiving progress beads, it's an easy and relatively inexpensive way to build excitement about the program. Why wouldn't anyone want to do that?

Why is it that if you give your kids money before you die, its taxed. But if you die and they inherit it, it shouldn't be taxed? Good point...so then let's make both the gift tax and death tax threshhold the same--$10k or whatever it is these days. Of course that would never fly because then nearly everyone would be impacted when grandma takes the aforementioned "dirt nap" and leaves her meager estate worth only a few $Ks in real dollars but tremendous amount in sentimental value. So instead, we set some arbitrary threshhold--2 mil or 5 mil or whatever we arbitrarily degree should be "enough" for the decendants and cast it in terms of taxing the rich. Doesn't that make us all feel good? Yeah! Sock it to 'em! The problem is that all these arguments begin from the premise that the estate is society's first, and the individual's second. I reject that premise.

I know this is off the original topic, but since it was brought up: >>We had one kid who got dropped off at the meeting, and because of some weird disfunctional family situation, he was there on his own. Should they have just kicked him out because his parent wasn't there? If it was one particular meeting where Tiger Cub showed up without his parent, I would keep him there, then talk to the parents when they showed up to let them know this is unacceptable. The application form, which parents agree to when they sign, lay out the "parent agreement" including to "participate in all meetings and activities." If they are not going to adhere to this, it is their fault and not yours.

If the death tax truly makes sense, then we ought to tax it from dollar one. Grandma passes you down her wedding ring worth $1000 that you'd like to keep to give to your kids someday? Sorry, you gotta pay $350 or 450 or whatever to uncle sam just to keep it. The death tax makes NO sense and the only reason the government gets away with it is by casting in it class warfare terms of "the rich."

Cub Scouts is probably the leading reason why most boys (and parents) never consider Boy Scouts. I can see this...our 4th and 5th grade Webelos dens are run by moms who are, to put it mildly, not the outdoor type. They've lost scouts over the years and have small dens comprised of doted-over boys. In contrast as a DL I always focused on putting the OUTING in Scouting even as Tigers; in retrospect probably doing some things that weren't completely kosher with the G2SS. However, the size of what is now the Bear Den has doubled over the last two years as word has gotten out. One of the boys in the Bear den, his brother dropped out of Cubs and he would be a 5th grade Webelos today. He is bummed that his den never did the outdoor stuff and wished he could join our Den. I said he couldn't...but he could join Boy Scouts very soon. His mom was thrilled and did not realize that you could just join Boy Scouts without having gone through the Cub program. As time goes by, I can see the difficulty of running a program that appeals to grades 1-5, maybe moreso than the challenges of grades 6-12 in Boy Scouts.

Careful, or some might think you're serious...it's hard to tell in this electronic venue.

If you have a bit more budget you might want to try some of the Garmin touch screen units, which are more intuitive for the texting generation. We use the Oregon which is easy to use and very durable. The 500 comes with rechargable batteries, or at least did when we bought it. The Colorado is the same platform I believe.

Just a follow up. Did this at the Pack meeting last night and it came off without a hitch. Scouts spent 10 minutes making forts out of old cardboard appliance boxes. I stressed we were out to have fun, not bean anybody (though at 10 yards or so apart, you barely noticed getting plunked by a sock ball no matter how hard it was originally thrown). I had scouts of similar ages tossing against each other (Tigers and 1st grade siblings vs. Wolf scouts and 2nd grade sibs; Bears vs. 4th and 5th Webelos). And we kept parents behind the fort walls to monitor for any problems, of which there none. (The parents all got in on the act too.) I even ended up in the DMZ extra-long after a laundry-basket reload and you can imagine what happened after the ACM "accidentally" blew the whistle... We used small safety pins to pin each pair together, along with a tag stating the size, for sorting afterward. It took about 30 minutes to roll 260 pairs, using 3 volunteers, so plan on that. We just rolled them inside-out and did not use rubber bands. You could skip the pinning part and it would go much faster but we wanted to keep pairs together since we were going to donate these to the community closet afterward. 'Tis a season of giving, and having fun doing it. Can't beat that.(This message has been edited by 83eagle)

Congratulations!

Yeah, my rubber playground example probably wasn't the best one. After all we didn't have bike helmets (or common usage of seat belts) when I was a kid either but now I wouldn't think about going out without one. My thinking was just that we try to wrap kids in bubble wrap before they leave the house rather than letting them suffer some bumps and bruises and actually learn consequences of poor decisions. Anyhoo, about the bus situation, out here in rural flyover country the bus slows down a bit but if there isn't anyone at the end of the driveway--or running frantically down it--ZOOOOOOOOOMMMMM! In fact, I remember the day well. After harping on our daughter day after day--"get ready, watch for the bus, are you ready, get out there, you're gonna miss it," yada yada yada. Finally made it clear that it was her responsibility, not ours, for her to get out there. To her credit she made it almost a week before...ZOOOOOMMMMM!!! That was over three years ago and she hasn't missed it since...(This message has been edited by 83eagle)

Just look at any rubber-coated playground, indoors or out. A little different than the olden days, eh?

Holy cow, this would not fly with me! As CM I'd be thrilled if two dens got together to do something cooperatively. Tell the CC "show me da rule...."

Regulate and tax it? We love smokers in this country--well, as taxpayers, not as people. I'm guessing we could tax it like cigarattes and it would still be cheaper than on the black market. Lotsa new agricultural jobs too rather than planting it in the middle of clear cuts in state forests. Just sayin....

No I didn't.

Hey, this newbie just discovered the "ignore user" feature. Well, that makes things a lot more enjoyable to read and cuts down on the sarcastic drivel one has to wade through. You also see how many other users are ignoring a user that you ignore. Kinda interestin'...!

SeattlePioneer, what are you getting at your spring recruiting in terms of grades/ranks? Are you doing any "prerecruiting" for graduating kindergarteners? I know of another Pack that does the second so I'm trying to meld a couple of ideas here. sasha: I agree that this message board is quick to jump on people and can feel very negative. Yeah, I learned that fast and the hard way. I do have thick skin, but I don't care much for online bullying. Also, there's all kinds of formatting for emphasis that can be used here, no special keyboard controls required, just a little effort.(This message has been edited by 83eagle)

I guess we're just a bunch of nattering nabobs of negativism. In all seriousness, from a "newbie" perspective, I do see a LOT of negativism in here. (Dangit, there I go shouting again.) For instance, I see this topic come up, and my first thought is, "Gee, that's interesting! I had considered spring recruiting but others I talked to had problems with it. Well, you say this works well for your Pack. I wonder how that works for you? Maybe this is something we can use too!" Whereas the attitude of others seems to be, "Hey, we've been around here a while, so let me tell you why this won't work." This particular thread is just one example. There are others. The "omelet in a bag" one, for instance. Someone has an idea that works, and it gets slammed as not being "real cooking," or something to that effect. And this is all constructive...how? Maybe after a few years in the forums and a few thousand posts, folks just get a little jaded. Who knows... What I do know is that I am going to be very reluctant to share any ideas about what works for our Pack!

I know the value of feedback. However, in my experience when I'm soliciting feedback from someone I usually start with a statement along the lines of, "What do you guys think of this idea?" I would encourage everyone who has posted here to look at the thread above and try to be objective. The OP gives some info about a recruiting practice that s/he is "quite happy with." Then...POUNCE! "you are denying them the chance to try and earn their rank award" "having a Bobcat den is not a good idea" "it might add to confusion about how cub scouting really works" "I think the better way to handle things would be" Plus plenty of ALL CAPS just to make sure we know that some opinions are REALLY IMPORTANT!!! Did the OP ask for any of this advice in his post? No. Does the OP mind? I have no idea. Maybe since s/he has been around on the boards since 2005 s/he has an idea of how things work here and this is all just fine. However, if I had made this post as a "noob" and gotten these replies, I'd be pretty turned off to these forums! Sadly, this seems to be the way things work here based on my (albeit limited) experience here. I know that cyberspace is a different animal and things don't come off online they way they do in real life, but I had higher expecations for a Scouting forum. My mistake I guess.

Yep, another smarta$$ comment from the king of all caps....

Why is it that when someone tells about something that works, there are a half dozen people ready to pounce and say why it's wrong or won't work? Not real scout like folks...

Yep, Scooter was prosecuted for a process crime. Lesson learned, plead the fifth or testify "I can't recall." Of course the truth behind Plame didn't fit the template, and probably 90 percent of people assume Scooter leaked her name.........

When do you do spring recruiting compared to moving them into the "regular" den? Also, you're dealing with mixed ages in the den, then? How does that work? This is an interesting idea because we've discussed the idea of spring recruiting, but other packs I've talked to that have done it have had mixed success with keeping kids engaged in the program over the summer. Even if the pack is a Summertime Pack (like ours is), it takes being part of a Den to make them feel most like part of the gang, and most Dens don't ramp back up until fall. So this is an interesting idea, albeit "unofficial." The one drawback that I see is that adding new scouts to an existing den gives the existing scouts a chance to help the new boys through the Bobcat trail, which can be a badge activity itself, and reenforces the CS motto, promise, etc among the whole den.

The only problem with the Valerie Plame analogy is that Richard Armitage was never prosecuted for the leak.

83Eagle: I don't see the government as taxing productivity in as much as they are appropriating wealth. If a farmer plants a 10-cent seed in the ground and it produces $1 worth of produce he has generated 90-cents worth of wealth that didn't exist anywhere before. Same for the manufacturer that takes basic raw materials and produces a product to be consumed by others. There are those who through other efforts produce wealth, i.e. the burger flipper at Micky D's who through his own efforts produces services for others to consume. Same may apply to the factory line-worker who puts parts together to produce a product. All of these people are "paid" for their efforts of self-generating wealth. I think you are actually arguing for my point. Maybe it's how I define "wealth" which is basically the ammassing of money. So I might be very wealthy but have very little taxable income, because my wealth is sitting in a Swiss bank account somewhere. The government does not tax that wealth via the income tax, because there is no taxable income. Any comment I ever hear about "taxing the rich" rings hollow in light of this reality, and the facts about who actually pays income taxes as I outlined previously. Now on the other hand, let's say I work very hard and create what you call "self-generating wealth." I call that productivity! The more productive and efficient I am, the more money I make. This is directly relevant to my work as a contractor. The more clients I take on, the harder I work, the more productive I am, the more money I make. And...the more money I make, the more money government takes--not just more money, but a PROGRESSIVELY HIGHER PERCENTAGE of my money. And if I get to the point where I am really, really productive and hit that magical $250,000 mark, well now I am "the rich" and I deserve to be taxed up and out the wazoo. Therefore, the government disincentivizes productivity. The income tax, which is by definition a progressive tax, is therefore a tax on productivity.(This message has been edited by 83eagle)

This country does not tax wealth, or even just "the rich." We tax productivity. As of 2007, the top 1% of INCOME EARNERS paid 40% of federal income tax, a percentage that had increased from under 20% in 1980. Likewise, the top 25% of income earners saw their share of taxes increase from about 72% to over 85%. Over the same period, the percentage paid by the bottom 50% of income earners dropped from around 8 percent to just 3%. In other words, since Ronald Reagan took office, people earning higher incomes have paid a greater percentage of taxes nearly every year. Those incomes come from earning a wage, and from making investments. I know the second one is an evil word these days... So yeah, go ahead, let the tax increases take place next year. After all, they only affect half of the country, and they really mostly just affect the top 25% of wage earners. Particularly if we only let the "tax cuts for the rich" expire as has been suggested so many times in this debate. Now at the same time, every time unemployment benefits aren't extended we're told how heartless that is as well. So we really ought to just keep those going in perpetuity as well, especially because of all the "job creation" benefits that unemployement compensation has, according to Pelosi. Apparently the trickle-down theory to economic stimulation only works when it's government doing the trickling.