"To Help Other People At All Times"

[TAHAWK]

No offense to the USPS, but you make my point better than I could because you know more about the facts.

[Beavah]

Yah, hmmm...

 

Your analysis does not consider the $20-30,000,000,000,000 (different "economists" = different estimates) in "unfunded mandates."

 

Yah, it does. Yeh need to understand da difference between current deficits and potential future liabilities. There's a legitimate long-term concern from structural deficits, as I said. But estimates of potential future liabilities are like estimates of future global warming effects, eh? They aren't all that reliable. If yeh were to take the deficit of 1944 and project it 30 years into the future in terms of "unfunded potential future debt", it wouldn't have just been 2 times GDP like your figure above, it would have been closer to 30 times GDP. But that wasn't reality, was it?

 

And if I "bungled," I guess S&P did too when they just lowered the credit rating (risk rating) of the United States of America, driving up the cost of our debt.

 

Yeh need to read da S&P report, eh? There was no technical reason da U.S. couldn't service the current debt load. The downgrade was because it became apparent that there was political instability, including the refusal to raise revenues to cover expenses and the willingness by a substantial minority of legislators to consider default.

 

You'll notice that Treasury Bond yields have dropped, eh? It is cheaper for us to borrow than it was a month ago. The market isn't worried about our debt. The market is worried about our short- to mid-term economy and high unemployment.

 

When you borrow money it's not other people's money. It's yours. You are on the line to repay, although the creditor's remedies are limited. When Congress spends your borrowed money it's other people's money because the politicians have no personal responsibility for repaying it.

 

What are yeh talkin' about? When yeh borrow money, it's still da bank's. They can come and foreclose on your property. When Congress issues treasury bonds on da full faith and credit of the nation to borrow money, there is an obligation to repay it. Only the Tea Partiers in Congress think that they can just default on that promise if they wish.

 

I simply have no faith that the government, local, state, federal, D, or R has better judgment than the private sector about where to spend money to create private sector jobs.

 

I agree with yeh completely. Da government role should be limited to law enforcement (including regulation), basic or high-risk research, infrastructure development, defense/disaster response, etc.

 

Compare Bell Labs to even NASA -- no contest (That would be the Bell Labs that the feds tacitly connived with AT&T to destroy.

 

Of course much of Bell Labs' work was supported by federal grants, they never took on projects that even approached da scope of NASA, and the breakup of AT&T led to a free market in communication that produced innovation, lower costs and increased services for consumers, the internet, etc.

 

I can't speak to Kaiser vs. the Navy Yard. I can speak to all of da private contractors in Iraq who were absolute disasters, and did a real disservice to our men and women in uniform.

 

Point is yeh can find good and bad government efforts, and good and bad private efforts. I don't want our military replaced by private contractors, thanks very much. Nor any other government function that's important.

 

What's worst is the uncertainty. Money is in huge supply, hence the low cost of money. But those with money are afraid to invest it because they have no confidence in government, and neither do the citizenry.

 

That's a nice theory, eh? Again, it doesn't fit the data. People seem very willing to invest in the government (Treasury bonds) because there is so much demand for them that the yield is at historic lows. Right now, people with money are afraid to invest it in private industry and the private capital markets, because the unemployment rate and prospects of lower government spending combine to mean that there will be lower demand and economic contraction. Da only sector of the economy that's healthy right now, ironically, is luxury merchandise. Rich bankers have money to buy yachts.

 

Why should they have confidence? There is no strong leadership in either party that I can see. Obama raised so much hope in the majority of a departure from politics as usual and politics got worse. He is into leading from behind. And Congress gets lower performance ratings than the terrible ratings the Executive Branch gets -- and deserves low ratings.

 

Scouting is going to have lots of opportunity to be helpful to our fellow humans.

 

 

Yah, gotta agree with yeh there, too!

 

Da thing is, I don't believe that government "leadership" is responsible for private sector economics the way you seem to. That depends on lots of other stuff. Oh, sure, when da government fails in its duty as policeman and regulator, people get robbed and da robbers get away with it. That hurts the economy, because people who have been robbed can't buy stuff. And sure, the government is a pretty big employer and an even bigger buyer, so when it's buying it can make up for some weakness in da regular market (or when it stops buying, it can cause some weakness). But that's short- to medium- term at most.

 

Long term, the economy is on us, eh? Whether our population is well-educated, innovative, working hard, investing capital and such. Has nothing at all to do with government "leadership". Has to do with whether we reward innovators and workers or just CEOs and attorneys. So if yeh really want to improve da economy, don't look to the government or da politicians for leadership. Look at the low-quality, musical chair, patent-lawsuit-crazed, over-compensated nitwits that corporate boards are hiring instead of investing in research, creativity, and da people who do the work.

 

Beavah

 

[TAHAWK]

"Potential" my eye. The debt is there. The date due is known. It is more reasonable to estimate how long how many will live in the future than to estimate global warming in the future based on the 18,000 years of actual and estimated data.

 

So take the low estimate. That's still $20 trillion and growing -- money we don't have and will need if the G is to meets its obligations under current law.

 

Things may change. It could get worse. There is no rational basis to assume it will get better without killing off millions, abrogating the obligations ("Those SS benefits? We were just kidding." or "Inflation. What inflation?"), or raising more revenue. All will take hard choices, and if they come to kill off the elderly, their may be resistance (although not from the insurance company calling itself "AARP").

 

Technical, schmektical. What we have been talking about is the unwillingness of our political class to do anything. The existing $trillions of debt and unfunded obligations is just one measure of the incompetence of those who regard themselves as superior types and us a schmucks to be handled.

 

"What are yeh talkin' about? When yeh borrow money, it's still da bank's. They can come and foreclose on your property. When Congress issues treasury bonds on da full faith and credit of the nation to borrow money, there is an obligation to repay it. Only the Tea Partiers in Congress think that they can just default on that promise if they wish."

 

Gee, as a matter of law, it's not the bank's money when you negotiate the check. If it's the Bank's money, they could come and take it or have you arrested for refusing to give them "their money." Foreclose? Sure. But you decide how to spend the money you borrow, and when you spend the money, you know there can be personal consequences.

 

Not the governing class. It's never their money, and they act like it. Special retirement plans. Special medical plans. Bridges to nowhere. "Culture" for the unwashed peasantry. Whole floors of hotels and staffs of dozens of personal assistants for the First Lady. Jet off here and there. (Hear that sucking sound. It's jet fuel by the 1000's of gallons, but you get told what light bulb to buy to save energy.) Dubious wars. The Golden Fleece x $billions. And personal responsibility? Not for a cent. They are superior people. We are lucky to have them deciding what to do with our money. No personal consequences at all. Other People's Money. They are entitled.

 

"Of course much of Bell Labs' work was supported by federal grants, they never took on projects that even approached da scope of NASA, and the breakup of AT&T led to a free market in communication that produced innovation, lower costs and increased services for consumers, the internet, etc."

 

A small minority if Bell Labs expenditure was from the government. AT&T was the largest business in the world. It had 1,000,000 employees. It was a legal monoply whose profits were a fixed % of expenses. More expense=more profit. They didn't need government money.

 

As for the "Scope" of what "Labs" did, do you find semi-conductors useful -- transistors, chips? AT&T invented them and held the patents. (And Bell Labs scientists got a Nobel for the science, one of nine Nobel prizes awarded to Labs scientists.), Television? Lasers? Fiber-optics? Cell phones? Modems and the Internet? The programming language that runs the Internet?

 

And these are just applications. AT&T Bell Labs made us first in the world in basic research. None of what NASA did would have been possible without Labs.

 

Whatever benefits AT&T's deal with the government had (and losing one end-to-end responsible entity is a BIG loss), losing AT&T Bell Labs was not a good day for the U.S. or the World.

 

"I can't speak to Kaiser vs. the Navy Yard. I can speak to all of da private contractors in Iraq who were absolute disasters, and did a real disservice to our men and women in uniform."

 

Disasters in what sense? Did they deliver the wrong stuff? Did the bullets not shoot? Did the fuel stop the engines? Oh. You mean dishonesty? Yup. Crooks. Send them to jail. And the government types who let it go on so long.

And what of the Corps of Engineers who screwed the pooch by "flood control"

And how about the Dept. of the Interior who stopped forest fires so we could have Super Fires

And give a jeer for the Bureau of Indian Affairs that can't find much of the money earned by Indians and "held in trust" for them

And the House Post Office Scandal

And Abscam

And Charley Rangel and Tom DeLay and Jack Abramoff and William Jefferson and Jim Traficant and Randy Cunningham and William Jefferson Clinton, who never had sex with that woman.

 

Sorry. Trust is earned. Stink doesn't just go away. Throwing the bums out may encourage the others.

 

"'What's worst is the uncertainty. Money is in huge supply, hence the low cost of money. But those with money are afraid to invest it because they have no confidence in government, and neither do the citizenry.'

 

That's a nice theory, eh? Again, it doesn't fit the data. People seem very willing to invest in the government (Treasury bonds) because there is so much demand for them that the yield is at historic lows. Right now, people with money are afraid to invest it in private industry and the private capital markets, because the unemployment rate and prospects of lower government spending combine to mean that there will be lower demand and economic contraction. Da only sector of the economy that's healthy right now, ironically, is luxury merchandise. Rich bankers have money to buy yachts."

 

 

I think your political leanings, 'eh, preclude you from seeing "government" as anything but what is has been in our lifetimes - the folks who want spending to increase because they know best -- better than you do about how to spend your money -- and who personally benefit from growing government.

 

"Government" may shortly be more and more people who feel that "starving the beast" is the only way to control it -- or say that to get votes.

 

I use "government" to mean whoever is governing.

 

Money is in abundant supply. If there was a shortage of money, the cost to rent money would not be low.

The cost to rent money on the public and private markets is, in fact, very low on a historic basis.

Criteria to borrow money are very tough.

The Fed promises to keep interest rates at historic lows.

The value of the U.S. Dollar has fallen and keeps falling.

Bonds are available to buy at low cost because the G keeps borrowing and there's an abundant supply of money to buy bonds, as well as CD's.

Public confidence in the economy and government's ability to "fix" the economy is low. If the polls are wrong, I guess they are wrong.

Gold and Silver are at record highs.

That is all data.

 

I think we need investors to be willing to take risks in the marketplace in order to increase private sector employment. The President says that too. But, being a politician, he says many things.

 

If you feel that a lack of confidence in government's ability to fix the economy -- uncertainty, has no effect on decisions to invest, can you find anyone who agrees with you?

 

If you think constant talk of raising taxes on business in the aftermath of in fact raising takes on business has no effect on the willingness to invest in business, does anyone else agree with you?

 

If you think proposed law restricting carbon emissions has no effect on certainty about the future, does anyone agree with you?

 

On the other paw, if you see government as the answer, it does not matter if private investment takes place and it may be very bad to restrict government spending.

 

And if no one agrees with you, you could still be right.

[Beavah]

"Potential" my eye. The debt is there.

 

No, it's not. You are looking at a projection, based on current data and a whole raft of assumptions includin' demographic and economic "models". Such things are useful for making predictions, but there are all kinds of problems too, eh? If yeh were to try to model da U.S. economy and government expenditures in 1911 and predict things in 1941, how good do yeh think you'd do? You'd have to predict a world war, a huge stock bubble and economic collapse, and a run up to da second world war, plus several disruptive technologies like electrification, commercial air travel and da like. Why should it be any different in 2011 to 2041? And a relatively small change in revenue now wipes da whole projected debt out because of the multiplying effect of compound interest over time.

 

AT&T was the largest business in the world

 

Because it was formed as a government-protected and regulated monopoly. I just don't agree that the government should be doin' that. It's not that far removed from socialism, eh?

 

Yep, investments in basic research in non-military areas pay big dividends, whether it's Bell Labs and da transistor or NASA and satellite capability or university research and da development of nanotechnology. It's telling, though, that without a government-protected monopoly funding it, Bell Labs / Lucent couldn't survive on its own. Basic research is one of the areas that government does better than private industry, because yeh need the protection from competition to make it happen.

 

And Charley Rangel and Tom DeLay and Jack Abramoff and William Jefferson...

 

Yah, yah. And Bernie Madoff and AIG and all the many wonderful private CEOs and quant folks at Lehman and Bear Stearns and Countrywide and Enron and LTCM, and those responsible folks at British Petroleum and da brilliant decisions by the execs at GM and the 1980s savings and loans and da industries that love to dump toxics and create superfund sites and da junk bond leveraged buyout guys and on and on...

 

Yeh find bad actors and incompetence in both da private and public sector. Only differences are that it used to be da ones in the private sector would get fired or fail, and only leave a mess for the public to clean up that they weren't personally liable for because that was da "corporate person" who mad the decision, not them as individuals. Now, they don't seem to get fired or fail either. We bail 'em out earlier and let 'em keep their capital in addition to their profits.

 

Bonds are available to buy at low cost because the G keeps borrowing and there's an abundant supply of money to buy bonds, as well as CD's.

 

Huh? If the government keeps borrowing, that increases the supply of bonds relative to demand, so the yields on bonds should go UP (the government should have to pay more interest to increase demand). The fact is that yields are falling, which means there's more demand than supply. That money can choose to buy anything - stocks, corporate bonds, mortgage derivatives, a new factory, pesos, etc. - not just bonds and CDs. It's goin' to treasuries and gold because da system is unstable and risky, and it's da tea party Congress that has made the system seem unstable.

 

Markets like predictability and stability, eh? It's usually not a tax by itself that's an issue, it's the instability and arguing over it that makes it hard to plan as an individual or corporation. A stable gas tax would be a boon for the auto industry. A stable health care system would be a great thing, because it would allow corporations and individuals to make decisions rather than lock up money in hedging. Threats of default and undisclosed $trillions of cuts mean that yeh have to hold cash and hedge, yeh can't commit to investing in one direction because it's too uncertain. The Tea Partiers in congress are so completely inept at business that if they wanted to they couldn't be doin' a better job of hurtin' the country.

 

If you feel that a lack of confidence in government's ability to fix the economy -- uncertainty, has no effect on decisions to invest, can you find anyone who agrees with you?... On the other paw, if you see government as the answer, it does not matter if private investment takes place and it may be very bad to restrict government spending.

 

Yeh do realize these two statements are contradictory, right? They're the same paw. If think confidence in government ability to fix things affects the economy, then you believe that government is the answer. I personally don't believe government can fix the economy, and therefore I don't believe government is the answer. But like I said, I think there are proper roles for government to play, in policing/regulating, in basic research, in infrastructure. Those things create stability and reduce friction, which allows private markets to function.

[Eamonn]

Boy Oh Boy!

I's been a tough week.

I watched as my home town burned.

I tried not to watch as my hard earned invested monies rode the financial roller coaster. All the time telling myself not to worry that I was going to ride it out.

Not my idea of fun.

The riots in London reminded me of the riots in Paris a couple of years back.

The London riots started in an area which is a poor area.

The level of unemployment is really high about twice the level as compared to the rest of London.

Kids can still leave school in England at 16 years old. At one time these youngsters would be very lightly to serve an apprenticeship,attend some sort of college or trade school and end up with a job.

The jobs aren't there, the government has cut what it sees as unnecessary programs. Such as youth centers and places where unemployed teenagers might hang out.

The riots in Paris were young men, mostly Muslims from a very poor area of Paris. Again these youngsters were unemployed and some felt that they were being discriminated against just because they were practicing their chosen religion.

I haven't been to France for a while. About six years.

I have been to London.

London is very expensive. The cost of a house in London is out of sight. The only people buying houses are the rich.

Still the rich need people to work as teachers,nurses and pick up their garbage.

It soon becomes very clear that London is a place for the "Haves" And "The "Have nots."

Which is not a good thing.

While it's way too late for finger pointing. Maybe we need to remember that much of the mess we are in in both Europe and here closer to home started because banks took on some very risky and very greedy short cuts, while the Government looked the other way.

Things are a mess.

Something needs to be done and must be done.

The idiots here in the Tea Party are willing to risk everything in the hope that cutting government spending will save the day.

Sad that most cuts hurt and harm the people who don't have a lot to start with.

While we can maybe argue about helping others being a good or a bad thing?

I just don't understand how any civilized person can condone hurting or harming the people who are being hurt and harmed already?

For me this is just wrong. Plain and simple wrong.

By weeks end I had lost a fair amount of money in the market. Almost 3% of what I had in.

I'm not happy. But I'll live.

I like money. I don't like the idea of being poor or hard up.

Still, I feel that I have a duty to help the people who are at risk and most need it.

I'm not going to stand outside Wal-Mart handing out $100.00 bills. But I'll gladly pay a little more in taxes to ensure that those who need help get the help that they need.

The Bush tax cuts have to go.

If we allow ourselves to become a nation of "Haves" and "Have Nots" We will see riots in the cities across the US.

There will be a big cry from the idiot Tea Party members for more law and more order.

They will forget it was them who cut the police, them that pushed for shorter sentences, them who cut funding for further education.

Sometimes helping others is also a way of helping everyone.

Eamonn.

 

[Basementdweller]

The haves and have nots are all ready here.

 

In my town we have a growing number of gated private security patrolled community's. Rich.....not sure how much.....but I bet a couple hundred thousand a year rich.

 

The poor are getting poorer, the truly poor live in government housing and rely on hand outs and soup kitchens. they rely on government provided cell phones and other social programs.

 

Don't believe me come walk in my shoes.

[Eamonn]

Basementdweller,

Please believe me when I say that I hear stories of unbelievable hardship almost every day.

It's so easy to just say that "These people" have made bad choices.

Sure it is often very true the choice that ended up with them being in jail was never the smartest choice they ever made.

But so many of them at the time felt they had no other choice.

They are the victims of poor housing, poor education, poor health care.

Areas that if the right wing have their way will all suffer from cut backs.

Just yesterday I was talking with an older fellow doing time for burglary.

A nice old boy who was living on the streets, sleeping when he could in a city park in Philly, reselling bottles of water that he bought from Wal-Mart when he could and doing odd jobs like yard work when he could find them.

He said that he went out of his way to get caught.

Winter was coming and he knew that in jail he'd be warm, get three meals a day and have health care.

It's costing the PA. Tax payer $68.00 a day to keep this fellow incarcerated. While I know that I'm part of the $68.00!

I also know that there has to be a better way of caring and being responsible for people like him.

We have here in PA seen most of the State mental hospitals close. The argument being that private insurance now covers the services that these hospital offers.

The result is that these mentally ill people end up in jail.

They are looked after but are not getting the in depth treatment they really need and when they get out they are still ill and still doing he things that got them into jail to start with.

We have a republican governor who seems like a very nice fellow but he got in on a promise of no tax hikes.

The guys in Washington are cutting the money that the States get. With the high unemployment the people aren't working or paying into the State taxes, so of course revenue is down. So the State is cutting the cash they give to the Counties and School Districts.

The Counties and School Districts are trying to make cuts but they are forced to increase property taxes.

So this No Tax Hike agenda is a bunch of BS.

It's all a game of pass the buck. Leaving the local guy who ran to sit on the School Board to end up looking like the bad guy. Come the next election the locals will toss this poor smuck out on his ear. No headlines, no fuss just another poor smuck will take his place. While the Governor and his pals will talk about the grand job they did not raising taxes.

Meanwhile back in my house my property taxes have gone through the roof.

It is just so very dishonest.

But worse still is the fact that people who need real help are not getting it and the right wing just doesn't care.

Eamonn.

 

[Scoutfish]

I'l follow acco40's lead and answer: NO!

 

"I feel a Scout should feel they should help other people at all times but exactly how that help is rendered is a personal decision. "

 

Exactly. If they see a homeless person , I do not expect a scout to sit and think and try ti figure out why that person is homeless, decide wether it was a self inflicted or deserved homelessness. I do not want a scout who comes off all uppity and snobish either. I have seen people who profess to wanting to help the needdy, but thw whole whiule, havce their noses turned up in judgement based on their own personal and mopst often times wrong opinions of those they help.

 

I want my scouts to offer a friendly smile when they help, and I want them to help others because they want to helpo, enjoy helping and feel a compassion for their fellow man.

 

Do they have an obligation to help any one particular program? No. THis is where free thought comes in. THis is where my scout can decide wether vto hand a homelss person a warm drink and a hot sandwich in the winter personally or decide to give their allowance to DAV ( Disabled American Veterans). THis is the time when they can choose to volunter time at a local retirement home visiting and performing skits or they can support scouting for food.

 

I don't like the idea of saying :" You must support THIS program to help". And I do not see help as meaning 100 % support of any particular program in order to support the beneficiaries of that program.

 

I am one of those people who will choose not to support a charity if 50% or more of procedes goes to admin staff. I'd rather give directly in those cases myself. And by directly, I dobn't necessarily mean handing over cash, but I might show up with the back of my truck loaded with food and holding receipts that the utility bills are paid up for 3 months.

 

Scouts can support those supported by a program, but do noit have an obligation to support any particular program itself - regfardless of being government of not.

 

 

 

[Beavah]

Yah, nice turn in the topic. That we have to help is part of our oath, and for those of us from various religious backgrounds, part of our faith. How we help is a matter of tactics and requires good judgment.

 

Came across this fascinatin' piece this week by one of da former heads of USAID in Somalia. It's a wonderful description of how well-meaning but inept foreign aid contributed to the disaster of Somalia. I'd encourage those with da patience to really understand somethin' to give it a read

 

How the Culture of Aid Gave Us the Tragedy of Somalia

http://michaelmaren.com/1993/01/170/

 

One of da things ScoutFish and Eamonn and this article all point out is that help is, at its root, a personal thing. Yeh have to really understand the person and group and culture you are trying to help. That's why personal charity by those who are committed to workin' with their hands as well as their dollars is always best, because they know the folks, or at least learn from personal experience. Eamonn knows who needs mental health help, and who is scamming, and who just needs a roof and some job contacts. No government "rule" from afar can figure da difference between all those. It's the difference between a Scoutmaster who knows his boys and an office worker in Irving. If yeh want to help a kid, you'd best listen to the Scoutmaster.

 

That's not to say there's no place for governments or NGOs or scouting associations. Lots of problems are just too big for individuals to address without coordination or outside resources. But yeh best be careful, eh? Whether it's government or an NGO or da BSA, it's easy to use da needs of kids to do large scale fundraising for the primary benefit of da agency, with only a fraction of it ever supporting da people in the field who know what's what. Or worse, da folks in the field aren't listened to, because the "national" group are da big shots, and confuse fundraising and handling money with knowledge and ability to help.

 

Beavah

[Eamonn]

"Do Scouts and Scouters have an obligation to support government spending programs which profess to help other people?"

Looking at the question (Again!)

I'm not all that sure that I really understand it.

What government spending programs are we talking about?

I might not always agree with how the Federal and State Government spent the money that that collect from me. But I don't have the option to withhold a percentage just because I'm not in agreement with how it's being spent.

That brings up the word support.

Still I understand that I have an obligation to pay my taxes.

How I decide to spend or donate my hard earned money and to what causes is up to me.

I tend to support things and causes that are close to home, because that's where I live and I think that I can see how and where my money is being spent.

Ea.

What do you mean by support?

I wasn't in favor of the invasion of Iraq. I didn't support it even if the intent was to help the people who live there.

I thought the Cash for Clunkers program was just silly, even thought it was supposed to help the people working making cars.

 

[Beavah]

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

 

[SeattlePioneer]

By "support" I'm talking about political support for spending programs.

[Scoutfish]

Political support?

 

Then I say NO!!!

 

Because if it's political, you just took your units good image and people's good perception of your unit and cut it in half.

 

 

Anybody with the same political views as hhat you are supporting will be convinced that your unit as well as BSA are just Jim Dandy spanking awesome!

 

But anybody who does not follow that political beliefe, Just lost a lot of respect and sympathy for your unit.

 

Might as well have your unit publicly and specifically annouce only support for people of "X" religious belief that also happen to only like in one particular state.

 

My pack is a non sectarian, non partisean , and doesn't do politics. We do not politically support or have political opinions.

 

WE just sing, camp, and do scout stuff!

[Beavah]

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

[SeattlePioneer]

Yes, my intention was to plumb our obligations as citizens, as Beavah describes. I didn't realize my comments were vaque!

 

 

Actually, I think the section of the Scout oath dealing with duty to God and country is probably more relevant to that question than the duty to help other people, which seems to me to apply to dealings we have with other people on a more or less personal basis.

 

But that still tends to beg the question: does the duty to country mean an obligation to support government spending plans aimed at helping people?

 

To me, sometimes it might when the issue is good enough and clear enough. But I don't think it's an obligation to support such programs as a general rule.

 

It gets into rather complicated political territory at that point!