"To Help Other People At All Times"

[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

[Eamonn]

I'm not an American citizen.

My choice.

This of course doesn't exempt me from paying all the taxes that others do and that are owed.

I can't vote in any American elections.

I can and still do vote in the British elections by mail.

 

I think the way the question is worded is unfair.

"an obligation to support government spending programs which profess to help other people?"

That bit about "Profess to help other people"

For me seems to be slanted.

It might very well just be me?

The programs that are out there to help others do just that.

With things as they are today people need help the unemployed still need to eat and still need a roof over their head.

Often when the lose their job they also lose their health insurance so they need help with medical coverage.

I sure as heck don't want kids going hungry, so there is a need for food stamps or what ever it's called.

People need help heating their homes.

The list goes on and on.

I'm still trying to work out what the real unemployment numbers really are? I think they are a lot higher that the 9.1% that I keep hearing.

Sure, most of us have heard and some may even know about people who abuse the help and lie and cheat to obtain things that they might not be entitled too.

This is sad and the people who do it are wrong.

Still the people in need should get the help we can provide.

God forbid we ever have to read about a poor little old lady living off cat food and then freezing to death because some right wing nit nut the programs that would have prevented her death.

As a civilized country the benchmark of our civilization is how we tend and look after our poorest and weakest members.

I'm with Mr Buffet, I'll gladly pay more in taxes to help the people who need help and then do what's needed to get them back on their feet so they no longer need the help.

A country isn't just a piece of land, it's the people who live there, the rich and the poor.

Ea.

 

 

 

 

[perdidochas]

Eamonn,

 

Nothing prevents you or Mr. Buffett from donating to the government in the amount you feel is appropriate beyond current taxes. In fact, the IRS has an address to take just such donations.

 

I would rather donate to charity than government, because of the excess waste of government in managing money.

[SeattlePioneer]

Hello Eamonn,

 

 

Your last post gets to the heart of the issue I raised. You are pretty clear that you support an activist government --- and you are certainly entitled to your political views.

 

But I think that's quite different than the duty to your country or the duty to help other people as in the Scout Oath.

 

I don't think the Scout Oath contemplates required support for policies of social activism by government. I suggest that the Scout Oath permits holding a very wide range of political opinions, but requires support for only a few. Those few would include things like voting, obeying the laws, engaging in peaceful efforts to change laws one doesn't agree with and so on.

 

[CalicoPenn]

"because of the excess waste of government in managing money."

 

Is there really an excess waste of government in managing money or is that just a perception because people have told us over and over and over again that government wastes money?

 

The head of Medicare makes less than $200,000 per year in compensation. Medicare insures more than 40 million people. The head of United Healthcare, the largest private health care company in the US, makes over $3.4 million in compensation per year. United Healthcare insures about 18 million people.

 

Government waste? I'd be congratulating government on keeping salary costs down and pointing to United Healthcare as being wasteful.

 

How is "excess waste" calculated? Is $0.01 (0.01%) per $100 excess waste? Most of us woudn't consider a penny out of $100 to be a waste. Heck, that's a rounding error. Yet at $1 Billion, 0.01% is $10 Million. That's a lot of dough! The initial reaction - Wow - that's excess waste. But is it? It's still 0.01% or 1 penny per $100. At numbers that large, it's disingenuous to report that "government wasted $10 million" if the reporter isn't also telling you out of how much and if we're too lazy to do the math and calculate what that means in the real world. $10 million out of $50 million? yeah - I think we can agree that's excess waste. But $10 million out of $1 billion? It's a penny per $100.

 

Think about this for a moment. You can buy a ream of paper at a big box office supply store for a little over $5.00 - let's round down to $5 for the math. 500 sheets of paper are in a ream, that's about $0.01 per piece of paper. How much of that ends up being thrown out (or recycled) because too many copies were made, or the toner ran out in the middle of a print job, or the paper got jammed, or you discovered an error and had to correct it, etc. etc. If even just 10% was wasted, that's 50 sheets, or 50 cents. There aren't that many folks who are going to cry over 50 sheets of paper being tossed out over the course of a week. So if that $1 billion was all paper, and that $10 million was 10% paper waste, over a period of time, it seems to me to be a bit ridiculuous to complain about that being waste but not complain if it's the same percentage on a smaller scale.

 

That doesn't mean we shouldn't be trying to cut that amount down. It means we need to start recognizing when folks are trying to manipulate us into fretting over something that's not fret-worthy.

[Beavah]

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

 

[Beavah]

Yet at $1 Billion, 0.01% is $10 Million.

 

Math check. I think yeh mean 1%. Either that or $100K.

[packsaddle]

Gold star to Beavah for math correction.

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

[SeattlePioneer]

>

 

 

Hello Beavah,

 

 

It sounds like we have agreement!

 

For me, Scouting is my main charitable activity. I work mainly on the unit and district level, with more council level activity recently. And I depend on the council, regional and national BSA to sort out priorities on a national level in a responsible way.

 

I don't feel I have an obligation to solve the problems of the country and world --- I just "do my best."

 

 

 

 

 

 

[packsaddle]

Oops, I made a mistake. I should have written: "We make the token contribution" or not "and (still) feel good about it."

 

[CalicoPenn]

Beavah,

 

Thanks for the math check - I did indeed mean 1% but must have been number blind.