fred8033

You are better then me then. It's the scout's own work product, so I'd let the scout use it at any time. I can't think of a "memorize" MB requirement, though there is probably one out there. Host are discuss, show, list, name, etc. So if the scout wants to use his own work product for that or something else that helps, fine.

You are better then me then. It's the scout's own work product, so I'd let the scout use it at any time. I can't think of a "memorize" MB requirement, though there is probably one out there. Host are discuss, show, list, name, etc. So if the scout wants to use his own work product for that or something else that helps, fine.

Beavah, ya just like arguing. Exec salaries are rallying cry for the "tax the other guy" cause. And an exec with an eight figure income would be at the 35% (39% after the cliff) tax rate. He could only achieve a rate around 17% if it was mostly from capital gains. But you know that. And ya know why people argue that capital gains should be a lower rate. If you have a solution for CEO pay, great. Put it on th table and let's see if it could become the law of the land. I don't have the answer for executive pay, but you don't create a tax system for 330 million people b

Beavah ... I fully agree with "to whom much is given, much is expected." IMHO, that's a faith and moral decision. I'm 100% fine with that and I try my best to honor that with my time, my effort and my money. But I'm not okay with philosophies that say "tax the rich" and "they need to pay their fair share". It's the philosophy of blame the other guy. I just don't like those philosophies at all. Democrats have gone a long way from Kennedy's "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country." Now, Kennedy's quote is more like "Ask what others can do for

Scoutingagain... ... I'm referring to this extension that added a tax to recapture the 2% cut. http://www.irs.gov/uac/Payroll-Tax-Cut-Temporarily-Extended-into-2012 ------------------ Tax analysis is not simple. But ... even before that change, the Bush tax cuts had $11,440 paid in social security for their income. That's 10.4% ... their 4.2% and the company match of 6.2% ... which in my view is still their taxes paid because it's part of the cost of the employer paying that person. It's just reported in the employers taxes, not the worker's taxes. IMHO, it should

Papadaddy wrote: "...but I cannot be a part of your treatment program." I think that is a good consise statement that we can reuse. We can accomodate disabilities, but we are not trained or to be part of a treatment program. A correlary to this is that you are always accepting responsibility for the scouts. Parents attending does not relieve the unit leaders of their responsibility. And, IMHO, parents attending does not guarantee safety as the parent is not joined at the hip to their scout. Most importantly, scouting is about scouts being with scouts. Our job is to encourage sc

CalicoPenn wrote: "start treating the lad as the individual he is and things will be much better for all." Fully agree. Individual clinical labels are not the cause. Plus these days, almost everyone could be clinically labeled. .................... BDPT00 wrote: "Scouting is the one place these "different" kids can feel safe." Fully agree. Scouting needs to be the "safe" place. .................... BDPT00 also wrote: "Of all the kids you serve, these kids need you the most. Don't turn your back on them." I disagree and we need to stop using this stateme

perdidochas wrote: "..." I fully understand ... but a family of four with income under $25,000 does not pay any income tax. They pay FICA and Medicare tax (payroll taxes) but so does everyone. The difference is the increased child CREDIT, from $500 to $1000 per child and the 2% lower FICA tax (from the long term 6.2% to the recent 4.2%). I fully understand life is hard at $25,000 per year. 2% lower is $500. At $25,000 per year, the child credit is 100% back to the tax filer. The new tax law represented another $1500 back to the family each year ... beyond what they paid in FICA or i

I thought I was the only one. My view ... take the cliff. I'm a life long republican and it seems like the responsible thing to do. Last I heard ... and I could be wrong ... we're running a 180 billion deficit a month right now. That's about $570 per person in the U.S. ... $1250 per working person in the US ... or about $2400 per person who pays income tax ... or (very rough guess) $5000 to $10,000 per person per month who makes about $100,000. (I'd be more precise, but I don't have the time or data with me). I'll never hit the 1% club and probably not even the 2% club. But it see

I don't, but I do know a scouter who extremely discretely carried one on a week long canoe trip. Just in case.

... duplicate ...(This message has been edited by fred8033)

For me, it's not the badge. I like any badge where I can get to know the scout, provide a bit of my life experience, guidance and wisdom ... and make a difference. I'm sad when a scout shows up with a completed workbook from MeritBadge.com. I'm impressed with the scout, but it means I'll have little chance to make a significant contribution. Basically, if it says "discuss" and the scout wrote his answer all out, then he can just regurgitate the words and be done. Do I reject him if he just reads the words written? Do I demand more? I don't think that's legit. If the scout is not in

Twocubdad - Your right. From a few of the hints in the original post, it's really hard to give good accurate advice without knowing more of the details. I'm afraid this situation falls into the mess category in which everyone contributed some amount and now people are stuck with untangling the issues.

I have a hard time with this. I don't personally care about a person's orientation and I'm definitely not going to spend time weeding them out. It does not affect me. But, it would definitely be a significant deciding factor if I was at the time choosing what troop to put my sons into.

Huzzar wrote: "Have two or more adults joined at the hip on every trip?" Isn't that what we're trying to avoid happening at our scouting events? Sorry. Had to add some levity.

Kristian wrote: "Defining and actually enforcing the active requirement is whats going to help here." Kristian is absolutely right, but if you don't have them already defined for since the scout joined your troop and you knew about it, then it's sort of moot for this specific incident. VigilEagle wrote: "I think the big thing here is sitting down with the Scout and understanding the situation." I think that's the best answer. Not necessarily sitting with the parent. Sitting with the scout and understanding the situation. You will probably need to talk with the parent too

I've got to admit that our pack plays slightly lose with the dues. Though we won't sign anyone up for summer camp or other explicit activity without receiving payment, we are flexible with re-charter. - If a scout is attending meetings and/or involved, we recharter them. We treat dues as a separate issue. - If they paid dues but we haven't seen them for a long time, we recharter them. They paid and that was the purpose of the money. - Only if they don't pay dues and they are also not involved at all, then we drop them. No communication necessary as they are not communicat

Saw two district changes. One just before I became a leader but I saw the results. One while I've been active at the unit and district level. The 1st was a split. It went smooth but there was lingering problems as neither district had sufficient quantity of units to put on a really good roundtable with good breakouts. Other issues too such as friendships not seeing each other. Generally, life went on. Those who grumble, grumbled. The 2nd was a merger with another district. The other district was most of the old broken off district and part of another. Those districts had be

EagleLeader wrote: "..., so until recharter rolled around I totally forgot about him." Plus EagleLeader wrote that the registration process caused some "tension" with the troop committee. So, your leaders knew he was on the roster and official per BSA. So now it's moot who signed the app and how he joined. By doing nothing and leaving him on the roster for an extended time, the troop accepted the scout. That raises the question was the scout ever ever attending your meetings or ever ever went on a camp out. If not, then you can start the relationship as Beavah said. The challe

If you get a 10-12 person adventure, you only need two adults. Just say'in.

We don't mind one parent coming with. Maybe two. BUT we try to separate the parents from the scouts. We don't even want the parents hanging near by quietly. It's a distraction. So if the parents come, we usually break out a game of hearts, spades, cribbage or similar. I enjoy it and the real purpose is to let the scouts bond and learn from each other.

qwazse had great advice. IMHO, ultimately the ones that go are the ones that commit. It's an educational point that others will need to learn. That to achieve and be part of something special, you need to invest yourself long in advance. It's the same for jobs, relationships, education and anything worthwhile. It is always easier to stay non-committal, but then you automatically lose. That's life. Try to get more to sign up. If you are borderline for a 2nd group (one or two short), open it up for cousins, non-scouting brothers or former scouts that just turned 18 or similar.

OldGreyEagle ... I'm often confused by criminal prosecutions for causing the death of a fetus. Or the driving laws for negligence and death of a fetus. http://criminal.lawyers.com/traffic-violations/Vehicular-Homicide-Laws-and-the-Unborn-Child.html

Cambridgeskip wrote: "In short, none of them could understand what the fuss was about. They were actually a bit surprised to learn that religion was any problem in terms of joining anything. They are used to people having different beliefs and are all quite able to discuss theirs without being nasty to each other. " That's what I'd expect. The push to remove reverent and God from scouting is not a scout based push. Scouts deal with these situations all the time. It's a political push. I find that interesting.

Nike has one view of the question. "Who has more right to control what's going on in that uterus? The woman? The fetus? The man? The State?" That's only one policy question. From my view, the question is worded as does one life have the right to end another life in the interest of their own freedom? The question is political and a matter of policy ... not a matter of science. We know when a unique human being is created. We know where the major transition from two separate people, two separate parts into a new single UNIQUE living entity occurs. We also know when the heart sta