The 2010 Census, mostly BS?

M

Mechanicboy

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2009
Messages
1,407
Reaction score
3
Location
Durham
Help me out here because I'm having trouble understanding why I should answer the 2010 Census. It sounds like a bunch of BS to me. I've googled for some answers and everything just quotes a uses references to make bloated articles and seems to suggest that I don't do the census while urging me to do so. Reminds me of what people do when they only have 3 pages for a 10 page report, they just add useless information and blab their way through.

The only question that makes sense to me is the first one.
Question 1, How many people stating there on April 1, 2010. That's easy enough. But I just read that 20% of the census' have already come back when it's not even 4/1/2010, how can they know the future?
Question 2, was answered in question 1.
Question 3, doesn't change how many people were in the household.
Question 4, they really going to call me if they can't tell if i wrote a 4 or 9? yea right.
Question 5, why do you need to know my name, it doesn't change how many people are in my household.
Question 6, why, does me being male make me only half a person?
Question 7, Age, ok easy enough, but why an exact birthday?
Question 8, Isn't singling out a specific race racist? Yes, it is. Many people means hate one race or another, but it doesn't.
Question 9, I'm Scottish with some American indian, but I don't associate with a particular tribe, now what?
Question 10, This question has already been asked.
 
Really? So no one has a good reason I should answer all those questions and send in the 2010 Census?
 
Just answer the questions you're comfortable with. But be prepared to be hounded if you don't fill it out completely.
 
Mine has been sitting in my mailbox for 2 weeks now. Thanks mailman.
 
There's some intimidation involved.
Technically, you only need to tell them the number of residents.

But if they can also fine you $100 for ever question you don't answer or don't answer honestly, up to $5,000.

Initially, they'll call you.
Then you'll come to your door.
And then they can technically prosecute you... or make an example out of you.

I haven't filled mine out yet.
 
There are some court cases where the Census lost. They typically don't enforce noncompliance. But you never know.
 
Calabrio said:
There's some intimidation involved.
Technically, you only need to tell them the number of residents.

But if they can also fine you $100 for ever question you don't answer or don't answer honestly, up to $5,000.

Initially, they'll call you.
Then you'll come to your door.
And then they can technically prosecute you... or make an example out of you.

I haven't filled mine out yet.
Click to expand...

If that's all they asked I'd be fine with it, it's the rest is why I'm pretty sure I won't fill it out. If i don't give them my name or number how are they supposed to know it was me that left it all blank but the first question?
 
..let me restate that...
technically, you're supposed to fill the entire thing out.
constitutionally, you're only required to fill out the number of people in the home.
 
I can say for someone like me trying to trace my family tree... just fill it out and send it back. someone 72 years from now (takes that long for info to be made public) might be looking for you and how you fit into there family line.
 
72 years? geeze that seems effecient, like well even be around 72 years from now anyways.. regardless i think its strange the type of questions they ask. somethings up
 
stlunatic said:
72 years? geeze that seems effecient, like well even be around 72 years from now anyways..
Click to expand...
That's pretty much the point--the information won't become public until well after most of the people whose info is on the forms will be too dead to care about it.

I think that's also when they're no longer eligible to vote in Chicago...:D
 
What I dont understand is why they had to spend so much money on the damn thing, with ads on tv, radio.billboards etc and a freaking letter telling you to look for the census in your mail? talk about gov. waste !!!!!!!!!!
 
taylor414ce2003 said:
What I dont understand is why they had to spend so much money on the damn thing, with ads on tv, radio.billboards etc and a freaking letter telling you to look for the census in your mail? talk about gov. waste !!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...
Nonsense. I'm sure much of the money went to sorely needed government jobs. You're just a greedy, heartless, mean spirited Rethuglikkkan.
 
taylor414ce2003 said:
What I dont understand is why they had to spend so much money on the damn thing, with ads on tv, radio.billboards etc and a freaking letter telling you to look for the census in your mail? talk about gov. waste !!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

They have found that the media reminders and the extra reminders in the mail really do make a marked difference in the number of forms returned. As soon as they have to start sending out census counters to your home the costs skyrocket.
 
I filled mine out, I hope they see I have no kids and my tax dollars should not go towards sending kids to school.
 
Advertising costs are running about 25% over the costs in 2000... But if you factor in inflation - the costs are about 5% less.

The pre-census letters - cost $85m - cost saving $500m (estimated)

I do like the idea of counting online - And certainly the next census will be handled that way. I would imagine we are in the 'middle' area where the number of people online vs the number who aren't creates a need to do the physical paper census this time.

It is the census - it seems like a waste of money - but we have to do it. Every time it goes over budget, there are questions of 'why all these questions'. No one has ever like doing it - there has always been critiques of them

Heck, be glad it doesn't look like the 1900 census... (although this census is a favorite of genealogists). McKinley's administration certainly wanted to know a lot...

Location
In cities: street; house number.
1.Number of dwelling-houses in the order of visitation.
2.Number of family, in order of visitation.
3.Name of each person whose place of abode on June 1, 1900, was in this family. Enter surname first, then the given name and middle initial, if any. Include every person living on June 1, 1900. Omit children born since June 1, 1900.
4.Relationship of this person to the head of the family.

Personal description:
5.Color or race.
6.Sex.
7.Date of birth: month, year.
8.Age at last birthday.
9.Whether single, married, widowed, or divorced.
10.Number of years married.
11.Mother of how many children.
12.Number of these children living.

Nativity:
Place of birth of each person and parents of each person enumerated. If born in the United States, give the State or Territory; if of foreign birth, give the Country only.
13.Place of birth of this person.
14.Place of birth of father of this person.
15.Place of birth of mother of this person.

Citizenship:
16.Year of immigration to the United States.
17.Number of years in the United States.
18.Naturalization.

Occupation, Trade or Profession:
Of each person ten years of age and over:
19.Occupation.
20.Months not employed.

Education:
21.Attended school (in months).
22.Can read.
23.Can write.
24.Can speak English.

Ownership of Home:
25.Owned or rented.
26.Owned free or mortgaged.
27.Farm or house.
28.Number of farm schedule.
 
foxpaws said:
Advertising costs are running about 25% over the costs in 2000... But if you factor in inflation - the costs are about 5% less.
Click to expand...


Link doesn't work.

The pre-census letters - cost $85m - cost saving $500m (estimated)
Click to expand...

Estimated by whom? The Federal government? Don't make me laugh. You mean the same government that said it created 3 million jobs this year?

Just like the good little Bolshevik, she tries to minimize the tyranny by comparing it to a past administration.

"Accept your tyranny, serfs! It could have been worse!"
 
fossten said:
Link doesn't work.
Click to expand...

Yes it does... It is the quick view link to this pdf document - maybe you are running antiquated software Foss... Most people just want the google quick view.

The census costs are in line with previous censuses, the questions are quite similar, and in many cases there are far fewer than previous censuses. It is almost identical to the 2000 census, except for 2 quality check questions.

I hope the counters that have to go out aren't going to end up as targets by the people that are being driven to fear by extreme right wing factions.

It is the census, it is very un-radical if you look at previous counts, and if you don't send it back, you end up costing us, the people, a lot of money.

And you end up costing where you live money (federal funds are doled out according to population counts) and you could end up changing the number of representatives you have on every election level, local, state and federal.

I realize it is just another way to spread fear and loathing against this administration. Sort of a pastime among those on the right.
 
foxpaws said:
It is the census, it is very un-radical if you look at previous counts, and if you don't send it back, you end up costing us, the people, a lot of money.

And you end up costing where you live money (federal funds are doled out according to population counts) and you could end up changing the number of representatives you have on every election level, local, state and federal.

I realize it is just another way to spread fear and loathing against this administration. Sort of a pastime among those on the right.
Click to expand...
Yes yes, keep pushing those talking points.

While you're up on your soapbox lecturing, why don't you go ahead and link where I said I wasn't going to send it back. Otherwise, shove your high horse comments up your ass.

Fear and loathing? The right? No, Obama's doing a good enough job of spreading that on his own. Crushing private industries sorta does that to people.

Should I even bother to point out the obvious, delicious hypocrisy of your comment about spreading fear and loathing about an administration? Who is out there still saying BUSHBUSHBUSH? Oh that's right - Obama. Thats, what, 9 years straight now? Talk about a pastime...

Beam in own eye, meet mote.

By the way, your sig - what is 'facism?' Is it people who worship faces or something? :rolleyes:
 
fossten said:
Yes yes, keep pushing those talking points.

While you're up on your soapbox lecturing, why don't you go ahead and link where I said I wasn't going to send it back. Otherwise, shove your high horse comments up your ass.
Click to expand...

Guess what Foss, it isn't all about you, all of the time...

I was talking to the guy who started the thread, Mechanicboy, he wanted to know why he should bother answering... I am giving him reasons why, and why it shouldn't be causing this rampant paranoia.

Fear and loathing? The right? No, Obama's doing a good enough job of spreading that on his own. Crushing private industries sorta does that to people.
Should I even bother to point out the obvious, delicious hypocrisy of your comment about spreading fear and loathing about an administration? Who is out there still saying BUSHBUSHBUSH? Oh that's right - Obama. Thats, what, 9 years straight now? Talk about a pastime...
Click to expand...

Obama hasn't crushed any private industry. He is saving the banking industry, he is saving GM (I think Chrysler is a lost cause), he will add hugely to the private health insurance coffers. He has yet to nationalize any industry foss - I realize this is yet another scare tactic, but it is getting to be rather ridiculous.

Heck, Obama just opened up oil drilling off the coastline of a large part of the Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico and Alaska.

Also the stock market hasn't just been languishing for these last 14 months either.

That is private business he is encouraging there foss. Big Oil has be clamoring to drill off of the eastern Atlantic seaboard for a long time.

I rarely talk about Bush at all... Usually just to compare his administration with others, or recently, to show how Bush used 'social justice' differently than how Shag uses it. You must have me confused with someone else.

The things I did take umbrage with the past administration are the Patriot Act, and the huge amount Bush added to the national debt, mostly because of his tax reductions on the wealthy - I do go after Bush for that.
 
foxpaws said:
Heck, Obama just opened up oil drilling off the coastline of a large part of the Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico and Alaska.
Click to expand...

not quite...
the White House is implying the promise of jam tomorrow - in reality, it’s just a study to revisit the denial of jam yesterday - in exchange for jam today. Only the jam today is actually a swarm of angry wasps. Try again, Mr. President. Start with rescinding your interference with the Bush drilling permits, and expect to give up more. A lot more: your opponents are not interested in indulging the Greenies’ quaint, somewhat primitive religious sensibilities.​
It is noting more then disingenuous a carrot on a stick...
By including areas of the East Coast, Eastern Gulf of Mexico and offshore Alaska in its new Five Year OCS Leasing Plan, the Obama Administration would appear to be throwing a bone to the “Drill. Baby, Drill” crowd.

Of course, everyone expects that there’s a quid pro quo in the deal: in exchange for this Open Access, you will support some form of Cap and Trade proposal. Isn’t that about it, Senator Graham?

But don’t mistake oil and gas leasing as a green light for an oil operator to “Drill. Baby, Drill”. An oil and gas lease is full of all kinds of “subject-tos”. Most significantly, an operator’s ability to drill and explore a lease is subject to his ability to secure the requisite approval from the various government agencies that issue permits for that activity.

So, theoretically, the Feds could issue a lease, but if one of the regulatory bodies refuses to issue a permit, there’s no drilling.

But that would never happen, would it?

Well, it did, less than two weeks ago.
Montana oil leases suspended

BILLINGS – A federal judge has approved a first-of-its-kind settlement requiring the government to suspend 38,000 acres of oil and gas leases in Montana so it can gauge how oil field activities contribute to climate change. …

[Note: These are leases that have already been sold by the BLM. Operators have put up their money but have done no drilling pending resolution of this case. - ed.]

Under the deal approved Thursday by U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy in Missoula, the Bureau of Land Management will suspend the 61 leases in Montana within 90 days. They will have to go through a new round of environmental reviews before the suspensions can be lifted.

“We view this as a very big deal, if a modest first step, in the BLM addressing climate change in oil and gas development,” said plaintiffs’ attorney Erik Schlenker-Goodrich. “It’s quite a dirty process, but there are ways to clean it up.” …

A parallel lawsuit challenging 70,000 acres of federal lands leased in New Mexico remains pending. …

A BLM spokesman, Greg Albright, said reviewing lease sales for climate change would be a first for the agency. How it will be done was still being worked out, and it was unclear if the BLM would adopt such reviews as a standard requirement.

[emphasis added]​
Bear in mind that these two cases represent 108,000 widely dispersed acres in areas that have been under oil and gas development for decades. These permits are make-work for the bureaucrats and their consultants and allow the environmental “stakeholders” to drag out developemnt and make it easier for the interested operator to pull up stakes and go elsewhere.

If it’s this easy in Montana and New Mexico, offshore areas will be a piece of cake.​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 80 (members: 0, guests: 80)
Back
Top