The 2010 Census, mostly BS?

[foxpaws]

not quite...

the White House is implying the promise of jam tomorrow
<snip>
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. …​

Shag - step away from Red State for just a moment...

There have been suits in Montana forever against drilling, that isn't going to change. There are always suits, always huge environment impact studies that have to be done.

And the government is the defendant here shag - they want to lease out the land to drill. The judge is ruling against the government in favor of some environmental group.

(however, we were talking about off-shore)

Here is the president doing something very positive for oil exploration (I have family members in the field) and the oil companies are very excited and positive about the change in policy.

Obama is actually doing something the right has wanted him to do, start opening up off shore oil fields.

It won't happen overnight - and the rigs are booked for years out (so they wouldn't be drilling anytime soon anyway, no equipment). The studies will get done, and they will drill. The fact that fields won't be open for bidding until 2012 isn't a problem. Even if the oil companies started the process to get the rigs out to explore those fields probably the earliest they would get out to them is 2013.

Don't get all your news from Red State - it is slightly biased...

And perhaps we should start a new thread if you really want to go into this - I have family member standing by... ​

 

[fossten]

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.

Now you're blatantly lying in order to avoid responding.

Go back to your own post.

You clearly have ME quoted.

You did NOT quote Mechanicboy.

You responded to MY post.

You're a liar.

You are PATHETIC.

 

[fossten]

Shag - step away from Red State for just a moment...

There have been suits in Montana forever against drilling, that isn't going to change. There are always suits, always huge environment impact studies that have to be done.

And the government is the defendant here shag - they want to lease out the land to drill. The judge is ruling against the government in favor of some environmental group.

(however, we were talking about off-shore)

Here is the president doing something very positive for oil exploration (I have family members in the field) and the oil companies are very excited and positive about the change in policy.

Obama is actually doing something the right has wanted him to do, start opening up off shore oil fields.

It won't happen overnight - and the rigs are booked for years out (so they wouldn't be drilling anytime soon anyway, no equipment). The studies will get done, and they will drill. The fact that fields won't be open for bidding until 2012 isn't a problem. Even if the oil companies started the process to get the rigs out to explore those fields probably the earliest they would get out to them is 2013.

Don't get all your news from Red State - it is slightly biased...

And perhaps we should start a new thread if you really want to go into this - I have family member standing by...

Fox - step away from the White House spin machine for a moment.

There's a big difference between what Obama SAYS and what actually HAPPENS.

Don't get all your news from the Obama Administration - he's a huge liar.

Obama signed an executive order that he can EASILY rescind. Furthermore, the order specifies that environmental concerns have to be satisfied - TRANSLATION - this will be decided in court if it ever gets there. Obama will say, "Sorry folks, I tried, but the darn courts won't let it happen. Now, how about that Crap and Tax bill I've been pushing..."

And don't forget Pelosi - you really think she's going to let the moratorium on offshore drilling expire THIS TIME? Yeah right.

It's nothing but a sick political football held by Lucy (Obama), only to be pulled away from Charlie Brown (the American people) at the last minute.

He's just desperate to regain some foothold on the November elections - and this will fail as well. The people aren't buying into the Messiah anymore.

You really think he's going to spit in the face of his rabid envirowacko base just like that? If you do, you're dumber than I thought.

This is the same guy who said he wanted to see $4.00 a gallon gas.

This is the same guy who said he would bankrupt the coal industry.

This is the same guy who loaned Soros $10 billion so he could drill for Brazil.

This is the same guy who SWORE he'd hold HCR hearings on C-SPAN.

This is the same guy who SWORE the middle class would not see "one dime" of a tax increase.

He's a PROVEN LIAR.

And so are you.

Washington, D.C. – House Natural Resources Committee Ranking Member Doc Hastings (WA-04) released the following statement regarding President Obama’s announcement that his Administration will delay a new offshore drilling plan until 2012 and include only a fraction of offshore land that was available under the 2010-2015 lease plan:

“With this announcement, the Obama Administration is attempting to pull the wool over our eyes. President Obama’s rhetoric conveys support for increasing American oil and natural gas production, while the reality is he’s proposing a plan that will close more areas to drilling than it opens and the few areas still available won’t be open for years.

“When the plan closes off more areas than it opens and could delay any new drilling until after President Obama’s term in office, this plan really deserves to be called the ‘Obama Moratorium.’

“President Obama’s plan is to make the American people wait longer and receive less – both for more American-made energy and new jobs. Hardly anyone would consider that a good deal – in fact, most would probably call it a clever trick.

“The moratoria on offshore drilling were lifted in 2008 and over 500 million acres became available for energy production and job creation. The Bush Administration’s 2010-2015 leasing plan would have resulted in new areas being opened this July, yet the ‘Obama Moratorium’ plan would close the vast majority of these 500 million new acres and allow only a tiny fraction to be open in the future.

“Along with delaying new energy production, the President is also delaying the creation of millions of new jobs that would revitalize our economy and generate billions of dollars in revenue to the federal government that would help reduce the record deficits run up in the past year. The costs are too high for this President to continue blocking valuable American energy production.

“It is my sincere hope that Congress will act, in a similar bipartisan fashion that we used to end the moratorium, and pass the Republican American Energy Act that will put a plan in place this year to truly open America’s Outer Continental Shelf to energy production and job creation.”

 

[shagdrum]

Shag - step away from Red State for just a moment...

Don't get all your news from Red State - it is slightly biased...

So you are, by inference, attacking the messenger. If you could demonstrate how they are misleading it would be one thing, but you are not doing that.

You can look at the links for their claims and see if their is a logical connection with their conclusions, but you are not doing that.

You can not point to a history of distortion by Red State as can be done with far to many left wing outlets (media matters, etc.).

Instead, all you are doing, by inference, is marginalizing Red State and dismissing what they have to say without directly responding to the points being raised.

If your only argument is to attempt to de-legitimize the source, you have no argument.

It is convenient to ignore the point that the proposals Obama plans to adopt HAD ALREADY BEEN APPROVED but, even after Obama's big show today still have to be authorized by the Interior Department and that won't happen until 2012 (unlikely if Obama is still in power), if at all (likely).

FYI: that doesn't come from the red state article but from the NEW YORK TIMES article being cited by red state.

Considering the fact that Obama has proven himself to be two faced; saying one thing while doing another, there is no reason to think that this is anything more then a PR stunt; political gamesmanship.

However, conveniently dismissing and ignoring those Red State blogs, the articles they cite, and the conclusions they reach is easier then actually confronting the claims on their merits, eh?

 

[fossten]

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.

Heard from Caterpillar, Deere, and AT&T lately?

 

[fossten]

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.

Tsk tsk, lazy, fox...

You clearly didn't read my post.

I said it was Obama that talks about Bush.

It's not all about you.

 

[shagdrum]

Also, as to the Red State blog on the Montana oil lease suspension, the distinction you are drawing concerning offshore drilling is irrelevant to the point being raised in the blog. You care to actually confront that point or are you simply going to keep injecting red herrings and confuse the issue?

I know that the left is pressing especially hard to ostracize and de-legitimize any none left wing sources since the health care bill, but at least have the courtesy to not insult the intelligence of the people on this forum by using those disingenuous tactics.

 

[fossten]

Shag, the entire drilling gambit is a red herring designed to distract everybody from the obvious fact that she cannot make a good argument about the Census.

 

[foxpaws]

Shag, the entire drilling gambit is a red herring designed to distract everybody from the obvious fact that she cannot make a good argument about the Census.

I asked shag to take it off this thread...

 

[foxpaws]

Tsk tsk, lazy, fox...

You clearly didn't read my post.

I said it was Obama that talks about Bush.

It's not all about you.

You are right - you did... The statement was about Obama.

However I have been address my point regarding the census to a) Mechanicboy and b) people in general. I hate to see the right create havoc where there really isn't any. It is sort of a fun little pastime with you isn't it?

Oh, aren't you tired of copying me yet? You might be a good technical writer Foss, but creatively? Obviously you didn't really get 'Creative Writing 101' did you?

 

[Mechanicboy]

This is the first census I will be filling out for myself and my household. Comparing to other census' doesn't make me feel any better about the current one. Shows me that we haven't bettered it at all. This tangent about the oil fields isn't helping me either.

I feel that It's all political BS. I mean way beyond that fact that it's used to count people for the electoral system or how many seats each state gets in the House. It just seems like no matter what the outcome of the census that we're strewed either way. California has a problem and this census isn't going to make it any better. They'll find we have more illegals then ever and just keep letting the problem get bigger. I'm not just talking south of the boarder, it's also from overseas the problems we're having here. I'm tired of people thinking that when someone says illegal immigrant that they assume mexicans. In fact, I'd rather California not have as many votes in the House. Most politicians here are morons, and that's being nice. For the record, I hate nancy pelosi and can't wait to see her gone.

Paranoia it may be, I still do not like it. I love the area I'm in, but I don't like the state as a whole. We need change, just not the backward kind of change that going on in washington right now.

 

[shagdrum]

You are right - you did... The statement was about Obama.

However I have been address my point regarding the census to a) Mechanicboy and b) people in general. I hate to see the right create havoc where there really isn't any. It is sort of a fun little pastime with you isn't it?

Oh, aren't you tired of copying me yet? You might be a good technical writer Foss, but creatively? Obviously you didn't really get 'Creative Writing 101' did you?

Didn't Senator Judd Gregg withdraw his nomination as Obama's secretary of Commerce over disagreements on the Census?

I have found that on issues such as the stimulus package and the Census there are irresolvable conflicts for me.​

As much as you want to downplay it, there are enough red flags to strongly suggest that Obama is politicizing the Census. Combine that with the way he (and the Dem leadership in general) opportunistically politicize and leverage anything and everything they can to their advantage, and it is hardly some crazy conspiracy theory as you are attempting to mischaracterize it.

 

[fossten]

You are right - you did... The statement was about Obama.

However I have been address my point regarding the census to a) Mechanicboy and b) people in general. I hate to see the right create havoc where there really isn't any. It is sort of a fun little pastime with you isn't it?

You insist on pursuing a canard that you cannot substantiate - that I am falsely accusing this administration of taking an anti-business stance. Unfortunately for you, you're failing at moving me off my point. You assert without really gaining any traction. In short, your web-fu is weak.

Oh, aren't you tired of copying me yet? You might be a good technical writer Foss, but creatively? Obviously you didn't really get 'Creative Writing 101' did you?

Aww, did your wittle feewings get hurt? Need a tissue?

Really, fox, I'm surprised at you. Whining about being hoist by your own petard, and trying to disguise such whining as a personal jab designed to provoke me? How sad.

Sigh.

I guess you're far from the formidable foe I once figured you for. (That was an alliteration by the way, Miss Creative Writing)

See, fox, unlike you, I don't strut around bragging about my writing credentials. I prefer to speak plainly so that everyone can understand me. I prefer not to take ultra-nuanced positions that twist logic into a pretzel and wrap otherwise simple arguments inside massive wordiness. Do not mistake choice of language for lack of vocabulary.

How far have you fallen, resorting to these petty little simpering 'attacks' that even a 5th grader would be ashamed to be credited with.

 

[fossten]

I asked shag to take it off this thread...

Do it yourself, lazy ass.

Do you EVER stop whining?

 

[shagdrum]

Obviously you didn't really get 'Creative Writing 101' did you?

That explains why you are so good at bullsh!ting!

In creative writing, they always tell you to "write more"; even when you have made your point and should move on.

Is that why it takes you a paragraph to simply answer a 'yes' or 'no' question? Is that why it takes you three or four paragraphs to make a point that could be made in one sentence?

 

[fossten]

That explains why you are so good at bullsh!ting!

In creative writing, they always tell you to "write more"; even when you have made your point and should move on.

Is that why it takes you a paragraph to simply answer a 'yes' or 'no' question? Is that why it takes you three or four paragraphs to make a point that could be made in one sentence?

:bowrofl:

Brevity is the soul of wit, indeed.

She hath no wit.

 

[foxpaws]

This is the first census I will be filling out for myself and my household. Comparing to other census' doesn't make me feel any better about the current one. Shows me that we haven't bettered it at all. This tangent about the oil fields isn't helping me either.

I feel that It's all political BS. I mean way beyond that fact that it's used to count people for the electoral system or how many seats each state gets in the House. It just seems like no matter what the outcome of the census that we're strewed either way. California has a problem and this census isn't going to make it any better. They'll find we have more illegals then ever and just keep letting the problem get bigger. I'm not just talking south of the boarder, it's also from overseas the problems we're having here. I'm tired of people thinking that when someone says illegal immigrant that they assume mexicans. In fact, I'd rather California not have as many votes in the House. Most politicians here are morons, and that's being nice. For the record, I hate nancy pelosi and can't wait to see her gone.

Paranoia it may be, I still do not like it. I love the area I'm in, but I don't like the state as a whole. We need change, just not the backward kind of change that going on in washington right now.

Well, MB, gotta go with your opinion of old Nancy... but it will be hard to get rid of her, they adore her in her district.

So, here is what the constitution says about this...

[An] Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they (congress) shall by Law direct.
​

And here are the directions the first congress sent to the census marshals in 1790 (the first census, and perhaps close to what the founding fathers had in mind)...

Cause the number of the inhabitants within their respective districts to be taken; omitting in such enumeration Indians not taxed, and distinguishing free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, from all others; distinguishing also the sexes and colours of free persons, and the free males of sixteen years and upwards from those under that age.​

So, fill out what you want - but be warned, you might get more attention by not filling it out, or not filling it out completely, than by completely filling it out. Incomplete forms will be followed up by a census taker, in person.

Various levels of government do depend on the census as far as getting Federal funds. Things like roads, schools, hospitals which are funded by the Feds use the census as one way to direct them on how to allocate funds. And you really don't want to lose representatives in congress. Once again, that helps direct federal funds to your state, along with the house passing bills that would benefit your state in other ways.

The home ownership is a barometer on the health of the economy - more home owners, healthier economy.

Sex question - because they look at this according to things like equal employment opportunities in an area.

Age - so they can forecast what is in store for SS and medicare.

Race - to make sure that some races aren't being discriminated against in receiving federal funds. (They review districts and if they find out that many districts which are heavily black are receiving far less federal funds than neighboring white districts, they look at why those districts are being left out).

That is pretty much what they are looking at. I realize I might sound like a 'shill' for the administration, but these aren't extraordinary questions by any means...

In 1950 this is what they wanted to know...

* address
* whether house is on a farm
* name
* relationship to head of household
* race
* sex
* age
* marital status
* birthplace
* if foreign born, whether naturalized
* employment status
* hours worked in week
* occupation, industry and class of worker

 

[shagdrum]

It is interesting how the Constitution reads on this...

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.​

It was originally meant as a tool to determine taxation and federal representation. Look at how it has been distorted and expanded...

 

[foxpaws]

It was originally meant as a tool to determine taxation and federal representation. Look at how it has been distorted and expanded...

I think it is Title 13 that is the Civil Law that governs the census.

It has been expanded from collection of taxes to spending of taxes.

 

[Mechanicboy]

Well, MB, gotta go with your opinion of old Nancy... but it will be hard to get rid of her, they adore her in her district.

Is not her seat coming due for re-election? I believe that the entire House is due.

So, fill out what you want - but be warned, you might get more attention by not filling it out, or not filling it out completely, than by completely filling it out. Incomplete forms will be followed up by a census taker, in person.

Oh that's just great. How do they know if the residence is occupied or not? I just moved and they were sending a census to my old place and I received one at my new place just after I moved.

Various levels of government do depend on the census as far as getting Federal funds. Things like roads, schools, hospitals which are funded by the Feds use the census as one way to direct them on how to allocate funds. And you really don't want to lose representatives in congress. Once again, that helps direct federal funds to your state, along with the house passing bills that would benefit your state in other ways.

California has more then enough money and its schools have more then enough money for sure, they just waste it on crap. If they would spend the money more wisely we'd be great. I don't think it needs more tax money.

The home ownership is a barometer on the health of the economy - more home owners, healthier economy.

Seems fair enough, but not necessary for a census.

Sex question - because they look at this according to things like equal employment opportunities in an area.

How's that? By measuring the percentage of male verse female employed in relationship the the population? That isn't an accurate way to measure equal employment opportunities. The area I'm in is heavily a farming area and is more traditional then most of the state, that doesn't mean that people aren't happy with that situation or isn't fair. The census won't count that.

Age - so they can forecast what is in store for SS and medicare.

Fair enough. But do they really need to know the day you were born on?

Race - to make sure that some races aren't being discriminated against in receiving federal funds. (They review districts and if they find out that many districts which are heavily black are receiving far less federal funds than neighboring white districts, they look at why those districts are being left out).

Why can't they just distribute it equally? You know, support equality?

It was originally meant as a tool to determine taxation and federal representation. Look at how it has been distorted and expanded...

That's all it should be. I'm also fine with the age thing, but they should only ask the ask as of April 1, 2010, not the full birthday.

 

[foxpaws]

Is not her seat coming due for re-election? I believe that the entire House is due.

Yep - she is up for re-election. But last election she got 205,000 votes, her closest competition only got 46,000 - they love her in the 8th... I think in the past she has even run unopposed...

Oh that's just great. How do they know if the residence is occupied or not? I just moved and they were sending a census to my old place and I received one at my new place just after I moved.

They won't. If a barcoded census form isn't received they will send out a counter to the residence to see if anyone lives there... a few times.

California has more then enough money and its schools have more then enough money for sure, they just waste it on crap. If they would spend the money more wisely we'd be great. I don't think it needs more tax money.

They waste - but, they also put a huge amount into the federal coffers, and get very little back. For every dollar California sends to the Feds in taxes it only gets back $.78, they are 43rd in the country. For example New Mexico, which is number 1 on the list gets $2.03 back in Federal funds for every $1.00 they send in.

How's that? By measuring the percentage of male verse female employed in relationship the the population? That isn't an accurate way to measure equal employment opportunities. The area I'm in is heavily a farming area and is more traditional then most of the state, that doesn't mean that people aren't happy with that situation or isn't fair. The census won't count that.

it is one of many reasons to count sex. You look at childbearing age females - to look at possibility of child services (schools, etc) in the next 10 years. Women also need more health care services at various points in their lives - and then it switches to men using more of the health care dollar, so hospitals look at those number to estimate services needed in an area.

Fair enough. But do they really need to know the day you were born on?

Probably not.

Why can't they just distribute it equally? You know, support equality?

They really can't. There are 'rich' districts and 'poor' districts. Districts that need a lot of federal funds, districts that get extra funding indirectly because of military spending in that area should be looked at differently. Federal road maintenance is allocated this way.

That's all it should be. I'm also fine with the age thing, but they should only ask the ask as of April 1, 2010, not the full birthday.

Once again, answer what you want, but expected to be visited by a census taker if you leave out answers.

 

[Mechanicboy]

Yep - she is up for re-election. But last election she got 205,000 votes, her closest competition only got 46,000 - they love her in the 8th... I think in the past she has even run unopposed...

Another reason I don't like the census, they will redraw the districts to help their political advantage. They redraw districts all the time. I know they had a ballot initiative to prevent this some time back but I'm not sure what became of it.

Nancy has never ran unopposed, but she might as well if these number are correct:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California's_8th_congressional_district

Maybe the people will be dissatisfied enough with her and/or her opponent will be good enough to replace her. I can only hope.

What's going to happen if they say I didn't fill it out, then what?

 

[Calabrio]

Another reason I don't like the census, they will redraw the districts to help their political advantage. They redraw districts all the time. I know they had a ballot initiative to prevent this some time back but I'm not sure what became of it.

That's a state issue.
The realistic way to address the is to make sure the Democrats don't control the state government.

Long term, the issue of gerrymandering needs to be addressed.

Nancy has never ran unopposed, but she might as well if these numbers are correct:

she's the Speaker of the House and she's in San Fransisco.
Radical and powerful. That's the definition of a safe seat.

What's going to happen if they say I didn't fill it out, then what?

They'll send another one.
Then they'll send someone to your house.
And then, technically, they could fine you.

 

[fossten]

So, fill out what you want - but be warned, you might get more attention by not filling it out, or not filling it out completely, than by completely filling it out. Incomplete forms will be followed up by a census taker, in person.


blah blah blah

blah blah blah

REPOST!

Just answer the questions you're comfortable with. But be prepared to be hounded if you don't fill it out completely.

Oh, aren't you tired of copying me yet? You might be a good technical writer Fox, but creatively? Obviously you didn't really get 'Creative Writing 101' did you?

 

[Mechanicboy]

I just had a census taker at my door. Guess what? He didn't make me answer all the questions. Said I didn't have to answer if I wasn't comfortable with it. I was half naked though and looked rough cause I hadn't been up long. My brothers say I look like I'm going to kill someone so he might have been scared