How much information about your personal life...
does the Federal Government have a need (or right) to know?
There is at least one government official that will not be answering all (many of) the questions because she feels they are too intrusive.
Does the Fed need to ask about your income level, when the IRS already has the info?
Do they need to know the address of where you are working, or what time you leave for work, or your commute time?
Do they need to know where you were living last year?
Do they need to know how many vehicles are in your household?
Do they really need to know the exact number of rooms in your place of living, and how many are bedrooms?
Do they really need to know how much agriculture was sold from your property in the past year?
Do they really need to know if your rent includes meals?
Do they really need your name, phone number, and associated address?
Do they really need to know how many times you have been married?
Personally, I will not be answering many of these questions. I don't think the counting of U.S. citizens has anything to do with these types of questions - which is what the census is (or originally intended) for.
What do you think?
And, how will you fill out your own form?
This information is used for statistical analysis. The federal government (this is NOT the "Fed", that is only a finincial control division) is the only organization with the logistical capabilities to collect it with any accuracy. And last time I checked, if you don't want to answer, you can always just put down jibberish (not that I am encouraging this practice, mind you). The only one that seems odd is the first: as you said, the IRS already HAS that data..... although if you are exceedingly poor and are not being taxed, then I could see how you would slip through the cracks.
And you DO know that the NSA has the ability (although they are probably not using it ATM) to access your phone calls and email, possibly even these forums, in secret and without a search warrent?
On the income point, the IRS only has data reported by employers. The income that slips through the tracks is under-the-table stuff, and that happens all up and down the socioeconomic ladder.
On the question of intrusiveness, I have some sympathy (I'm a lapsed philosophical anarchist), but private sector entities, e.g. credit bureaus, have copious, highly specific information on all of us who have even a shred of potential as consumers. Their purpose for collecting that data is to be able to do a better job of separating you from money you would not otherwise spend.
In theory, at least, the annoyingly detailed census questions are intended to help inform national policy-making for the next decade. The head count is the capstone--it is essential for repportioning seats in the House and for a range of funding formulas for things like federal highway spending. The practical policy-making value of any particular question is naturally open to endless debate. But, unlike similarly intrusive surveys sponsored by, say, your local grocery story chain, the purpose here is to help policymakers at all levels of government have a clearer picture of whatever region they serve, be it the entire nation, entire states, congressional districts, counties, cities, or towns.
So, policy-wonk prattle aside, I really won't know what I'll do with my census form until I see it. My mood will doubtless have an effect, but the 'worst' I'm likely to do is ignore a bunch of questions. (I lie for fun to marketing surveys all the time.) NBD--it's all noncensus anyway.
seems like they are stalking you americans
Ohh what's this? A head count? Can someone link me to some information? I'm not american but I would like to read some about it.
Furthermore, Google probably knows more about most people than the government does. It's sad but true.
The US census contains a lot of questions regarding ethnicity and stuff, because we make a big deal out of that in the States. The population statistics are primerily used to decide how many representatives each state gets in the House of Representatives (which is controlled by population) as well as the Electoral College we use in place of a popular vote. The ethnicity questions are used to target economic and social policy, as well as for private and semi-private enterprises like political campeighns.
The wiki page on the US Census is a decent general overview.
The Electoral College isn't exactly used "in place of a popular vote," it's more like a barely-democratic capstone on a largely-democratic process. I generally appreciate our federalism, but I'd write my state legislators in support of abolishing the EC the instant a proposed amendment to the Constitution came down from Congress.
I'll answer whatever questions they care to ask. It's not that big of a deal. It's not like I can affect any significant change by refusing to answer a few silly questions.
While the Federal Government is undoubtedly too intrusive in our lives, it's not particularly harmful. There are worse governments out there. Even if we no longer have the "best" government, we're far from the worst.
Nomads, sounds familiar?
Round them up, they'll move out or have a timely "vacation" abroad as often as necessary -- maybe they're (again) planning to open certain areas to some sort of completely legal immigration.
Trouble is, even the Detroit/Windsor bridge is a loophole worth daily transactions without any address.
Call it the sensus of activities rather than numbers.
Invasion of privacy or not, the bureaucrats want to look at truth in a speadsheet form -- let them, but i doubt results have any value other than stacking up on predictable taxes as usual.
They budget the dead and the living and while they're at it try to determine who's where & why.
In an instant, any population can fail at statistical analysis no matter how precise or regularly scheduled.
Does Guam & Gitmo counts? Even if presumed citizens are on the move?
By "popular vote", I meant a direct democratic system where a majority of citizens' votes nationwide = win.
Yes.
No worries. I was just taking perhaps too literally about "in place of a popular vote." But you're still a bit off on the terminology. There are no large-scale direct democracies (I think there are still a few townships in New England that have a more or less direct democracy locally, but the last time I read much about them, there was a slow trend of shifting to 'modern' city council/mayor systems).
Anway, I do believe that our EC is definitely something of a constitutional appendix that we'd be better off having removed. It made sense as part of the grand set of compromises leading to the original ratification, but regionalism is very, very different these days, not least because the population is so much more mobile. Plus, we've become considerably more democrtic, and I'm quite ready to let go of that particular structural check on popular will (judicial review I still like, although the Supremes are a bit dicy these days for folks with political stripes similar to mine).
Citation needed.Dr.Gonzo
I wonder about that.
Your attitude leads me to believe you are rather young, and so have not seen what this government has actually become and is in the process of becoming.
The path has been set out over many decades, but only recently have we seen such blatant power-grabbing on the part of the U.S. government. The Constitution no longer means what it used to mean, especially to younger people and the politicians.
Heck, we even have a president that is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep all of his personal records under lock and key. We don't even know if he is a natural born citizen - much less even a legal U.S.citizen - because he refuses to release his long form birth certificate and other records. And I have to ask... why? If he is legit, it would be a LOT cheaper and easier to just be as transparent as he has repeatedly promised to be.
No, saying that our government is both too intrusive while not being particularly harmful seems too much like turning a blind eye. They want to know everything about us and we are required to produce these same documents to obtain such governmental documents as a drivers license or passport, yet even the President can get away with hiding these same details.
Don't forget. They work for US, not the other way around. It is supposed to be a government of the people, by the people and for the people.
Actually I think these issues go for pretty much any government of a reasonably developed or dictatorial country.
Hehe. Thanks. Perhaps younger than you, but not by much. I'll keep the complement though. Even if it's rescinded.
Why is the president's personal information so important?
You might not agree with our president's methods or politics. I don't agree 100% with any politician either. But hinting that he might not be qualified because of some conspiracy theorist's paranoid ideas is just spinning your wheels. We elected him into office. He's there and you're not going to remove him for the next few years.
Besides, if you think that he's running the country and calling the shots, I'd have to say that you sound rather young as well. Look at the direction the country was heading before he was elected. Look at where we're heading now. No difference. Only the language has changed. A few minor differences here and there. Tiny distractions to keep your attention.
I maintain that our government isn't particularly harmful. We're doing ok.
Ummmmm........ the President did release his birth certificate. And that cherished liberal propeganda machine of...... World Net Daily confirmed it as real!
Oh, and BTW: here is that citation you were looking for: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/01/nsa-whistlebl-1/
Acutally, in USA, there is a provision that if they could prove after they taped into your private stuff tthat you are planning terrorim and have a potential to carry out ASAP, it is legal. Is buried deep in the Patroit Act section 212 I believe
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/21/patriot.act/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/07/24/gonzales.patriot/
Did you even read that article? It does not confirm it as being real in a any way.
And no long form bc has ever been released. That is the one that shows the hospital, doctor etc that the one Obama released lacks.
Does it matter if they know?
I could not care less.
+1
Moosetek...you just stepped on your moosestick. While rather young, I am older than you.
I would agree the encroachment of individual civil liberties in the past decade, for the sake of individual safety, is dangerous. Most politicians mean well, I suppose, but they all understand the first priority in office is to raise money and run for re-election. Statesmanship is second.
May our children and grandchildren understand these things and form a more perfect union.
Fuck the census questions, fuck the government, fuck the fine.
If I get my hands on it, the thing is getting sent back with number of people in the household.
psychoak.....could you be more specific? I'm not clear on your position.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
