About the census

[Tom Schindler]

KL,



I did not call you a name.



Your statement is that last year, the Census2010 was already taking information down. Now you are changing your tune? Seriously?



My comment about Obama in office was not pointing fingers at anyone in general...well except Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck. Seriously, if this were Bush or Reagan in office, we wouldn't be this worried about it. Everyone is on alert with Obama in office. Gun nuts (myself included and I AM an NRA member) are bombarded with "proof" that Obama is working on a bill to ban all guns. Conservitives, like many of the ones I work with, have "proof" that Obama is working on an alliance with Socialists to turn the USA into the next USSR. Pro lifers have "proof" that Obama is working on a law that will make the government require everyone to have an abortion.



Sure, some of the above is made up, but not far from what is going around today.



How many emails have we received that could not be further from the truth with the only intent is to scare people?



That's all, I have nothing else to say. I will fill out my 10 question Census form and go about my life.





Tom

 

[Mark K 2]

Ah! The Conservative Email Forwarding Network! Damn it for creating such unnecessary paranoia and panic. :grin:

 

[Robert Thomas]

Can we reach a consensus that some people have completely lost their senses? :argue:



Life is Good. I'll talk to anyone who comes to the door. :haveabeer: They can have my idenity if they want, just leave the dawg. :yawn: Just 6 more days till Trout season opens back up. :supercool:

 

[TrainTrac]

Bush Jr did more to invade people's privacy than any 10 presidents before him and with not much outcry.

Can you cite specific examples of this? Because I can recall GWB opponents inferring the same thing, then referring to the Patriot Act. Yet their opposition and objections are usually only in the form of generalities and rhetoric, never anything specific. And if I remember correctly, the majority of elected officials who were vocal in their opposition to the Patriot Act also voted for it and the subsequent revision.

I know, point is, we did not have the outrage about any decisions coming out of the WH than we have today.



If Obama farts wrong, Glen Beck is all over it.

The same thing happened during the GWB administration. All of the major network news (CBS/NBC/ABC) along with CNN, MSNBC, CNBC constantly ran news stories with a negative slant about Bush. And apparently, the only way he could fart was wrong, because their commentators/pundits were all over him constantly.



And the same type of thing occurred in the major newspapers like the Washington Post, NY Times, LA Times, etc. for examples, just go back and look at columns from 2001-2008 in the NY Times from "esteemed" columnists and Pulitzer Prize winners Thomas Friedman or Maureen Dowd.



My point is that I don't think that it's accurate to imply that there was no opposition or outrage about any decisions coming out of the WH during the Bush administration, and that this is a sudden, new occurrence now during the Obama administration.



There's always going to be vocal opposition, no matter whether the folks in power have a (D), (R), (I), or whatever after their name. That's what happens in a free society.

 

[TrainTrac]

Ah! The Conservative Email Forwarding Network! Damn it for creating such unnecessary paranoia and panic.

Uh huh. And the "Liberal Email Forwarding Network" didn't do the same thing between 2001-2008?

 

[Thomas Rogers]

TrainTrac,



The Patriot Act IS what I am talking about. Yeah, I can only spout the rhetoric, but I stand behind my statements. The 10 presidents prior to him (okay, not counting Nixon, I guess) did less in the aggregate to erode people's privacy than did that single Act.



My main concern with the Patriot Act is that it changed some of the basic regulatios regarding eavesdropping and survellience, and many of the Congressman that voted for it, and ratifications afterwards later admitted to having NEVER READ IT.



I was only trying to make the point that Caymen is part of the fear mongering crowd if he really thinks that there is a greater concern under BHO's presidency of civil liberties coming under attack than past presidents, especially GWB. I'm not saying GWB's admin was bad. I'm just saying there is PROOF already that as far as civil liberties are concerned, he passed legislation that limited/reduced them (the patriot act)...BHO hasn't done that yet.



I was OFFENDED by the mere NAME of the Patriot Act. It insulted my intelligence.



TJR

 

[Bud Williams]

Four people and a dog live here, now get the F*** out!:banana::rofl::btddhorse::fire:

 

[TrainTrac]

The Patriot Act IS what I am talking about. Yeah, I can only spout the rhetoric, but I stand behind my statements. The 10 presidents prior to him (okay, not counting Nixon, I guess) did less in the aggregate to erode people's privacy than did that single Act.

If you say that you can only "spout the rhetoric", then the statement behind which you stand is completely empty. If you can't cite specific examples of how the Patriot Act violated the rights of American citizens (along with showing what section of the act allowed for such a violation), then how can you say that it erodes people's privacy? Don't you think that if such violations had occurred in the last nine years, that they would've been challenged in court and perhaps reached the Supreme Court by now? I would think that the ACLU would've jumped all over the first opportunity to defend such a case. But to the best of my recollection, that hasn't happened.

My main concern with the Patriot Act is that it changed some of the basic regulatios regarding eavesdropping and survellience, and many of the Congressman that voted for it, and ratifications afterwards later admitted to having NEVER READ IT.

Have you read the act? If so, what sections are you concerned about when inferring that "it changed some of the basic regulations regarding eavesdropping and surveillance"? While I admit I haven't read the text of the law word for word, I have researched it somewhat, looking for information from various, hopefully objective sources and haven't found anything in it to substantiate your concern.



You're the one who's always encouraging folks to speak from a point of non-emotional reason, and to look at things objectively based on facts and not rhetoric and emotion, TJR. Yet, based on what you've said on this subject thus far, that's exactly what you're doing. Practice what ya preach, my friend.:grin:



I've linked a summary of the Patriot Act that I found. While I'm no lawyer, I didn't see anything in it that would give me reason to be concerned for my or any other American citizens' privacy.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

TrainTrac,



First of all, I do practice what I preach. Second of all, you may think I am just knee-jerking and speaking from emotional rhetoric, but that's not really the case.



I'm not emotional about the subject, just factual from what I have read and what I understand the Act to be:



Fact #1: Before the Patriot Act there was well-established regulations and laws regarding wiretapping and obtaining of wiretapping.



Fact #2: The Patriot Act ratified many of those laws and statutes, relaxing them in several places, making what took court orders before now only requiring FBI suspicion of terrorism as the grounds for wiretapping.



Fact #3: The Act also increased the types of surveillance that could be done (voicemail, Internet traffic, etc).



Fact #4: Until it was a repealed, part of the Act, "sneak and peek" wiretapping was going on, during which time the FBI could listen in on suspected terrorist calls while wiretap orders were being obtained internally.



Fact #5: The Act also specifically removes a previous statute that required our foreign intelligence agencies applying for a wiretap warrant to prove that the person being tapped was a non-citizen. That is no longer the case. Citizens can be targeted.



Some would say that the Patriot Act simply "greases the skids" so that our intelligent agencies can better do their jobs. I would agree with that generalization (see, I can be unemotional and objective). I will also agree that there seemed to be a lot of bureaucratic red-tape required to get a wiretap order before the PA, and reducing that, and that increasing the types of electronic surveillance that can be done (ip networks, voicemail, etc) are all good things. (see, once again, seeing both sides, unemotionally).



However, the question that remains in my mind is: "At what costs are these new abilities?"



The logical, unemotional side of my brain makes me think that if it is now the case that more areas can be wiretapped, more easily, and often for no other reason than a "suspicion" of terrorist activities, then that all equates to less privacy among our citizenry, as well as the potential for abuse. Where there is the potential I am concerned.



Now, ... :back2topic:



So, why should we be concerned about the 2010 Census?





TJR

 

[Mark K 2]

Uh huh. And the "Liberal Email Forwarding Network" didn't do the same thing between 2001-2008?

Nope. I had and currently have about 36 Democratic friends in my address book. I've never received any political stuff from them. I have two Republican/conservative friends on the same list. All they do is forward political stuff to and from other people. I actually blocked my cousin in Texas because of the amount of stuff he sent; much of it shows up here and on other forums.

 

[Bud Williams]

The old saying goes, "If you don't have anything smart to say, don't say anything at all"



Perhaps they are Democrats, but uninformed or apethetic with the issues.

 

[Mark K 2]

No. Politics just isn't the main priority in our lives. Either that, or we don't get all bent out of shape over unsubstantiated rumors. Nor do we insist on spreading them.

 

[Kevin Lang]

Caymen, I'm not reneging on my stand.



Here's my stand, again. Agent of the census bureau interviewed my parents about income, by making several house calls and phone calls, all of which lasted several hours, and this occurred in the calendar year 2009.



Now, while we could spread the hate, and ultimately duel to the death over this issue (Though that would be problematic), I don't feel quite right about that, so I brought our mutual friend Google to the party. I hope you don't mind.



Google tells me that the Census Bureau has a program which does exactly what I described. It is called the Survey of Income and Program Participation. This program selects 14k to 37k households in America and asks them a battery of questions on Income. Come to think of it, this means that being selected is a bit of an honor, as so few households out of so many were selected.



Now, I'm linking a few of the Google results to you. The first is the official Census Bureau's page on it, though like most government programs, it is outdated as the site has not been updated since 2006.



The second is Wikipeida's blurb. You may argue that Wiki is not admissible, but since all it does is summarize a confirmed official source, and link to other non-wiki sources, I think it will work.



<a href="http://www.census.gov/sipp/intro.html">Census Bureau on their SIPP</a>

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survey_of_Income_and_Program_Participation">Wiki's synopsis and corroboration collection for the Census Bureau's SIPP</a>



The attached link is to the National Bureau of Economic Research, to a page on their site where you can access all information gathered by this SIPP from 1984 to 2008, inclusive.



Hopefully this settles the issue, because my arms are getting tired from doing this. :btddhorse:

 

[Tom Schindler]

KL,



You proved my point. The 2010 Census has NOTHING to do with what you "experienced".





Tom

 

[Kevin Lang]

The 2010 Census has NOTHING to do with what you "experienced".

Seriously?! First off, your quotes suggest that you STILL do not believe my point, in the face of official documentation? Documentation that you need to reread as it professes that the SIPP is part of the 2010 Census.

(Just as it was for all the previous years for which data is available)



Your original post on the subject said that if I was asked questions on income by the Census Bureau, then I was either "telling a tale" or "scammed", which morphed into simply "telling a tale". The Census Bureau's official site informing you that the Census Bureau DOES ask these questions proves your entire original argument false.



I said that even if I had irrefutable proof, you still would not see the truth. I was right.



Caymen, you could see the Earth from space with your own eyes and still argue that it is flat.

 

[Bud Williams]

After seeing the SIPP info, we really need the FairTax. then it wouldn't matter whether income was earned thru employment or otherwise. We tax it as it is spent.

We encourage savings, we tax illegals, we tax the underground economy, the feds would have more money then they collect now. No more evasion, no more wasted hours enforcing the current atiquated tax code. But studies like this and the HR Block lobby will fight the fair tax to never get passed.

 

[Robert Thomas]

I love this website, I learn so much. Now I find out that the earth is not flat. This is great, I will head out a little further on todays fishing trip. :banana::banana:

 

[Jim parnell]

this place is a HOOT!!!!!!!!

 

[Kevin Lang]

This is great, I will head out a little further on todays fishing trip.

Lucky. I'm glad to be of service lol.



It's sad that some companies will use anti-Capitalistic government practices to further their Capitalistic goals...H & R block, I'm looking at you.



Lobbying should be illegal. That & term limits were in the CSA Constitution...if only they had been adopted by the USA.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

To recap the score:



KL: 17

Caymen: 16



And now, for something completely worthless:



[Broken External Image]: