I found this on another forum, I don’t know if it is accurate or not, but it seems reasonable to me. Anyone care to debunk it?
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a38d035416dd0.htm
Put me in with those who answered “human”. I see it as the ONLY correct answer to that question. I always answer thus and am quite adament about it. I won’t let petty buerocrats change it. I actually got the form after my wife had filled it out, and steamed open the envelope to change it. Then I realized they would be able to see what was crossed out, and so filled it out on the web. I had the short form and really have no problems with the questions asked,( except for the race one) but I would be uncomfortable with the long one too. BTW, why the emphases on hispanic folks? They ask if you are hispanic in a seperate question in addition to the afore mentioned race question. Why?
Cecil said it. I believe it. That settles it.
Well, it seems that I’m NOT alone in feeling like I do. Actually, after reading the Drudge Report article (thanks for the link, Freedom!) talking to people at work, and listening to the radio and television, I realize that many folks are angry about this.
I heard that the only thing that you are required by law to answer is how many people are in the house… (this was from an ACLU lawyer on the radio). Is there a lawyer in the house that can fill us all in on what the straight dope is on this?
Before a meeting this morning at work, I polled those in the room if they had received their census forms. All but one had, and 3 of us (out of 8) had received the long form. Each person that received the long form is as angry about it as I am. It’s funny, but no one objected to the counting, but boy did the debate get fast and furious on some of the questions. The comment “I’d rather pay the hundred bucks” was heard twice. Just like KSO said.
After re-reading it, I was particularly irritated at the political correctness of the race question. What the hell is the difference between a black, African Am., or Negro? Christ… Can I have a choice between being white, European Am., or Honky? What if you think of yourself as “colored”? No place for you on the census! And after that list of “Asian” choices, what the hell would be left for “Other asian”? Maybe I’ll put “Caucasian”.
RTFirefly - your point of view is appreciated, but you are right… you probably won’t change my opinion on this one. If they truly want all of this information, they could get it from me if they 1) didn’t ask me my name, or 2) my specific address… certainly they could regionalize it to a town … a zipcode… or a group of streets… or someway to provide some level of anonymity.
Under their terminology, hispanic is an ethnicity, not a race. So, if your ancestors were born in Mexico, your race would be white and your ethnicity would be Mexican.
Although I have defended the census quite a bit here, I will admit to having taken one liberty with the questions. Under the ethnicity question, I answered “Appalachian.” That may not have been what they were looking for, but it most accurately describes who I am. Like most folks living in the Appalachian mountains, I’m mostly Scotch-Irish, with a healthy dose of German and a tad of Native American thrown in. That description wouldn’t fit on the line, so they got Appalachian, which I argue is its own ethnicity. We’re basically white folks who suffer almost all the prejudice, discrimination and stereotypes other American minorities do, so why not give us our own spot on the form? After all, the city of Cincinnati passed a law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of Appalachian heritage (since so many of us moved up there after coal went bust), so I’m not alone in my belief.
Still, I got the long form, filled it out completely and sent it back first thing the next morning. I understand all the distrust of the government, though. With Watergate, Iran-contra, and the assassinations of JFK, RFK and MLK in our recent history, you would have to be an idiot not to question government. But seriously, not taking part in the census is cutting off your nose to spite your face. By refusing to fill out the form, you are only sabotaging your community. Your needs will not be included when they are passing out the dough over the next decade. If you choose to screw with the census, then you have given up your right to complain (without being a hypocrite) when your community loses millions over the next 10 years for day care, highways, water/sewer lines, low-income housing, or anything else your community needs. Make no doubt about it, you will be part of the problem!
One last thought I will leave you with:
The person who blindly rebels against every government action is just as much a slave as the person who blindly follows every government action.
I don’t think people are angry at responding to a census in its true sense of simply counting the population. What I’m (and, according to the Drudge Report 600,000 other citizens) are angry at are the completely improper and irrelevent questions about income, the kind of car I drive, the time I leave for work, whether I own or rent, do I have a mortgage, what is the mortgage payment, do I have fire insurance, etc. Additionally, there is apparently an even longer form that one in every 100 households will get requesting info on “physical, mental or emotional conditions lasting more than six months.” (that’s from the Drudge Report). What in the hell does that have to do with anything and who in the hell would answer such questions? I really don’t understand why anyone would give out that information without questioning why the government needs it. As someone else noted, it wouldn’t be so offensive if these responses were anonymous, but they aren’t. And given the story that’s breaking about how the Census Bureau was critical in rounding up Japanese-Americans during WWII for shipment to “detention centers,” I’m very reluctant to add to the government’s file on me!
First off, you can only take the Drudge Report with a grain of salt.
Second, there are only two forms – short and long, and the long form does ask about whether you have had any learning disorders, physical disabilities, etc. in a very general sense, i.e., do you have a physical disability which would prevent you from working.
I know this because I actually received the long form and filled it out. Also, there is no reference to what kind of car you drive, despite two references to that in this thread. This is not a marketing survey. It’s the census. They do ask whether you use a car, truck or van to get to work, or whether you use public transportation, if you hoof it, and so on. How can you not realize that this is important information for the government to know when planning for the country’s transportation needs over the next ten years? This information will be used to determine where to build highways, as well as how much to invest in alternative forms of transportation, such as bike paths, sidewalks, subsidies for public transportation, etc.
The same goes for all the information you and others say you cannot understand why the government would want. Why do they want to know about folks with disabilities? To determine where to build the next nursing homes, assisted-living housing projects, clinics, and so on. Why do they want to know where the veterans are? So they will know where to build VA hospitals, clinics, veterans nursing homes, etc. Why do they want to know about your morning commute habits? So that they can plan for the next round of spending for road upgrades, new road construction, air pollution abatement and the like. Why do they want to know your income? So they will know where they need to concentrate anti-poverty spending and build low-income housing. Why do they want to know what type of dwelling you live in? So they will know what areas of the country are in need of such programs as the Affordable Housing Trust and the Rural Housing Service.
But let’s say you win. Let’s say we intitiate a nationwide “Screw the Census” campaign, urging people to toss the long forms in the trash, and we achieve a 100 percent success rate. Suddenly, the government does not have this information anymore. Yet, there are all these programs out there with huge budgets waiting to be spent. Without accurate information, the census no longer knows what areas of the country should be top priority for spending. So the govt. takes its best guess, spends more money (where do you think that comes from) to employ other methods of obtaining information, and in many cases spends money where it is not needed and overlooks areas where it is needed. Hooray! We have succeeded in making our government even more inefficient and even less responsive to the people it governs and their needs. Just what we need.
At this point, having typed my umpteenth epistle, I am going to have to ask for some help from any others out there who realize the importance of maximum participation in the census. Some have helped a little, but I’m beginning to feel like the only person arguing this point. And it is getting so tiring when all that seems to be taking place in this thread is:
“Why do they need this information?”
“Here’s why.”
“But why do they need it?”
“Here’s why.”
“But why do they need it?”
All I’m seeing are the exact same questions over and over again. I have tried to answer them the best I can, but the same questions are just repeated again. Hell, I’m not saying I’m the ultimate authority on this, but I have yet to see one single rebuttal or refutation to anything I’ve said, other than fear from folks who think the government might be out to get them now or in the future. If I’m wrong, tell me where I’m wrong and why. Don’t just throw the same question back.
Not that you are wrong- I don’t know how accurate you are, and am not prepaired to say that you’re not. What people are upset about is what else the info could be used for. If the Feds want to spend money on these things, they should give the money to the states-With the provision that it only be used for “----” whatever.( housing,sewer, transportation, etc…) the states should then keep a percentage for statewide projects and divide the rest among the counties on an equal$per capita basis. ( see, the census numbers would be used here.) While I am sure that the feds do not know where in Baltimore housing needs improvement, etc… I am equally sure Mayor O’Mally does.
Cecil said it. I believe it. That settles it.
[j/k]
It’s all part of a government conspiracy to raise funds to help pay off the National Debt. You get to choose which to send in, your form filled out completely or your check for $100 for each person living in your household.[/j/k]
-Melin
Voted Best Moderator (Emeritus)
Max: besides being obligated to try to count everybody (regardless of their desire to be counted), the Census also is obligated to do its best to avoid counting people twice. As long as it’s possible for people to show up on more than one form (happened a few million times in 1990), the Census needs some way of trying to sort out whether certain apparent double-counts really are that, and to eliminate duplicates from the count as best they can. Names and addresses are helpful.
The Drudge Report piece on the Census, a rant disguised as a news piece (golly, it’s good to see that conservative gripes about media bias have sunk in), displays its bias by calling the long form an ‘inquisition’, and saying things like: “A cover letter accompanying the long form states that no one will have access to the information other than the Census Bureau. Yet many questions appear to violate a citizen’s right to privacy,” without any attempt to explain what the ‘right to privacy’ means (at least the 2000 Census has gotten conservatives to admit it exists) and how it’s being violated here.
Oh, btw, a further word about Drudge: the front page of his online rag lists a bunch of columnists, as if they were affiliated with his report. Actually, they’re links to other newspapers’ columnists, but you don’t find that out until you go there, and only then if you’re paying attention. What a sleazebag! I think I’ll stick with responsible journalism, like the Weekly World News.
That’s a new one to me. The Census is required by the Constitution to ask how many people are at each address; it’s only required by law to ask most or all of the rest of the questions. But if the law distinguishes between questions, with respect to what people are required to answer, this would be news to me.
Lucy: I don’t know your source on the quote, but the Census is not conducting ‘neighborhood checks to make sure that everyone is filling out their forms.’ If they don’t get your form back in the mail, they send someone out to ask you the questions. (This costs a lot of money, as I’ve said in other Census threads. Go ahead and fill out what you’re willing to fill out, and send it in. Save a few of our tax dollars.) If you’re not there, they’ll ask your neighbor, as a last resort, how many people are in your house (and maybe stuff like gender, age, race; I don’t know). That’s all.
Oh yeah: addresses (down to the block level, anyway) are necessary for Congressional redistricting.
Sheesh - if sampling had been allowed, they wouldn’t have had to count everyone. And now that they’re doing it, the same people who didn’t want sampling (I’ll bet) are all upset. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
paintsvillecom, I know exactly how you feel. Some of these questions, I’ve answered on a number of other threads; I’ve lost track of all the different Census threads. As soon as I say, “Here’s why,” on one thread, someone asks the same damned question on another. Sorry I haven’t been much help on this thread.
RTFirefly says:
I don’t understand your point here. By doing the one-out-of-six approach, sampling is EXACTLY what they are doing. And I DON’T like it. As I’ve said before, one of the ways to make this more palatable to me would have been to send the same form to everyone. Sampling has been brought up by liberals who figure that they can increase the population and the need for federal money in districts where there is poor census response by using statistics. This is not a method I am comfortable with, since I feel this is a method that can easily be abused.
I get the impression that you and paintsvillecom lean to the left politically.
paintsvillecom says:
RTFirefly says:
Just because something appears on the Drudge Report page doesn’t make it irrelevant drivel… your tolerance of other’s opinions is lacking and your bias is glaring. Just because some of us don’t like the census doesn’t mean that we are fringe people with extremest views. To dismiss something that has appeared on a page isn’t fair.
I found a link that you all might find interesting. It’s from a conservative radio talk show host’s site, so hold the flames. These are two letters that were written by folks protesting the census.
For those that have been arguing for the merits of the census and how we should all be good citizens and fill them out, I hear your arguments. I just don’t agree that the government has any right to know this personal information unless I want to share it with them. Reapportionment of districts for congressional representation is fine. But they don’t have the right to know that I have a problem “dressing, bathing, or getting around inside the home” unless I want them to know. Want to know how many people use a road? Lay a counter cable on the road and count them.
As the government gets more intrusive, expect to see conservatives and liberals sharing more of the same views on some issues.
Have you noticed that it is the conservatives that have complained the most about no-knock warrants and unneeded military action?
???
If you are smart enough to read the news, then I think you are smart enough to relaize that those are just links. Drudge makes no claim to be affiliated with those sites.
His site works as a clearing house for breaking news and a resource for news links.
The Drudge Report only refers to the specific stories he writes.
Quite a low standard for being a sleaze bag. Is everyone who includes links to other sites on their web site a sleazebag?
How about a president who lies to the American public? Or is that just his “personal life?”
The Federal government only has the power to legislate things that are SPECIFICALLY given to it in the Constitution.
If the Constitution only gives it the power to count, than the rest is unconstitutional, and therefore illegal.
This:
Is contradicted by this next sentence:
Since the Democrats have a long and respected tradition of vote fraud, I have a sneaking suspicion we would find that democrat districts had doubled in size, and republican ones had shrunk.
Of course we would need to re-district and the result would be to double the size of the democrats in office, and eliminate all republicans.
(ok, maybe not that drastic :), but somewhere along those lines)
Hey, Freedom! You sound just like this one friend of mine who moved away to the back woods of Oregon to become a Y2K survivalist. Boy, was he ever pissed when civilization didn’t collapse on January 1st, 2000!
I live in NJ, so if TSHTF, I am SOL
Actually, I am pretty mainstream IRL, it’s just on the net that I get to a right wing extremist milita memeber who thinks the world will end if Gore gets elected.
{{{“Why do they need this information?”
“Here’s why.”
“But why do they need it?”
“Here’s why.”
“But why do they need it?”}}}—paintsvillecom, RTFirefly, et al
I don’t care why they need the information (nor have I posed the question) that can be obtained in other, more justifiable ways. They are not entitled to THAT information in THIS (meaning the census) venue.
<ANALOGY>
There is a person who needs my phone number, address and American Express credit card number. His goals would be accomplished by my posting that information to these very message boards, which he reads daily.
Should I do that? No.
Why? Because it’s stupid to do so.
Why is it stupid to do so? Duh! This isn’t a private means of conveying that information to him.
Am I paranoid for not doing so? No. I am circumspect and wise.
What if this site was secured, and could only be accessed by him alone? I still wouldn’t post my personal information here, as the claim of security carries no guarantee. (Frankly, most servers are ridiculously easy to hack.) The convenience does not outweigh the possible damage caused by the improper dissemination of that information–which cannot be undone. I remain circumspect and wise.
How will you get the information to him, then? I’ll give it to him directly, after he shows legitimate need.
</ANALOGY>
While we only received the D-1 form, I would give only a head count, without names and listed as “human” on the D-2 form. The other points of information can be obtained through other convenient means, if true need exists.
In my opinion, I answered truthfully and did not impede the legitimate goals of the census. If they can’t deal with that, I’ll send them the $100.00–a cheap price to pay for my principles.
–Kalél
TheHungerSite.com
“If ignorance is bliss, you must be orgasmic.”
“Well, there was that thing with the Cheese-Wiz…but I’m feeling much better now!” – John Astin, Night Court
Last time I checked, that was still as legal as church on Sunday. I get the feeling that you and Freedom lean to the right politically. Doesn’t bother me; it’s a free country.
Ummm, Max, you’re confusing the one-out-of-six long form sample (which has been done for a considerable time now) with sampling to measure and correct the differential undercount (which hasn’t been used before, and the Supremes said couldn’t be used for apportionment in 2000, although it can be used for other purposes).
Look, if he reports that others have called the long form an ‘inquisition’, that’s reporting. When he does it, that’s editorializing. When anyone mixes the two forms, people of all political persuasions should consider the source suspect. If that’s bias and intolerance, then so be it.
We liberals were complaining about ‘no-knock’ warrants thirty years ago. And nowadays, one of the leading voices against erosion of the Fourth Amendment has been Nat Hentoff, a flaming liberal by anyone’s standards.
People generally differentiate between links to other parts of their own pages, and links to other people’s stuff. Drudge doesn’t bother. Yes, I consider that sleazy. Right under ‘Matt Drudge’ is ‘Jack Anderson.’ Unless I go there, why should I not get the impression that Anderson’s column is just as much a part of Drudge’s site as Drudge’s column is?
Where’s the rebuttal? I said Drudge had made an assertion without any backing. That’s pretty sleazy too, as is mixing ‘news’ with editorial rants.
I stand by my initial evaluation: he’s a sleaze.
What contradiction? They’re not going into your neighborhood to find out if you have filled out the form. Seems simple enough to me.
Enigma: I’ll be damned if I can make head or tail of your analogy.
BTW, the main ‘legitimate need’ the Census has for that information is that some outfit called Congress told them to ask for it.
RTFirefly
I can’t speak for anyone but me, but I’m not sure the word leaning is quite stron enough
Ok, RTFirefly. I challenge you to show me ONE political article on ANY of the major news outlets that is not guilty of the same thing.
I think the gun articles are the best examples (of course ), but I am also getting tired of debating that topic. Pick any political article and lets see if they don’t mix rhetoric with reporting.
I don’t really understand your beef with Drudge on this issue. I can see you not liking his reports, but this whole link thing is strange.
He has his page set-up in a very obvious layout. The right column is news sites, the middle column is other columnists, the headliner is his stuff, or a major breaking story and the story headlines are links to specific news stories from other news sources.
His site is really not a one stop place. His site is like a tool. He is my home page :), so whenever I log on, I get to see if there is anything major going on in the world.
For example…
Right now I just learned that the Waco test today showed obvious gun fire on the IR tests.
For the most part, he highlights news stories that I am already interested in.
We may have to just agree to disagree on Drudge. I know that I personalize my dislike for liberal columnists sometimes, so I can see the potential the other way also.
I threw you for a loop huh?
You may be confused because there was NO rebuttal. I was commenting on conservatives taking the right to privacy seriously. This may count as another agreement on our part.
Maybe…
Your right.
They already know you didn’t fill out your form. They are in your neighborhood to find out the answers, even if it means quizzing your neihbors.
If this only extends to the number (and possibly ages) of people living in your home, I am OK with this. If it extends to the personal questions, then it bothers me.
I know we place different values on the Constitution, but I would like to repeat one point.
The Congress only has th authority to ask the Census to COUNT the people, not do a lifestyle survey.
Buddy, I don’t lean anywhere. I stand firmly and proudly on the left end of the spectrum. But I fail to see the relevance of that fact. 
As to the two letters you provided, they provide little insight other than to say “I don’t like it. I ain’t gonna do it.” The second letter, however, does provide a hint by saying the writer will not assist the government in “redistributing the wealth from those who earned it to those who did not.”
Again, this appears to me that the writer is creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. Here’s why. The writer objects to their money going to the government to be spent on others. But by failing to fill out the long form, the writer is doing nothing to prevent that from happening. In fact, their action ensures that they will not be considered when the government is spending her money. By refusing to fill out the long form, this writer is doing nothing to protest government spending. That money is going to be spent regardless of whether anybody fills out the forms or not. However, the writer’s money will be spent by bureaucrats who rely on information provided by people like me who sent the form in. In other words, that person gave me his or her money. Thanks! I could use it.
Now that I think of it, I will refine my position to the following – only those people who fit the following description should fill out the long form: Married white couples in their 30s having two young children, living in the Appalachian mountains of Kentucky, making less than $50,000 a year, who each drive about a half-hour to work everyday in cars, who have no disabilities, one of whom served in the Army Reserves. Anyone else who does not fit the above description, feel free to toss your forms in the trash if you are so inclined. And we thank you for donating your tax money to our needs.
I thought they revoked your Libertarian card if you leaned to the “left” OR thhe “right” instead of … um … up. Or wherever the Libertarian Party draws that 2nd dimension axis to the political graph thingy.
{{{Enigma: I’ll be damned if I can make head or tail of your analogy.
BTW, the main ‘legitimate need’ the Census has for that information is that some outfit called Congress told them to ask for it.}}}—RTF
Given your response to the “legitimate need” issue, it seems that you actually did understand the analogy, but prefer to remain mute. No problem, as far as I’m concerned.
Freedom adequately addressed the single point you did choose to address.
–Kalél
TheHungerSite.com
“If ignorance is bliss, you must be orgasmic.”
“Well, there was that thing with the Cheese-Wiz…but I’m feeling much better now!” – John Astin, Night Court