You better BELIEVE I am not filling out the census form, are you?

[ForrestBlack]

(1) What non-racist policy needs to know an American citizen's race to function?

The only obvious governmental use for supposedly individually 'anonymous' geographical racial population statistics is gerrymandering. It isn't rounding up the such-and-such group for camps, but it's making sure predominantly black or Hispanic neighborhoods have their voting representation tinkered with to skew electoral results in a more predictable slanted fashion. It's not paranoid, it's exactly what is done with such information.

[Cafe_Post_Mortem]

If it's o with you guys, I just said you all lived at my house. ;-p

[ForrestBlack]

If it's o with you guys, I just said you all lived at my house. ;-p

Won't stop them from banging on the door and calling all day long lying with threats of arrest and such.

[Morning Glory]

Of course it's racist and by all means do not fill it out for that reason.

But also don't believe the rhetoric of a group that tells you to oppose it when they also support unprecedented police powers and criminalizing being brown, because they do not have that same agenda in mind.

The reason that Libertarians are against the government is not because the government exploits people, but because they don't want the government holding them back from exploiting people. Once again, just look at the record of people like Ron Paul that are against gays, the environment, women, poor and working class people, minorities.... The only people that they care about are rich white folks that are pizzed that they have to pay taxes to support the basic needs of the people that they impoverished.

As for the Tea Baggers, well, they accuse the Republican Party of being to liberal and they idolize Sarah Palin. Do I really need to go any further there?

[Amelia G]

Of course it's racist and by all means do not fill it out for that reason.

But also don't believe the rhetoric of a group that tells you to oppose it when they also support unprecedented police powers and criminalizing being brown, because they do not have that same agenda in mind.

The reason that Libertarians are against the government is not because the government exploits people, but because they don't want the government holding them back from exploiting people. Once again, just look at the record of people like Ron Paul that are against gays, the environment, women, poor and working class people, minorities.... The only people that they care about are rich white folks that are pizzed that they have to pay taxes to support the basic needs of the people that they impoverished.

As for the Tea Baggers, well, they accuse the Republican Party of being to liberal and they idolize Sarah Palin. Do I really need to go any further there?

Uhm, this is not the first census I have declined to participate in and my reasons have not changed, other than adding the reason that I didn't like the attitude of census takers from prior years. I am not skipping the census because of some new straw horse political party which popped up this year. Do I seem to you like someone who has an opinion on this which I just came to or have not thought out well?

I'm socially progressive and fiscally conservative -- pretty much like most of America -- so is it really too much to ask that there be some people in my representative elected government with that outlook?

Libertarians are not supposed to be "against the government" and it sounds like you need to look up libertarian and Ron Paul's political platform and not just swallow what you saw on television, if you think libertarian means idolizing Sarah Palin etc.

Americans are not being overtaxed to help the unfortunate. Do you think the government is actually taking care of impoverished people's basic needs in this recession? One in eight Americans is on food stamps now, but those are only like $300 a period and require people to stay in desperate circumstances to receive them, so they are just escalating drug dealing and sex work because that is not enough to live on, but people on them need their income unreported. And, even with one in eight getting this kind of welfare (which I admit I am envious of as I struggle to make ends meet, but I don't want to fall in that trap), that is not even a drop in the bucket compared to what we are spending on a war which does not even have a stated goal.

[ForrestBlack]

Of course it's racist and by all means do not fill it out for that reason.

I just think that if a job application had the census question Are you a negro? it would be illegal. And if I asked them why they had that question, they said it was so the payroll could be adjusted accordingly, it would be appalling. I honestly don't see the difference here.

But also don't believe the rhetoric of a group that tells you to oppose it when they also support unprecedented police powers and criminalizing being brown, because they do not have that same agenda in mind.

I really have no idea what you are talking about here. What group has me so brainwashed? Is it the ones that knew what districts to mess with based on race, so that Bush could win Florida? Because I'm thinking they are the ones that WANT the forms filled out.

The reason that Libertarians are against the government is not because the government exploits people, but because they don't want the government holding them back from exploiting people. Once again, just look at the record of people like Ron Paul that are against gays, the environment, women, poor and working class people, minorities.... The only people that they care about are rich white folks that are pizzed that they have to pay taxes to support the basic needs of the people that they impoverished.

That is a gross misrepresentation. Any argument for true equality is met with charges of racism because true equality doesn't give special dispensation to certain groups who argue they should get special consideration. You can't have it both ways. In-equal equality is after all illogical. So, if you call for a colorless society, you ironically get called a racist because you are saying such and such group shouldn't get an advantage or a disadvantage. We'll never get past systemic racism if inequality is harbored because it will always foment resent in other groups who feel they are paying an unfair price.

Without Government intervention, old auto makers would have simply gone out of business for ignoring all the signs pointing them in the direction of electric cars. Entrepreneurial businesses like Tesla would have naturally picked up their market share and suddenly we'd have less reason for war in the middle east, less pollution, less national debt, etc. Factory workers could still get jobs at factories simply producing a different more technologically advanced far more efficient automobile. So, why is arguing for less government meddling in the economy a bad thing? The big financial firms that played fast and loose should have also gone under for their crimes, but the government stepped in and handed over all the taxpayer's money to keep those crooks afloat too.

Healthy capitalism can not survive Government protectionism. The turnover in business, when old businesses die off from misdeed or mismanagement to make room for new companies with better products and better practices, is required to keep the system healthy. That isn't evil.

As for the Tea Baggers, well, they accuse the Republican Party of being to liberal and they idolize Sarah Palin. Do I really need to go any further there?

I'm not sure you needed to go at all with that spurious nonsense. Although I don't think an argument that the Republicans have gotten very liberal with their financial and economic policy is all that out of whack.

[nvrsetl]

They need to use the cencus info to account for the amount of people needlessly on welfare then make them work for the benefits they receive. Consider the huge workforce sitting on their asses collecting money for being lazy. Give them our work ethic, not our money. The govt could have able bodied welfare recipients walking about doing census work.

[Raza]

that's anarchy.......I don't think you'd like to experience that reality....not in this day and age anyway

Yes I do?

I experience anarchy in this day and age all the time, and it rocks. It's the parts inbetween that all the sucky stuff happens in.

[Raza]

I'm socially progressive and fiscally conservative -- pretty much like most of America -- so is it really too much to ask that there be some people in my representative elected government with that outlook?

I prefer America exactly because I CAN hold these so called 'paranoid' beliefs. I pay taxes, I have a drivers license. It's not like I'm trying to live in a cave, or the jungles of Hawaii like some people I know. However, I think some of what they are trying to get on the census is wrongful and goes against our supposed national ideology. Specifically as an American patriot I object, not as some wannabe French ex-pat. And, there is nothing that says I didn't comply, but I still object on ethical and ideological terms. We are allowed to do that at least.

I love how for americans, true america is always this pinnacle of ideological integrity that secretly has everything right, despite the overwhelming inability of americans to agree on what that should look like.

Libertarians are not supposed to be "against the government"

Aren't libertarians mostly minarchists? That position implies that government is off-and-by-itself an undesirable thing, even if it pussies out on going all the way.

Americans are not being overtaxed to help the unfortunate. <snip> And, even with one in eight getting this kind of welfare (which I admit I am envious of as I struggle to make ends meet, but I don't want to fall in that trap), that is not even a drop in the bucket compared to what we are spending on a war which does not even have a stated goal.

This is true. Mostly you are being taxed to help the already rich and powerful.

But are those areas of spending the ones libertarians are vocal about cutting down on?

That is a gross misrepresentation. Any argument for true equality is met with charges of racism because true equality doesn't give special dispensation to certain groups who argue they should get special consideration. You can't have it both ways. In-equal equality is after all illogical. So, if you call for a colorless society, you ironically get called a racist because you are saying such and such group shouldn't get an advantage or a disadvantage. We'll never get past systemic racism if inequality is harbored because it will always foment resent in other groups who feel they are paying an unfair price.

Agreed. Saying that someone is 'anti women' and 'anti racial minority' because they voted against affirmative action bills is deceptive at best.

Without Government intervention, old auto makers would have simply gone out of business for ignoring all the signs pointing them in the direction of electric cars. Entrepreneurial businesses like Tesla would have naturally picked up their market share and suddenly we'd have less reason for war in the middle east, less pollution, less national debt, etc. Factory workers could still get jobs at factories simply producing a different more technologically advanced far more efficient automobile. So, why is arguing for less government meddling in the economy a bad thing? The big financial firms that played fast and loose should have also gone under for their crimes, but the government stepped in and handed over all the taxpayer's money to keep those crooks afloat too.

Healthy capitalism can not survive Government protectionism. The turnover in business, when old businesses die off from misdeed or mismanagement to make room for new companies with better products and better practices, is required to keep the system healthy. That isn't evil.

The big problem with all that is that unfortunately, people aren't rational.

People decide what they want and believe through culture - socio-psychological dynamics - far more than logic. They attach significance to ideas through something akin to conceptual osmosis, restrict their hopes to precedents, and throw their self image in with any distinction offering them a moral high ground. Most of all, they cannot imagine something out of nothing.

One of the biggest industries in capitalism is the psychological manipulation business, which turns money into influence over people's wants, beliefs and ethics. Now, you'd look at that sentence and think, ok... no big deal. Everyone does this to one another, it's unavoidable and human society has always worked that way. It's not ideal, but it's what we have to work with, and trying to filter these dynamics for a greater good always ends up badly. Right?

This is true, but ignores an escalating interaction between this and capitalistic money-influence dynamics. Commerce has had a while now to work its influence on western culture and is now solidly ingrained in many traditions. Money buys more than ever; at this point, most every form of communication, every media, every stage or soap box, ever space that could fit a crudely lettered sign is owned by a for-profit business - and they know what power that gives them. Advertising in a thousand forms, some blatant and some incredibly sneaky, is gaining a monopoly on information input. And with nothing else coming in, humans don't have anything else to pass on to one another.

They have preferences, choice and debates, sure... but only between options whispered into their ear by people getting paid to do so. People, implicitly, doing so to earn that investment back with a profit. And this influence is becoming all-encompassing, with only itself left to compete with.

Capitalism would like for everyone to take an active part in their own lives. To take initiatives and fight for the rewards it offers people for success. Everyone doing unto everyone as they have done unto themselves, and everyone knowing how to deal with it and prospering from the resulting production according to their contributions. This is its moral foundation, and an admirable idea in theory.

But this is not how it works, in practice. Capitalism can only do what makes it the most money, and only the people currently with money have any real power to do. The 'capital' was never equally divided among the participants, and power only ever tries to sustain itself; this is natural selection as it applies to all mechanics of nature. And now that peoples minds are just one more commodity, only a select few are left able to take initiatives and help themselves through the mechanics capitalism lies out for them - some through the privilege they were born in and some through personal strength, but still only a select few. Everybody else is conditioned to act more like livestock, less concerned with their own wants and beliefs than ever, because all they know is how to react to the stimula laid out around them to ensure their consumption. This creates a large class of passive minded people looking to trade their labour - the only thing they have - for survival and a selection out of the narrow range of things they are able to want, not being significantly aware of anything else.

To the power that is these are nothing but a useful, plentiful resource that provides them with labour on one hand and money on the other. The initiative remains with this power, keeping everyone it needs alive is a drop in the basin of its potential, and since everything is already encompassed in its system the only thing it has left to do with all that potential is further skew the balance. Cause, y'know, there's no such thing as 'enough money'. And yes, specific people and business will come and go - but none of them can escape the mechanics of the system, they just replace each other before being dragged back down.

Modern capitalism turns normal, influencable people into drones, and as technological advances are made and Money continues to buy things like laws and ideas, this is only going to continue escalating. Your banks weren't saved with taxpayer money against capitalistic principle, but through it. Government and democracy have been sucked in long ago, and you libertarians are up against the same snowballing monstrosity as us anarchists are on the other end to enact any sort of idealistic change - and frighteningly, it's co-opting the both of us.

[ForrestBlack]

Capitalism would like for everyone to take an active part in their own lives. To take initiatives and fight for the rewards it offers people for success. Everyone doing unto everyone as they have done unto themselves, and everyone knowing how to deal with it and prospering from the resulting production according to their contributions. This is its moral foundation, and an admirable idea in theory.

Sounds like a fine plan to me. Striving towards admirable and perhaps prosperous ideas is after all what people should do.

But this is not how it works, in practice. Capitalism can only do what makes it the most money, and only the people currently with money have any real power to do.

Here is where I disagree with your interpretation. Very few actually heartlessly pursue the MOST money possible and as a society, we generally think of those people who are too selfish as being quite bad. The successful business person strives for a balance. Each individual internally chooses their goals and works toward them. You will find most professionals know how to make more money than they actually do, but they recognize the choices they would have to make in order to do that. They tend to settle at various levels. Not every doctor does Beverly Hills plastic surgery. Many know they could make more money that way, but they choose their path based on much more than pure money and power. It is an overly simplistic generalization to say that anyone entrepreneurial would do anything it takes to climb to the very top. One could easily and just as accurately say that all Anarchists want nothing more than total constant violent mayhem. Yes, some capitalists are voracious in their ambitions, but that's a lot more rare than you present. Too much ambition is also often their downfall anyway. But who knows, maybe their efforts will yield great discovery and inventions that will far outlive them.

[Raza]

Here is where I disagree with your interpretation. Very few actually heartlessly pursue the MOST money possible and as a society, we generally think of those people who are too selfish as being quite bad. The successful business person strives for a balance. Each individual internally chooses their goals and works toward them. You will find most professionals know how to make more money than they actually do, but they recognize the choices they would have to make in order to do that. They tend to settle at various levels. Not every doctor does Beverly Hills plastic surgery. Many know they could make more money that way, but they choose their path based on much more than pure money and power. It is an overly simplistic generalization to say that anyone entrepreneurial would do anything it takes to climb to the very top. One could easily and just as accurately say that all Anarchists want nothing more than total constant violent mayhem. Yes, some capitalists are voracious in their ambitions, but that's a lot more rare than you present. Too much ambition is also often their downfall anyway. But who knows, maybe their efforts will yield great discovery and inventions that will far outlive them.

That's not quite what I said, though.

People remain people, yes. Individuals will continue to show moderation, compassion, etcetera. And it'll be sold back to them, but that's a tangent.

But every entrepreneurial individual will take some steps. They'll set precedents, device tactics that others will build on, up the ante a little. Everybody else will adapt, and then someone comes by to take the next step.

Not every doctor may do cosmetic surgery, but those that do will shift the spectrum of professional choices that other and new doctors choose their own actions from. What was once a typical attitude towards profit will then look like an especially humane one, and ones that used to be viewed as such will start looking like pointless extremes or financially unfeasible. Identity and moral approval work by binary contrast, not quantifiable merit on an absolute scale.

And what goes for independent professionals goes far moreso for people caught in corporate business models, in which everybody owes their highest ambition to everybody else. Responsibility gets obscured, feedback gets filtered by selective environments, and even people inclined to moderation will feel they have to compromise to - as you say - balance one value against another. They will try to find a golden middle road, but their perception of the middle is based on known, not absolute extremes. And known extremes get shifted every step along the way.

This is the problem; the interaction of industry and culture, not the self-serving tendencies of individual humans.

[ape descendant]

At one point we really did need affirmative action and the era to make progress here in the US, are these programs now obsolete? Is there still a need to make sure that people are treated fairly regardless of race, gender and all that hoo-ha? I'm not terribly sure about it myself, what thinkest thou?

[TheDeathKnight]

Because we live in a country that has a government. And laws. And that government does in fact *try* to make things better for the people who live here. Our government supplies us with police, schools, fire departments, unemployment, and theoretically, subsidized health insurance. Now yes, that information could be used for good, or for evil.

Let's say they get a good census list of all the illegal immigrants in CA. They could use that info to come up with better services for illegals, or to make it clear how bad the problem is, or they could use that info to deport people. You can't know for sure what the government will do. So I understand why people get paranoid. But my main point is this: You can either work with the system, which includes complaining about what does not work. Or you can reject the system, and go live someplace else. I just wish people who dislike things about America would work to make those things better, and participate, by voting, being politically active, etc.

I get a little frustrated that all the "free thinkers" I know who live on the extremes of society, are the ones who don't vote. But old conservative grandmas come out in droves to vote. Just because some people have bad experiences with cops, or with paying taxes, or with wars, they get this anti-government attitude. Just because the current government is doing stupid shit right now, doesn't mean it has to be that way forever. Things can change.

And yes, if you see things changing for the worse, and you see people getting rounded up for concentration camps, then you can start hiding in the woods, and not trusting the government. But until then, I think it's overkill of paranoia to think the government has only bad intentions.

Like I mentioned, one thing they already learned from the census, is how many people are now living in homes with multiple people, due to the economy. So that's useful info to help the government realize that people are suffering. So that they do something about it. If they see on the census that 25% of people over age 30 are back living at home with their parents, that says something about the economy. I made up that statistic, but that's the general idea. Or if the census shows that 25% of hispanic immigrants are making over $100k per year or something like that, then they might realize that they aren't all just gardeners and dish-washers, and the government might start catering to minorities.

And my comment about Iraq and Viet Nam, was just about the idea that if things ever did get really bad, like Nazi bad, or Iraq bad in America, that if you are a vocal anti-government person, who hides, you will be targeted. If you are a helpful and productive American, you will slip under the radar. My point being that you can't fight the US government toe to toe. You will lose.

But if you want to live off the grid, or you hate America, or hate the government, then why not just go live elsewhere? Like if I was living in Iraq, and hated it, I would probably leave. And yes, America is not bad at all, in comparison. So my point is that people should try to work *with* the government, to make America better, rather than hating it and not participating in things like the census, etc.

[Amelia G]

Because we live in a country that has a government. And laws. And that government does in fact *try* to make things better for the people who live here. Our government supplies us with police, schools, fire departments, unemployment, and theoretically, subsidized health insurance. Now yes, that information could be used for good, or for evil.

Let's say they get a good census list of all the illegal immigrants in CA. They could use that info to come up with better services for illegals, or to make it clear how bad the problem is, or they could use that info to deport people. You can't know for sure what the government will do. So I understand why people get paranoid. But my main point is this: You can either work with the system, which includes complaining about what does not work. Or you can reject the system, and go live someplace else. I just wish people who dislike things about America would work to make those things better, and participate, by voting, being politically active, etc.

I get a little frustrated that all the "free thinkers" I know who live on the extremes of society, are the ones who don't vote. But old conservative grandmas come out in droves to vote. Just because some people have bad experiences with cops, or with paying taxes, or with wars, they get this anti-government attitude. Just because the current government is doing stupid shit right now, doesn't mean it has to be that way forever. Things can change.

And yes, if you see things changing for the worse, and you see people getting rounded up for concentration camps, then you can start hiding in the woods, and not trusting the government. But until then, I think it's overkill of paranoia to think the government has only bad intentions.

Like I mentioned, one thing they already learned from the census, is how many people are now living in homes with multiple people, due to the economy. So that's useful info to help the government realize that people are suffering. So that they do something about it. If they see on the census that 25% of people over age 30 are back living at home with their parents, that says something about the economy. I made up that statistic, but that's the general idea. Or if the census shows that 25% of hispanic immigrants are making over $100k per year or something like that, then they might realize that they aren't all just gardeners and dish-washers, and the government might start catering to minorities.

And my comment about Iraq and Viet Nam, was just about the idea that if things ever did get really bad, like Nazi bad, or Iraq bad in America, that if you are a vocal anti-government person, who hides, you will be targeted. If you are a helpful and productive American, you will slip under the radar. My point being that you can't fight the US government toe to toe. You will lose.

But if you want to live off the grid, or you hate America, or hate the government, then why not just go live elsewhere? Like if I was living in Iraq, and hated it, I would probably leave. And yes, America is not bad at all, in comparison. So my point is that people should try to work *with* the government, to make America better, rather than hating it and not participating in things like the census, etc.

I love my country. There is a huge difference between the civil disobedience of not participating in the census and failure to perform one's civic duty by voting. There is a chasm between exercising my constitutionally protected right to free speech to object to the racism, waste, privacy concerns, and personal space intrusion of the census and trying to live "off the grid".

How exactly do you think change is supposed to occur, if nobody is supposed to ever utter a peep of disagreement with any existing policy?

Where do you see the census as having uncovered the common knowledge that many people who have the option of moving back with their parents have taken it? Link?

What non-racist policy needs to know an American citizen's race to function? How is the only one you postulate -- the idea that "the government might start catering to minorities" -- not a racist result of the census having race questions on there? If anyone thinks all hispanic immigrants are, as you suggested, "just gardeners and dish-washers", how is that not racist?

Lastly, government has neither good nor bad intentions. Government is a structure for organizing people and individual people can have good or bad or muddled or neutral intentions, or conflicting good intentions. But a social structure simply exists; it has no agenda, good or bad, in and of itself. A significant portion of my family has dedicated some portion of their lives to public service -- military, State Department, political breakfasts/luncheons/dinners/lectures etc. -- but that does not mean that every single one of them believes precisely the same things. Government is not homogeneous. The whole point of having a representative democracy is to have a variety of voices and have all the people's needs and perspectives addressed.

[Ajax Knucklebones]

States Receiving Most in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:
1. D.C. ($6.17)
2. North Dakota ($2.03)
3. New Mexico ($1.89)
4. Mississippi ($1.84)
5. Alaska ($1.82)
6. West Virginia ($1.74)
7. Montana ($1.64)
8. Alabama ($1.61)
9. South Dakota ($1.59)
10. Arkansas ($1.53)

States Receiving Least in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:
1. New Jersey ($0.62)
2. Connecticut ($0.64)
3. New Hampshire ($0.68)
4. Nevada ($0.73)
5. Illinois ($0.77)
6. Minnesota ($0.77)
7. Colorado ($0.79)
8. Massachusetts ($0.79)
9. California ($0.81)
10. New York ($0.81)

I think there's a communcation problem here, though. California, as a state, doesn't give a dime to the government. It's citizens do and that's because people who live their make more money on average and have more money on average then the 10 states receiving more money from the government. And why is that? Because of those 10 states listed, how many people really WANT to live there? I mean West Virginia, Arkansas, DC? Come on. California, by itself, isn't in tough straights because they don't get enough federal spending. Yes...That's a part of it, but the bigger part is as a state government, they spend way too much money. Arnold was supposed to stop alot of that when he got into office, but instead, the spending has even gotten worse since he's been governor.

[Morning Glory]

lmao

[milkingbreast]

I always fill in the census. I'm not sure what harm it can do to be honest.

[ForrestBlack]

I think there's a communcation problem here, though. California, as a state, doesn't give a dime to the government. It's citizens do and that's because people who live their make more money on average and have more money on average then the 10 states receiving more money from the government. And why is that? Because of those 10 states listed, how many people really WANT to live there? I mean West Virginia, Arkansas, DC? Come on. California, by itself, isn't in tough straights because they don't get enough federal spending. Yes...That's a part of it, but the bigger part is as a state government, they spend way too much money. Arnold was supposed to stop alot of that when he got into office, but instead, the spending has even gotten worse since he's been governor.

The only reason for posting that chart was to point out that California actually does help out hungry red states, which you said it does not. I don't think everyone would want to live here. Realestate is far more expensive here than it is elsewhere. California also has a much higher cost of living, so a mid level job here is likely to be taxed at a higher rate than a mid level job in a much poorer state if you really want to get into it, but that's all kind of beside the point.

[Morning Glory]

Isn't this about the Census? Where are these lessons in the virtues of capitalism and civic responsibility coming from? I guess there are too many anarchists and free thinkers on here that need to be put in their place. LOL

I know Ron Paul's rhetoric and voting record. It's out there to see and I don't feel the need to post it on here. What is more interesting is why you guys are getting so defensive- and feel the need to defend faux-alternative neocons.

[Amelia G]

Isn't this about the Census? Where are these lessons in the virtues of capitalism and civic responsibility coming from? I guess there are too many anarchists and free thinkers on here that need to be put in their place. LOL

I know Ron Paul's rhetoric and voting record. It's out there to see and I don't feel the need to post it on here. What is more interesting is why you guys are getting so defensive- and feel the need to defend faux-alternative neocons.

Did your account get hacked?

Whoever is posting as Morning Glory keeps bringing up "faux-alternative neocons" in this thread, when they really have little to do with the census. Although being opposed to government waste and personal trespass tend to be right issues, being opposed to racism and privacy invasion are generally considered left issues, so I kinda think objecting to the manner of the census is pretty neutral; as is favoring it. Nobody but you is bringing up "faux-alternative neocons".

The Morning Glory who used to post here, and who I met in person, was capable of having a conversation, whether or not he was in a room where every single person thought in lockstep. And he was, ya know, good at debate and not inclined to just try to silence others with manipulation.

A reminder, in case anyone forgot, the point of a forum here is for people with varied perspectives to share their points of view.

[Morning Glory]

Forrest started a thread pretty much defending the Tea Party and claimed that the democrats are the racists "if anyone" and then you start a thread espousing your opposition to the Census, a viewpoint that is championed by the Tea Baggers... All I did was ask if you guys agreed with them, which I received no real answer to. And even after agreeing with you on your reasoning against the census and making no disparaging comments towards your opinion you accuse me of being out of my mind and silencing others, and manipulating. Who exactly? I think that is way off base and unwarranted.

Yes, I did bring up "faux-alternatives", but I'm not the first and only one to do so, and I think that I have a right, and not an unreasonable one, to dispel public perception of what I see as fraudulent groups trying to worm their way into power by presenting a false opposition to the status qou. Am I really so wrong in doing that?

My points may have been lacking in eloquence, but I was also trying to make a point about rhetoric. Politics is propaganda and the attempt to obfuscate a mass audience is a tool of control.

[Morning Glory]

Also my quotations of Mr. Karl and Deathknight were tongue in cheek. I just think that it's getting little too stuffy with the politics in here-which is fine, but it also inclines me to go a little bit nuts.

[Amelia G]

Forrest started a thread pretty much defending the Tea Party and claimed that the democrats are the racists "if anyone" and then you start a thread espousing your opposition to the Census, a viewpoint that is championed by the Tea Baggers... All I did was ask if you guys agreed with them, which I received no real answer to. And even after agreeing with you on your reasoning against the census and making no disparaging comments towards your opinion you accuse me of being out of my mind and silencing others, and manipulating. Who exactly? I think that is way off base and unwarranted.

Yes, I did bring up "faux-alternatives", but I'm not the first and only one to do so, and I think that I have a right, and not an unreasonable one, to dispel public perception of what I see as fraudulent groups trying to worm their way into power by presenting a false opposition to the status qou. Am I really so wrong in doing that?

My points may have been lacking in eloquence, but I was also trying to make a point about rhetoric. Politics is propaganda and the attempt to obfuscate a mass audience is a tool of control.

As far as I can tell from the news, the Tea Party isn't really any sort of formal organization with a party platform I could agree or disagree with at this time. Forrest asked (in another thread) whether anyone had actually seen anything concrete about this barely-there group to indicate it is racist, when racism does not appear to be part of its general platform, such as it is. I agree with Forrest that the media coverage of the whole Tea Party "movement", if it even exists, seems very oriented toward propping up the status quo two party system, and is a bit weak in the specific examples department. Essentially, I haven't seen any sufficiently concrete positive or negative examples to make me think I agree or disagree or have any stake in the Tea Party, pro or con, at all.

If you read my article, you read the part where I indicated this is not my first census. Frankly, I think you've been aware of many of my viewpoints on the world for long enough that it would be remarkably stupid for you to think I got my opinion on the census brand new from the straw man Tea Party. I think you are smarter than to believe something so stupid, so I have to wonder if you are just trying to manipulate me into not expressing my long-held opinion. Which seems very unlike the Morning Glory personality I've conversed with in the past, who struck me as neither stupid nor manipulative.

Suggesting that having a conversation about something equals being "defensive" struck me as manipulation toward getting people to be uncomfortable expressing their opinions. And, no, I haven't seen anyone else bringing up "faux-alternative neocons" like that and I definitely haven't seen anyone else trying to tell me that, if I think the census is racist, I must think a bunch of things I obviously do not.

I used to judge debate when I was in school and the technique of tacking something absurd onto someone else's point and then debating the absurdity and not the point . . . well, I didn't give a lot of points for that demagogue tactic and I've never ever seen the Morning Glory who used to post here use it before.

Are you claiming to be the same person or just debating your right to bring up "faux-alternative neocons" as a total non-sequitor in unrelated conversations?

[Ajax Knucklebones]

Plus, from what I understand, California generally puts in more Federal money than it's own fair share, subsidizing other more historically broke-ass 'red' states. At least that's the argument Arnold makes. Oh, and to be honest, I worried when he got elected, but I'm actually very happy with his leadership in Cali.

My point is that although Arnold's argument has a some merit because California doesn't get as much money as alot of the rest of the states from the federal government, a bigger part of the problem is how much, as a state, they are spending. My point is, from what I remember when Arnold was running, he said he would cut out all this crazy spending, yet, it's just gotten worse there, as far as how much the California government spends.

***Historically, California has been a high tax/high service state. That’s fine. Some states prefer a low tax/low service model. That’s fine too. (It’s a lousy idea, I think, but fiscally it’s fine.) But over the past few decades we Californians have somehow concluded that we can be a medium tax/high service state. It’s a fantasy.

The only fantasy here is that California is a ”medium tax” state. While it is true that Proposition 13 has limited property tax collections, Californians still paid a combined $1,030.60 in per capita state and local property taxes. According to the Tax Foundation, this places them 28th highest nationally. But property taxes are just one source of state revenue. In other taxing categories, California either leads the league or is in the top 10 nationally, including:

• Corporate Taxes – California has the highest corporate income taxes in the West. Even Apple, the star of California’s technology economy set up a company in Nevada to avoid the state’s high tax rates. Only seven states have higher corporate rates.
• Income Taxes – California has the most progressive tax scheme in the country including the second highest rate in the nation for those making more than $1 million.
• Sales Taxes – California enforces a number of sales taxes including a general sales tax, a gas tax, and a cigarette tax. Overall California has the 13th highest state and local sales tax burden in the nation.
• Total Tax Burden – According to the Tax Foundation, once all state and local taxes are taken into account, Californians face the nation’s 6th highest tax burden.

So if low taxes are not to blame for California’s huge deficits, what is? Spending. The Reason Foundation’s Adam Summers details California’s government spending explosion:

When Gov. Pete Wilson took office in 1991, the state budget was $51.4 billion. When he left eight years later, it was $75.3 billion. After five years of Gov. Davis’s administration, the budget had jumped to $104.2, and after another five years under the stewardship of Gov. Schwarzenegger, it has continued to increase significantly to its present level of $144.5 billion. In just the last 10 years state spending has nearly doubled, increasing approximately 92 percent.***

[ForrestBlack]

Sure. California spends a lot. I'm not going to debate that. I agree. So, in budget crunches, it's natural to look at inequities, such as giving more than we're getting, Federal money wise. I think any state that taxes on the high side is going to get hit harder by large economic downturns, since they will more quickly have less to fill the coffers than they can adjust their budget. There is far less income, revenue, spending, etc. to tax. Property value drops and thus property taxes drop. Businesses contract and go into survival mode and thus their tax burden reduces, etc. The State budget simply can't react as fast as the general economy. It's true, they got fat during the tech boom and then the housing boom, and couldn't handle the heavy downturn.

I spent a lot of years in Federal contracting when I lived in D.C. and actually did learn a thing or two about Government spending. The region I was directly responsible for had an annual budget of around $23 million. I think they spent it reasonably wisely, but I do know how the system works. However, this whole State tax discussion is predicated on what was a minor tangential point about the costs of sending people to come harass folks at their door for $17 an hour and how that money could be better spent on many many other things. I think we can both agree on that.

[TheDeathKnight]

I always fill in the census. I'm not sure what harm it can do to be honest.

^

This.

The reason I mention the whole "off the grid" paranoid folks, is that fear of the government seems to be the only reason why some people are afraid to fill out a census form. It's people who don't want the government to know who they are, where they live, etc. Obviously you have other concerns as well. Waste, safety, offended by race questions, etc.

But the only other option is to take no surveys of population.
Or try to make your best guess based on computer records.

But if you REALLY want to know how many people are in a state, or in a country, or a city, you have to
count the homeless, the punk rockers sharing a house, the immigrant workers, and so on...

So yes, you can be paranoid that the government will do something bad with that data.
Deport immigrants, bust the punks, and so on. Or you can look at it as simple data
gathering. Which helps them plan how much they need to spend on things, etc.

For instance, if they did no surveys at all, and had no idea how many kids people had,
then suddenly population exploded, they would have no warning. But if they see right
now, that every couple has 10 kids, then the government knows that in a certain
number of years, those kids will all be citizens, and using government resources.
Or that those kids will all be needing education, and to plan to hire more teachers...

The whole point is that the number crunchers in Washington and Sacramento
do actually use those numbers. Or perhaps the census will reveal that the number
of homeless has jumped to HUGE levels. And maybe that means the government
realizes they need to do something about that problem. But if the homeless refuse
to be counted, then they assume the numbers are the same and keep ignoring the problem.

Read this article to get an idea of how they use that data:

http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/in...ensus_rev.html

[ForrestBlack]

The reason I mention the whole "off the grid" paranoid folks, is that fear of the government seems to be the only reason why some people are afraid to fill out a census form. It's people who don't want the government to know who they are, where they live, etc. Obviously you have other concerns as well. Waste, safety, offended by race questions, etc.

Obviously the Government knows who I am, where I live, etc. but that doesn't mean I respond well to harassment, threats, lies, trespassing, illegal questioning from strangers, etc. The IRS, DMV, etc. all seem to have no problem contacting me. But some stranger with a clipboard bulling their way through security gates to come lie to me about the law, that's a different story.

But the only other option is to take no surveys of population. Or try to make your best guess based on computer records.

It should be based on computer records, at least initially. Send those goons after people who you think are genuinely off the grid. Find a household not paying taxes, with no DMV registrations, etc. and maybe bang on their door. Even though it's still unreasonable search, at least it wouldn't waste as much money.

But if you REALLY want to know how many people are in a state, or in a country, or a city, you have to
count the homeless, the punk rockers sharing a house, the immigrant workers, and so on...

I'm not convinced they need to know any more than they already do. You are convinced, I am not. Or, at the very least, I think it's reasonable to voice concerns. We should at least be free enough to do that without being called names.

So yes, you can be paranoid that the government will do something bad with that data. Deport immigrants, bust the punks, and so on. Or you can look at it as simple data gathering. Which helps them plan how much they need to spend on things, etc.

You can look at it as simple data gathering. And someone else can write an article about how it might not be so simple. Census data has been used against the people. When you break a trust, that trust is no longer a given.

For instance, if they did no surveys at all, and had no idea how many kids people had, then suddenly population exploded, they would have no warning. But if they see right now, that every couple has 10 kids, then the government knows that in a certain number of years, those kids will all be citizens, and using government resources. Or that those kids will all be needing education, and to plan to hire more teachers...

Hospitals, Social Security, etc. would all catch that data as needed.

The whole point is that the number crunchers in Washington and Sacramento do actually use those numbers. Or perhaps the census will reveal that the number of homeless has jumped to HUGE levels. And maybe that means the government realizes they need to do something about that problem. But if the homeless refuse to be counted, then they assume the numbers are the same and keep ignoring the problem.

I would trust the data from experts in dealing with the Homeless crisis who know where to find these people and understand how they live, not some schmo who pulled a phone number off a telephone pole. You are saying "What if...some fantastical scenario. Millions of people suddenly give birth at home...census workers start doing accurate surveys of skid row..." and I just think your scenarios are WAY more far fetched than the ones you are calling 'paranoid'.

[Mr Karl]

then again, if you see an unfamiliar face in your building is it wrong to question if they belong there?......is it wrong to have the main office know who lives in the building?

[TheDeathKnight]

From my perspective, the government is not trying to do anything "evil" with the census.
I haven't seen or heard of them doing anything hugely unethical with the data they collect.

A friend of mine who was out of work actually got a job working for the census.
So perhaps you can look at it as stimulus money being passed on to that worker.
But I know that my friend spent a large amount of his time tracking down homeless people.
He was given a "grid" of a certain area of the city, and his job was to calculate population
density in his particular grid, in the best detail possible. This was done in addition to the
mail surveys sent by the census. Apparently they would try to get accurate on-site surveys
of particular grids of each city, to get a general idea of how many people actually do
live in that area, regardless of who turns in the survey or not. He said that the idea
is that a lot of people do NOT fill out those forms. So they send out the actual census
workers to try to figure out how many people actually live in one square block of
the city. Then they use that in addition to the paper and digital data they collect.

My general opinion is that the data they collect is not being used in a bad way.
It could be, but I don't see massive examples of abuses.

[One Eyed Cat]

The only obvious governmental use for supposedly individually 'anonymous' geographical racial population statistics is gerrymandering. It isn't rounding up the such-and-such group for camps, but it's making sure predominantly black or Hispanic neighborhoods have their voting representation tinkered with to skew electoral results in a more predictable slanted fashion. It's not paranoid, it's exactly what is done with such information.

The Constitutional requirement is just an enumeration of citizens of the United States.

Article 1, Section 2: "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."

What basically happened: Government, for various purposes, ran with the last clause. We've had a lot of mischief occur since. From 1941-1947, census information was not even classified (2nd War Powers Act) Courts have tended to allow a broad reading of "manner as they shall by law direct"

I doubt this was the intention of Madison.

Thought this may interest you though: The "long form" is not being used for the first time since 1940. Here is what we have (excuse the wickedpedia): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Community_Survey

This may well be worse.

OEC

[Aza]

Personally I think that I, the white man between the ages of 18 and 40, will be letting our African-American President decide what qualifies as racism and what doesn't... while I sit here and continue popping the capillaries in my cranium with the struggle to remember even one single governmental survey, medical form, college or job application, or any other official document I've ever filled out that didn't ask me to identify my nationality. Seriously; to call a system racist simply because it asks you what race you are is to call practically the entire world racist... and sexist! I mean, can you think of any survey, form or application you've ever filled out that didn't ask you what gender you are?

All unprovable conspiracy theories aside, I hope you patriotic protesters and objective observers with your undies in twists over the Census have at least written concerned letters to your respective Congresspeople addressing this subject... because otherwise, I think you may have chosen the single most ineffectual protest method ever conceived: the "Screw it; I ain't doin' it!" Method. This strategy, if it can even be called a strategy, is designed to terminate, rather than instigate, communication, and so of course it accomplishes nothing! It may very well be that accomplishing something isn't really the goal of those complaining about the Census... but then, why complain at all? On the other hand, if not filling out the Census inevitably results in you hiding in your closets from one of the Census-cronies as they try to bang down your door, then you clearly have something to complain about. I just hope for the sake of your arguments that you're additionally complaining to someone with the power to change things, and not just hoping that the Census-cronies eventually decipher your chicken-shit "protest" tactics as a conscientious boycott.

[Raza]

Seriously; to call a system racist simply because it asks you what race you are is to call practically the entire world racist... and sexist!

I'm perfectly willing to, on that account and many others. There are degrees of racism/sexism qua both impact and motivation, and practically the entire world (myself not excluded) is guilty of some of these.

This doesn't mean they're not worth noting, or eliminating. It does mean that we'll have to let take a step back from the racism/sexism are absolute evil reflex and acknowledge these degrees if we're going to get any message of improvement across, since people are disinclined to listen while they feel they stand accused of horrible crimes against humanity.

[Aza]

... we'll have to let take a step back from the racism/sexism are absolute evil reflex and acknowledge these degrees if we're going to get any message of improvement across...

Concisely and precisely put!

I'm a racist... or I suppose the term "racially aware" might land better upon the ears... to the effect that I can identify one nationality from another and from my own. I am not a racist in the sense that I then ridicule, ostracize, or vote to governmentally limit the freedoms of people of different nationalities from my own. (If I had a favorite race, it certainly wouldn't be mine; not with our history of one foreign relations faux-pas after another! Then again, what race is the picture of social etiquette these days?)

I'm still of the firm belief that most of the people running the U.S. Government are of the more "racially aware" variety, and that if the powers-that-govern really are trying to better their world, then the least we can do to help change along is to comply with the easiest of requests and provide this small handful of harmless information.

Just because a few women have used my love in the past doesn't mean I've ever stopped loving.

Just because my government has broken my trust in the past (or rather, for eight straight years of my past) does not mean I'm ready to stop trusting it completely. I've seen what it's accomplished over the last year and a half, against fairly awesome odds, and I'm an optimist once again despite myself!

I think that governments, just like people (which makes sense, since governments are comprised of people) all want a chance to prove they're better than we think they are - than they think they are - and more than occasionally, they should be granted the chance to prove it.

[Yaphat Mi]

I'm perfectly willing to, on that account and many others. There are degrees of racism/sexism qua both impact and motivation, and practically the entire world (myself not excluded) is guilty of some of these.

This doesn't mean they're not worth noting, or eliminating. It does mean that we'll have to let take a step back from the racism/sexism are absolute evil reflex and acknowledge these degrees if we're going to get any message of improvement across, since people are disinclined to listen while they feel they stand accused of horrible crimes against humanity.

[Ajax Knucklebones]

Sure. California spends a lot. I'm not going to debate that. I agree. So, in budget crunches, it's natural to look at inequities, such as giving more than we're getting, Federal money wise. I think any state that taxes on the high side is going to get hit harder by large economic downturns, since they will more quickly have less to fill the coffers than they can adjust their budget. There is far less income, revenue, spending, etc. to tax. Property value drops and thus property taxes drop. Businesses contract and go into survival mode and thus their tax burden reduces, etc. The State budget simply can't react as fast as the general economy. It's true, they got fat during the tech boom and then the housing boom, and couldn't handle the heavy downturn.

I spent a lot of years in Federal contracting when I lived in D.C. and actually did learn a thing or two about Government spending. The region I was directly responsible for had an annual budget of around $23 million. I think they spent it reasonably wisely, but I do know how the system works. However, this whole State tax discussion is predicated on what was a minor tangential point about the costs of sending people to come harass folks at their door for $17 an hour and how that money could be better spent on many many other things. I think we can both agree on that.

I can agree with that. Sure.

[TheDeathKnight]

Can you think of any survey, form or application you've ever filled out that didn't ask you what gender you are?

Exactly.
Some things are worth protesting, and making your opinions known.

Protest wars.

Protest Prop 8.

Protest torture.

But protesting against any survey that asks what race or what sex you are seems to be a little extreme.
It's like feminists who get all pissed off if you call someone a "Fireman" instead of a "Firefighter".

I understand where people are coming from, and I am all for equality.
But do those little things really matter that much?

The government wants to know how many people live in the USA, and what their race and sex is.
Is that such a big deal?
Just because the government is the one doing the asking?

Amelia mentioned the Japanese internment camps in WW2.
If that kind of thing happened next year, I would not protest the census.
I would protest the treatment of the people being put into camps,
and the actual internment itself. I am sure the Nazis did surveys.
But is there anything inherently wrong with gathering data? No.
But other things the government does, we have a right and a duty
to protest and fight against... If we start having camps, and curfews,
and weapons confiscation, you can bet I will be one of the first to
fight back. But I have no problem with the census. It has perfectly
legitimate uses, if you aren't totally paranoid about what it's being used for.

[Aza]

Some things are worth protesting, and making your opinions known.

Ehh... I hadn't really intended to suggest that an issue that means so much to someone that they'll tolerate repeated attempts at intrusion by a government-paid stranger isn't an issue worth protesting. I was simply hoping in-text that effective methods of protest are being or have been pursued in addition to - or preferably instead of - pretending the government isn't there.

Everyone has different values. I simply urge that they communicate those values to the people who can effectively acknowledge them.

I'm also optimistically taking it for granted that most of you Census-protesters/boycotters have already done this.

[Mr Karl]

after reading this and that here and there it looks like your census down there is kind of a pain in the ass..........you huys gotta learn to just take it easy like us canadians. Sure we get taxed a lot but we are basicaly left alone to do what we want......well, except own a gun, legaly.

[Aza]

after reading this and that here and there it looks like your census down there is kind of a pain in the ass...

Apparently it is, more so than I ever realized... but only if you don't fill it out. With Kae reading the questions aloud to me while I washed dishes, we still had ours filled out and back in the mailbox in under five minutes, and I don't remember that it affronted me in the least. If you don't fill it out though, I guess the Census guys turn "mafioso" on you or something...

... which strikes me as all the more reason to fill the damn thing out. You've got to admit, the government's Census is a far more honest and less intrusive method of information-gathering than their other methods: wire-tapping, cellphone surveillance, spying by satellite, tracking credit card purchases, and monitoring internet activity, to name a very few. I much prefer someone asking me about myself to someone glancing over my shoulder.

[Cafe_Post_Mortem]

So I got censused today. The census taker ambushed my roommate and got the 411.

Apparently you can refuse to state your race, but you have to sign for it. That's irritating.