Ohio Chatter DEV

Glory Days

Glory Days wrote: Not answering the questions is a $100 fine. giving false information is a $500 fine.

in addition to this: "There is even a 1970 court decision from Delaware holding that there is a separate violation for each question you don’t answer. So, on this year’s ten-question Census form, you could be fined as much $1,000 — $5,000 if you refuse to answer or deliberately give false answers."

SQ_Crazies

The Census is a joke, they don't allocate shit based on it--they just want you to think they do. It's an incredible waste of money. In fact, it's hard to believe it isn't all done online at this point. But like I said, they don't allocate anything based on the Census. The money goes where they want it to go no matter what.

tk421

SQ_Crazies wrote: The Census is a joke, they don't allocate shit based on it--they just want you to think they do. It's an incredible waste of money. In fact, it's hard to believe it isn't all done online at this point. But like I said, they don't allocate anything based on the Census. The money goes where they want it to go no matter what.

Doing it online would be to easy and not cost enough. Way to efficient for our government.

eersandbeers

LJ wrote:

1. How many people live ere
2. any additional people
3. do you own or rent this plae
4. home phone number
5. names
6. sex
7. age
8. latino race
9. if no what race
10. does anyone here live other places during the year

I wasn't arguing over how invasive the Census was. I only said I am not compelled to fill one out as it is a violation of my 4th Amendment rights.

tk421

Why exactly is there a question specifically asking someone if they are Latino? Hmm? Shouldn't it just say race? Not trying to count the illegals my butt.

Glory Days

eersandbeers wrote:
LJ wrote:

1. How many people live ere
2. any additional people
3. do you own or rent this plae
4. home phone number
5. names
6. sex
7. age
8. latino race
9. if no what race
10. does anyone here live other places during the year

I wasn't arguing over how invasive the Census was. I only said I am not compelled to fill one out as it is a violation of my 4th Amendment rights.

its not, but you can think it is. the supreme court has heard this case many times and as recent as 2000.

captain_obvious

Can we really trust the Supreme Court to give an accurate decision on the Constitution?

LJ

SQ_Crazies wrote: The Census is a joke, they don't allocate shit based on it--they just want you to think they do.

The census constantly moves 10 to 20 representatives around every cycle.

Hell, this is what the census has done to the number of reps Ohio gets ever since my dad was counted in his first census
1950:23
1960: 24
1970: 23
1980: 21
1990: 19
2000: 18

pepperpot

Just got a postcard to remind me to do the census, mine is done, is the postcard really necessary ??

LJ

tk421 wrote: Why exactly is there a question specifically asking someone if they are Latino? Hmm? Shouldn't it just say race? Not trying to count the illegals my butt.

I guess it has been there since the 1970 census. Has something to do with anti discriminatory laws I guess.

captain_obvious

pepperpot wrote: Just got a postcard to remind me to do the census, mine is done, is the postcard really necessary ??

The letter letting you know the Census is coming, the Census form itself, then the postcard. Overboard within themselves, then add the TV, Radio, Print, and Internet ads.

Should have just sent it as an email chain letter promising good luck to all that fill it out and send to 10 people within the next 24 hours... By the looks of how many I get a day, they could have had the Census done within 2 hours...

pepperpot

^^^^ well said !!

Footwedge

tk421 wrote:
ts1227 wrote: What makes the 2010 Census different than any other one in US history, other than you just so have happened to despise the President and/or Congress when this one showed up in your mailbox?

The standards are quite rigid on how it is run and how the data is used, regardless of who is in power.
I find the amount of information the government already has about us alarming, I see no need to voluntarily give them more. Call me crazy, but I wouldn't trust our government with my grocery list, let alone private information about it's citizens.

The census asks for each person's name, race, and sex. It's done every 10 years and is in the original Constitution to do so. It is done to accurately depict population for representation purposes. The bullshit on the net about census workers asking for personal data, income etcetera, is nonsense.

Do what the Constitution asks for...and be done with it.

Footwedge

tk421 wrote: Why exactly is there a question specifically asking someone if they are Latino? Hmm? Shouldn't it just say race? Not trying to count the illegals my butt.

I agree with you here. I think the race question is bullshit.

tk421

Footwedge wrote:
tk421 wrote:
ts1227 wrote: What makes the 2010 Census different than any other one in US history, other than you just so have happened to despise the President and/or Congress when this one showed up in your mailbox?

The standards are quite rigid on how it is run and how the data is used, regardless of who is in power.
I find the amount of information the government already has about us alarming, I see no need to voluntarily give them more. Call me crazy, but I wouldn't trust our government with my grocery list, let alone private information about it's citizens.
The census asks for each person's name, race, and sex. It's done every 10 years and is in the original Constitution to do so. It is done to accurately depict population for representation purposes. The bullshit on the net about census workers asking for personal data, income etcetera, is nonsense.

Do what the Constitution asks for...and be done with it.

You do realize that until this time, because a lot of people made a fuss, the census had a lot more questions that were a lot more invasive? How much you make, what you pay in rent, utilities, etc.

Cleveland Buck

I'll follow what the Constitution says when the federal government does.

eersandbeers

Glory Days wrote:
its not, but you can think it is. the supreme court has heard this case many times and as recent as 2000.

I'm assuming you are referring to the Morales decision. I also think there was far more to the ruling, but I'll look it up.

A couple of interesting tidbits I learned:

1. Hitler used the census to track and round up all the Jews in Germany
2. FDR used the census to round up all the Japanese American to place them in internment camps
3. The FBI wanted to use the census data to track Muslims after 9/11

So people are delusional if they think this isn't used for other purposes.

LJ

eersandbeers wrote:
Glory Days wrote:
its not, but you can think it is. the supreme court has heard this case many times and as recent as 2000.

I'm assuming you are referring to the Morales decision. I also think there was far more to the ruling, but I'll look it up.

A couple of interesting tidbits I learned:

1. Hitler used the census to track and round up all the Jews in Germany
2. FDR used the census to round up all the Japanese American to place them in internment camps
3. The FBI wanted to use the census data to track Muslims after 9/11

So people are delusional if they think this isn't used for other purposes.

Just admit it, you are against the census all together.

tk421

eersandbeers wrote:
Glory Days wrote:
its not, but you can think it is. the supreme court has heard this case many times and as recent as 2000.

I'm assuming you are referring to the Morales decision. I also think there was far more to the ruling, but I'll look it up.

A couple of interesting tidbits I learned:

1. Hitler used the census to track and round up all the Jews in Germany
2. FDR used the census to round up all the Japanese American to place them in internment camps
3. The FBI wanted to use the census data to track Muslims after 9/11

So people are delusional if they think this isn't used for other purposes.

Exactly. Everyone is acting like this information is perfectly safe with our government. It's just another tool for them to use to track and control the population.

tk421

LJ wrote:
eersandbeers wrote:
Glory Days wrote:
its not, but you can think it is. the supreme court has heard this case many times and as recent as 2000.

I'm assuming you are referring to the Morales decision. I also think there was far more to the ruling, but I'll look it up.

A couple of interesting tidbits I learned:

1. Hitler used the census to track and round up all the Jews in Germany
2. FDR used the census to round up all the Japanese American to place them in internment camps
3. The FBI wanted to use the census data to track Muslims after 9/11

So people are delusional if they think this isn't used for other purposes.
Just admit it, you are against the census all together.

It is a total waste of money and resources. The government is spending over 14 Billion on the census.

I Wear Pants

It is useful. No matter how much you want to believe there is some conspiracy at work here...there isn't.

LJ

tk421 wrote:
LJ wrote:
eersandbeers wrote:
Glory Days wrote:
its not, but you can think it is. the supreme court has heard this case many times and as recent as 2000.

I'm assuming you are referring to the Morales decision. I also think there was far more to the ruling, but I'll look it up.

A couple of interesting tidbits I learned:

1. Hitler used the census to track and round up all the Jews in Germany
2. FDR used the census to round up all the Japanese American to place them in internment camps
3. The FBI wanted to use the census data to track Muslims after 9/11

So people are delusional if they think this isn't used for other purposes.
Just admit it, you are against the census all together.
It is a total waste of money and resources. The government is spending over 14 Billion on the census.

So you don't know what apportionment is?

eersandbeers

LJ wrote:
eersandbeers wrote:
Glory Days wrote:
its not, but you can think it is. the supreme court has heard this case many times and as recent as 2000.

I'm assuming you are referring to the Morales decision. I also think there was far more to the ruling, but I'll look it up.

A couple of interesting tidbits I learned:

1. Hitler used the census to track and round up all the Jews in Germany
2. FDR used the census to round up all the Japanese American to place them in internment camps
3. The FBI wanted to use the census data to track Muslims after 9/11

So people are delusional if they think this isn't used for other purposes.
Just admit it, you are against the census all together.

I'm not against a simple headcount.

Such as how many males and how many females. That should be it.

I was merely pointing out some unique historical uses for the census.

tk421

I Wear Pants wrote: It is useful. No matter how much you want to believe there is some conspiracy at work here...there isn't.

I'm sure the Japanese Americans would agree with that.

LJ

eersandbeers wrote:
LJ wrote:
eersandbeers wrote:
Glory Days wrote:
its not, but you can think it is. the supreme court has heard this case many times and as recent as 2000.

I'm assuming you are referring to the Morales decision. I also think there was far more to the ruling, but I'll look it up.

A couple of interesting tidbits I learned:

1. Hitler used the census to track and round up all the Jews in Germany
2. FDR used the census to round up all the Japanese American to place them in internment camps
3. The FBI wanted to use the census data to track Muslims after 9/11

So people are delusional if they think this isn't used for other purposes.
Just admit it, you are against the census all together.
I'm not against a simple headcount.

Such as how many males and how many females. That should be it.

that's never been it. EVER. People want to cite the constitution and what the people of the time did, well, even in the very first census it was more than that.

Archive

I got my Census today.