Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ ... 699.column" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I filled out the decennial form last year, answering every question except for those on race, which I left blank. But the hell if I'll ever fill out one of those more intrusive American Community Surveys.

They should quit being whiny bitches and just fill it out.

Vidav wrote:They should quit being whiny bitches and just fill it out.

seriously. what's the big deal?

Skjellyfetti wrote:

Vidav wrote:They should quit being whiny bitches and just fill it out.

seriously. what's the big deal?

How about its none of the govt's god damn business?

Skjellyfetti wrote:

Vidav wrote:They should quit being whiny bitches and just fill it out.

seriously. what's the big deal?

these citizens do not want to take part. one refusal should be enough.

BDKJMU wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote: seriously. what's the big deal?

How about its none of the govt's god damn business?

I don't really see why it isn't. You would think a government should know how many citizens it has. They don't need personal info like height or weight or that sort of thing.

citdog wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote: seriously. what's the big deal?

these citizens do not want to take part. one refusal should be enough.

Then they shouldn't get the benefit of any government provided assistance or functions.

It's kind of like registering your car. Should you just be able to refuse and that is enough? Is it too personal for the government to know how many cars you own?

If you refuse to register it annd use it you can be fined. So take the easy route, quit yer bitching, and register your damn car.

Glad this couple stuck to their position...

If you don't want to answer....don't...

If its really a law...it needs to be changed...and civil disobedience on this one should be something donks support...

Vidav wrote:

citdog wrote:

these citizens do not want to take part. one refusal should be enough.

Then they shouldn't get the benefit of any government provided assistance or functions.

no one should be forced to be a whore for federal funding

Vidav wrote:

BDKJMU wrote:
How about its none of the govt's god damn business?

I don't really see why it isn't. You would think a government should know how many citizens it has. They don't need personal info like height or weight or that sort of thing.

did you read the freaking article?

citdog wrote:

Vidav wrote:
Then they shouldn't get the benefit of any government provided assistance or functions.

no one should be forced to be a whore for federal funding

Yes because telling them how many people live in your house is equal to whoring.

Vidav wrote:

citdog wrote:

no one should be forced to be a whore for federal funding

Yes because telling them how many people live in your house is equal to whoring.

READ THE ARTICLE.

citdog wrote:

Vidav wrote:
I don't really see why it isn't. You would think a government should know how many citizens it has. They don't need personal info like height or weight or that sort of thing.

did you read the freaking article?

Actually for some reason it crashes my work browser. I could only see the start of the article for a brief moment. I was going off of my personal experience with the census form. If their form is different and that is explained in the article, then I apologize.

Vidav wrote:

BDKJMU wrote:
How about its none of the govt's god damn business?

I don't really see why it isn't. You would think a government should know how many citizens it has. They don't need personal info like height or weight or that sort of thing.

Did you read the article? I don't have a problem with the govt knowing how many citizens it has. That is enumeration required by U.S. Constitution Article I Section 2.The American Community Survey goes FAR beyond that, asking for FAR more information, and at a higher frequency of polling, than the simple enumeration required by the Constitution. Asking all types of questions such as on health, what time they leave for work, their profession, how much money they earn, their source of health insurance, their preferred mode of transportation to and from work, the amount of money they pay for housing and utilities, etc, etc, etc.

Again, above simple enumeration as required by the Constitution is none of the govt's god damn business.

Vidav wrote:

citdog wrote:
did you read the freaking article?

Actually for some reason it crashes my work browser. I could only see the start of the article for a brief moment. I was going off of my personal experience with the census form. If their form is different and that is explained in the article, then I apologize.

These people filled out the form and sent it in last year. This is a survey asking things like "what time do you leave for work" shopping habits etc etc

BDKJMU wrote:

Vidav wrote:
I don't really see why it isn't. You would think a government should know how many citizens it has. They don't need personal info like height or weight or that sort of thing.

Did you read the article. I don't have a problem with the govt knowing how many citizens it has. This goes FAR beyond that. Asking all types of questions such as on health, what time they leave for work, their profession, how much money they earn, their source of health insurance, their preferred mode of transportation to and from work, the amount of money they pay for housing and utilities, etc, etc, etc. The surveys asks for more information, and at a higher frequency of polling, than the simple enumeration required by U.S. Constitution Article I Section 2.

Again, above simple enumeration as required by the Constitution is none of the govt's god damn business.

As stated above, I could only see the first 5 lines or so. Was going off personal census experience. So I do apologize for arguing without reading the entire thing.

citdog wrote:

Vidav wrote:
I don't really see why it isn't. You would think a government should know how many citizens it has. They don't need personal info like height or weight or that sort of thing.

did you read the freaking article?

Obviously he didn't. He thinks the only thing these people were asked was simple enumeration- how many people were in the household, not the whole slew of questions that the ACS has.

overzealous worker, clearly - but no sense in trying to make more out of it than what is there. considering that it is illegal not to participate in the census and huge percentages don't even bother to do that - and very rarely is someone fined for failing to comply... it's not worth getting too worked up over... this couple had every right to be pissed about this guy - especially the threatening of fines...

BDKJMU wrote:

Vidav wrote:
I don't really see why it isn't. You would think a government should know how many citizens it has. They don't need personal info like height or weight or that sort of thing.

Did you read the article? I don't have a problem with the govt knowing how many citizens it has. That is enumeration required by U.S. Constitution Article I Section 2.The American Community Survey goes FAR beyond that, asking for FAR more information, and at a higher frequency of polling, than the simple enumeration required by the Constitution. Asking all types of questions such as on health, what time they leave for work, their profession, how much money they earn, their source of health insurance, their preferred mode of transportation to and from work, the amount of money they pay for housing and utilities, etc, etc, etc.

The Constitution says the census should be taken "in such Manner as they shall by Law direct." If the law directs the census to be taken with demographic data like race... then that's how it should be taken...

If you don't like it, change the law.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

BDKJMU wrote:
Did you read the article? I don't have a problem with the govt knowing how many citizens it has. That is enumeration required by U.S. Constitution Article I Section 2.The American Community Survey goes FAR beyond that, asking for FAR more information, and at a higher frequency of polling, than the simple enumeration required by the Constitution. Asking all types of questions such as on health, what time they leave for work, their profession, how much money they earn, their source of health insurance, their preferred mode of transportation to and from work, the amount of money they pay for housing and utilities, etc, etc, etc.

The Constitution says the census should be taken "in such Manner as they shall by Law direct." If the law directs the census to be taken with demographic data like race... then that's how it should be taken...

If you don't like it, change the law.

THEN LET US USE THIS TO LOCK UP AND DEPORT ALL ILLEGAL MEXICANS. I BET THEY DON'T FILL OUT CENSUS FORMS.

citdog wrote:

THEN LET US USE THIS TO LOCK UP AND DEPORT ALL ILLEGAL MEXICANS. I BET THEY DON'T FILL OUT CENSUS FORMS.

GET CONGRESS TO PASS A LAW AND YOU CAN!!!!!!!!!!!!

Skjellyfetti wrote:

BDKJMU wrote:
Did you read the article? I don't have a problem with the govt knowing how many citizens it has. That is enumeration required by U.S. Constitution Article I Section 2.The American Community Survey goes FAR beyond that, asking for FAR more information, and at a higher frequency of polling, than the simple enumeration required by the Constitution. Asking all types of questions such as on health, what time they leave for work, their profession, how much money they earn, their source of health insurance, their preferred mode of transportation to and from work, the amount of money they pay for housing and utilities, etc, etc, etc.

The Constitution says the census should be taken "in such Manner as they shall by Law direct." If the law directs the census to be taken with demographic data like race... then that's how it should be taken...

If you don't like it, change the law.

Way to conveniently leave of "Enumeration". "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."

That means a headcount of citizens in the manner that they see fit. It does't mean the dozens of intrusive questions in the ACS that have nothing to do with a simple headcount such as health, what time they leave for work, their profession, how much money they earn, their source of health insurance, their preferred mode of transportation to and from work, the amount of money they pay for housing and utilities, etc, etc, etc.

One would think that they could cross reference name and address with the IRS files to get income information. Too bad government agencies don't play nice with each other because they have a huge opportunity for some synergies.


5000 posts, bitches.

ASUG8 wrote:One would think that they could cross reference name and address with the IRS files to get income information. Too bad government agencies don't play nice with each other because they have a huge opportunity for some synergies.


5000 posts, bitches.

part of why they don't has to do (as i always understood this, and i could be completely wrong about this -) was that they were either taking pains, or were ordered legislatively to be as little "big brother" as possible in terms of data acquisition. obviously, the joker going door to door in this neighborhood missed the memo.

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:One would think that they could cross reference name and address with the IRS files to get income information. Too bad government agencies don't play nice with each other because they have a huge opportunity for some synergies.


5000 posts, bitches.

part of why they don't has to do (as i always understood this, and i could be completely wrong about this -) was that they were either taking pains, or were ordered legislatively to be as little "big brother" as possible in terms of data acquisition. obviously, the joker going door to door in this neighborhood missed the memo.

Bullsh!t!

The joker going door to door was following orders. Unrelenting intrusive questioning was official policy for the 2010 Census for EVERYONE who failed to answer the entire questionnaire, including (and especially) the racial and ethnic heritage questions.

I was one of the jokers going door to door and supervising a team of another dozen "quality assurance" enumerators who went door to door under my direction. As a supervisor, I drank all the kool-aid that I considered to be Constitutional, but rebelled against un-Constitutional directives. Two of my three colleagues (one an outspoken Dem, one unknown and me) joined me in pushing back hard against this kind of harrassment.

Another official policy for the QA follow up teams was to ask questions of NEIGHBORS for a certain number of questionnaires. I followed this procedure only when the respondent had moved and was no longer available. When the respondent still lived at the address, I did NOT follow procedures. Instead, I engaged the original repondent straight up whenever they were available. I advised the people who reported to me to do the same. Can you imagine a Census worker asking your neighbor how many kids you have, their names, ages, ethnicity and heritage?

You should also be aware that the questionnaires are filled out in PENCIL. In some cases, if the management did not like the answer, they changed it. I come to this shocking conclusion from the remarks made by another student in one of our supervisor class discussions, who had previously worked as a headquarters clerk. She bragged about herself and her colleagues changing the submitted answer of "AMERICAN" to the more politically correct answer of "CAUCASIAN" at management direction. The manager to whom I reported would not do such a thing. I submitted a complaint up the chain of command with no response.