Comments on: The idiotic war on the American Community Survey

By: test site

test site — Sat, 16 Mar 2013 10:05:56 +0000

possibly Now i am only an excessive amount of a new skeptic, although We are not able to discover why people require sweet, snacky stuff like “paleo cupcakes” or perhaps “paleo pancakes. ” chocolate smoking cigarettes, in the event you question everyone… on the lighter in weight notice, your menu guide is a superb idea, and I really hope the thing is a lot of success about it. I’m loving discovering paleo come to be and so? well known. currently only if the us government might notice this rate of growth in reputation and these kinds of real world outcomes, and provide other region a fresh meal pyramid.

By: Enough already: Leave the ACS alone « The D4TA M1NE

Enough already: Leave the ACS alone « The D4TA M1NE — Wed, 01 Aug 2012 18:32:11 +0000

[...] The idiotic war on the American Community Survey (modeledbehavior.com) 39.301951 -76.622804 Share this:TwitterFacebookLike this:LikeBe the first to like this. [...]

By: It’s None of the Government’s Business…(“It’s not just school kids who are the victims of nosy questionnaires. The U.S. government has zeroed in on 250,000 Americans and demanded that they answer nearly a hundred nosy questio

Tue, 29 May 2012 13:28:33 +0000

[...] The idiotic war on the American Community Survey (modeledbehavior.com) [...]

By: Gepap

Gepap — Fri, 25 May 2012 17:24:53 +0000

Yes, I think having in depth accurate demographic and economic info is critical for policy makers to get an idea of what is going on in the country.

By: Gepap

Gepap — Fri, 25 May 2012 17:24:00 +0000

Yes, the government does in fact need to know all those things, which is why the questions are mandatory. Some of the earlier censuses wrote down the assets of families, so this view of America you are trying to paint is nothing but fantasy begat by the fact that you lack historical understanding.

Also, being a citizen is never “private” – the very concept of citizenship is premised on being a member of a community with both privaleges AND obligations. Clearly you seem to ingore the obligations part of citizenship.

By: Ann

Ann — Thu, 24 May 2012 18:33:30 +0000

You people evidently haven’t had the pleasure of receiving the so-called “American Community” Survey 28 page questionnaire probing into your very private and personal lives and demanding that you hand over your personal information – under penalty of law! Information, that if you have any intelligence at all, you wouldn’t release to your best friend! Does the Govt need to know when you bought your house, what you paid, what it’s worth now, how many times you’ve been married, what time you leave for work, how long does it take, what your utility bills are, what your sources of income are, do you have trouble dressing and concentrating, and on, and on and on? I can’t believe that this is America – where people roll over and have forgotten that we used to be a “shining city on a hill” where people thought for themselves, still believed in exceptionalism, and were thankful for their privacy and individual freedoms. The framers of the Constitution believed in all of this, and therefore safeguarded the privacy of its citizens in the Constitution of the United States of America. The Constitution still trumps rules and regulations laid out by un-elected beauricrats and sanctioned by Congress. There are plenty of ways to gather information helpful for community services without insulting and demeaning private citizens! Are you foolish enough to believe that all your personal information floating around is safe from exploitation? Wake up!

By: Gabe

Gabe — Wed, 23 May 2012 19:39:03 +0000

I’m not a republican but don’t like having the government come around asking questions about the race of my children or my income or what cars we drive. Really counting people by skin color…you defend that?

And please don’t insult me and assume I am a republican. However, if you want to check up on the effectivieness of government programs I can help with that for far less money than a big government survey would cost.

By: Wanderer

Wanderer — Wed, 23 May 2012 09:46:09 +0000

Don’t know why my akismet account shows up here… anyway…

By: akismet-7127a1a85138e2366a22d009b882ebb9

akismet-7127a1a85138e2366a22d009b882ebb9 — Wed, 23 May 2012 09:43:42 +0000

You are the one who sees plenty of “extremeness”. Why don’t YOU give us an example of these extremes you see? And by the way, eliminating data collection that helps to keep government accountable is by no means too far out for conservatives. On the contrary, it passed in a landslide.

By: lfv

lfv — Wed, 23 May 2012 04:19:41 +0000

The constitution was handed down by Jesus. Do you think Jesus doesn’t already know all of this stuff?

By: Gepap

Gepap — Tue, 22 May 2012 14:50:36 +0000

This might make sense if it were not for the fact that it was the Founder’s themselves who began asking question on the census that went beyond just a simple head count. Their actions clearly speak louder than your words.

By: Gepap

Gepap — Tue, 22 May 2012 14:46:37 +0000

Really? which one? Please give us the examples.

By: Turgid Jacobian

Turgid Jacobian — Tue, 22 May 2012 03:04:38 +0000

The 1810 census was overseen by Preznit Madison (“the Father of the Constitution”). It’s second volume treated the commercial and manufacturing arts of the US. Perhaps the founders and drafters of the Constitution had different ideas about their ideas.

By: Benny Lava

Benny Lava — Mon, 21 May 2012 23:10:39 +0000

Do you have any evidence that the Constitutional authors intended for head counting only?

By: Philo

Philo — Mon, 21 May 2012 20:48:38 +0000

There’s no contradiction between objecting to the means used to collect data and using the data once it has been collected.
Courts may have ruled that extensive, detailed questions may be included in the census, but those rulings may always be overruled. The authors of the Constitution certainly had nothing of the sort in mind; they expected the census simply to *count people*.
Rampell notes: “Under current law, participation is mandatory.” The libertarian inclination is to make fewer things mandatory. That is not “idiotic.”

By: michelle

michelle — Mon, 21 May 2012 20:41:38 +0000

Exactly, Kellen. As a group we seem to consider each other quite expendable if there’s a profit motive.

By: Kellen Gracey

Kellen Gracey — Mon, 21 May 2012 20:03:39 +0000

Only in the United States would universal healthcare be considered far left/collectivist/spendy.

By: michelle

michelle — Mon, 21 May 2012 18:33:39 +0000

Universal healthcare.

By: Bob Dobalina

Bob Dobalina — Mon, 21 May 2012 18:16:43 +0000

Hmm. I think we see plenty of "extremeness" from Team Blue as well. Could you come up with a hypothetical action or position on any kind of remotely similar issue that would be so far left/collectivist/spendy that the Democrats wouldn't dare embrace?

By: michelle

michelle — Mon, 21 May 2012 16:34:56 +0000

Pretty close to what we have now.

Dimon’s on the board at the NY Fed. You don’t get much less accountability than that.

By: Kellen Gracey

Kellen Gracey — Mon, 21 May 2012 16:26:07 +0000

What is Democracy without accountability?

By: michelle

michelle — Mon, 21 May 2012 16:03:10 +0000

Two generations ago.

I’m sure it matters to the couple of hundred people who are still aware that the event happened. But overall, the non-racist portions of right-wing extremism come from love of money and power.

We’re simply up to the part now where their greed overtakes them and they kill the goose rather than have the patience to wait for more eggs. It’s the ouroboros of democracy.

By: Jon

Jon — Mon, 21 May 2012 14:14:35 +0000

As this debate also happened in Canada last year, I think you need an explanation that covers both cases.

By: lorenzofromoz

lorenzofromoz — Mon, 21 May 2012 09:04:03 +0000

The reason/excuse difference is useful here. I am confident years of over-the-top rhetoric where conservatives were evil folk outside the realm of elementary decency has done much to create a mindset of “well, if we are not part of a common public realm, we will act accordingly”.

That is a reason; it is no excuse for this sort of nonsense,

By: greg byshenk

greg byshenk — Mon, 21 May 2012 06:52:35 +0000

This sort of thing might actually be useful to opponents in the upcoming election: “Representative X voted to make government unaccountable, by eliminating the ACS that checks how well programs are working.”

By: grandtaco

grandtaco — Mon, 21 May 2012 05:53:24 +0000

It’s not stupidity. This is a scorched-earth war for control of the country’s wealth, and they’re winning.

By: Marcus

Marcus — Mon, 21 May 2012 04:39:46 +0000

If unpopular legislation gets passed, I expect the legislators who passed it to lose in the next election cycle. Which is largely what happened (if they were up for reelection).

I don’t expect a complete fool to justify new legislation based in part on an ignorant view of what a scientific survey is.

By: Airman Spry Shark

Airman Spry Shark — Mon, 21 May 2012 02:38:19 +0000

Perhaps areas requiring the granularity of feedback provided by the ACS are simply not appropriate for government action.

By: david

david — Mon, 21 May 2012 00:42:22 +0000

Is right-wing extremism today really plausibly a response to Cornell a generation ago?

By: curtd59

curtd59 — Mon, 21 May 2012 00:03:47 +0000

We have what we have asked for.

When thugs put guns to the heads of Cornell University Professors a generation ago. Or when the health care bill was put through despite overwhelming opposition in the public. What do you expect that will happen?

There is no ‘We’.