Encourage all your teabagger acquaintences to throw away their census forms

[scheming daemons]

Right wing media outlets and blogs continue to consider the census an "affront" to their rights as free citizens. They talk about how it is an invasion of privacy by the government and a tool for the government to find out more about people than the government has a right to know.

As Democrats, we should encourage these people to be afraid of the census - especially if they live in a red state or red district.


Let them all think it is an "evil Obama socialist plot".


It wouldn't be the worst thing in the world if Texas had a few less representatives the next time around.

[Ozymanithrax]

1. Sorry, I have too much respect for the rule of law.

We need an accurate census of assholes, just as we need an accurate census of everyone else.

[RKP5637]

4. The census asks if one is an asshole? LOL n/t

[vadawg]

2. no idea what the questions to be asked are, but do they really need anything other than

the number of people, ages and sex who are in your household, not sure what else is going to be asked. What if you just ignore it, whats the procedure to make you answer it, am i going to be seeing warrants for people not answering the questions :shrug:

[subterranean]

7. Basically just name, age, race, sex and phone number.

There are only 10 questions:

http://2010.census.gov/2010census/how/interactive-form.php

[vadawg]

8. seems harmless, no idea why they want the names though,

seems if you are counting people then just numbers, ages and sexex would be enough... :shrug:

[Ms. Toad]

12. It's a valuable genealogy tool.

The names are released 72 years after they are gathered, and genealogists go nuts over the treasure trove of information. (And I believe there was one US citizen who was recently in the news because she was unable to prove her citizenship, but for her and her parents being listed in the released census data.)

[vadawg]

13. yeah but if you just put down a fake name do they do follow ups or crosschecking

i can see a lot of people not completely filling out the forms or omitting family members...

[Ms. Toad]

15. I don't recall whether the original list had family name or not.

If they are on the same schedule, they are currently out driving around to make sure their lists include all of the current streets, and all of the addresses on the streets. Beyond family names (if that), there wouldn't be a way of cross-checking.

Not sure what benefit there would be to adding or omitting family members. For the next 72 years, all the data will be used for is to indirectly allocate federal population based benefits, apportion political representation, and make pronouncements about population trends. The actual names on the forms aren't released until most of the people listed are deceased.

[vadawg]

18. just knowing my neighbours feelings about the feds im pretty sure there will be omissions

gonna be interesting if they try to get to a lot of the houses as you have to walk a might to reach some of them, and people are not happy to have people on their property...

[kestrel91316]

17. Partly for cross-checking against dupes. And we genealogists would

be out of luck if census didn't have at least the names, lol. It's hard enough, reading that 70-to-200-yr-old handwriting.

[Ms. Toad]

9. No, but someone will come knock on your door.

Speaking as a former census worker - who worked past the processing of the forms sent in by those voluntarily complying. Then I had an emergency appendectomy so I don't know what was done beyond the door-knocking stage.

[vadawg]

11. hell rather you than me, i dont fancy having to try to find my house

and some of my neighbours would probuably not take to kindly to having the "feds" on their property, ah the joys of living in the mountains... i wonder if you put a couple of extra kids down will they be crosschecking :shrug:

[Ms. Toad]

14. I was just a paper pusher - I received the information

from the door-knockers who are not "feds" in any true sense of the word. Just a bunch of un/underemployed folks who can find a few months' employment during the census period when the government needs extra bodies.

I had resigned from a teaching job to move 50 miles away - and was pregnant and planned to be a stay at home mom for the next 5 years so I didn't want to look for permanent job. It paid well for the time (about $10/hour in 1990) - but didn't come with any of the typical "fed" benefits.

No cross-checking that I recall, other than tossing duplicate forms and "correcting" obvious errors like those silly gays who actually checked married. I wonder if I supervised the person who "corrected" my form?

[vadawg]

19. i just know that a lot of my neighbours will see them as feds, hell they only put up with me

as they see me as a constitutional neccesity but they have their suspicions about all aspects of the feds. Its gonna get interesting..

[Ms. Toad]

20. Given the changed political climate, it may well be more

interesting than the 2000 census (or the 1990 - the one I worked).

[emilyg]

3. Silly idea.

[Donnachaidh]

5. and a response like that puts you on the same level with the

nutbags like Beck manipulating the teabaggers. Proud of that fact? :puke:

[scheming daemons]

6. If they're so gullible to be able to be manipulated, I'd rather it was us than them

[Donnachaidh]

21. again -- I ask -- is this sort of suggestion something to be PROUD of?

I'm not asking about their gullibility -- I'm asking about *your* ethics. Big difference.

We're supposed to be *better* than that. At least the old Democratic Party used to be -- this new version seems to be as slimy as the pukes.

Mean-spirited and nasty actions doesn't convince confused people who the better party is.

[Skink]

10. Put down n/a on wether you are a Polygamist.

:beer:

[Hello_Kitty]

16. Not a good idea for those of us in Red States.

Here in AZ, we have enough of a problem with undocumented residents being too scared of deportation to complete theirs. They estimate Phoenix was under-counted by 16% in 2000.