Ron Paul Nails the Census

cawacko

Well-known member
Census: A Little Too Personal

Last week Congress voted to encourage participation in the 2010 census. I voted “No” on this resolution for the simple, obvious reason that the census – like so many government programs – has grown far beyond what the framers of our Constitution intended. The invasive nature of the current census raises serious questions about how and why government will use the collected information. It also demonstrates how the federal bureaucracy consistently encourages citizens to think of themselves in terms of groups, rather than as individual Americans. The not so subtle implication is that each group, whether ethnic, religious, social, or geographic, should speak up and demand its “fair share” of federal largesse.

Article I, section 2 of the Constitution calls for an enumeration of citizens every ten years, for the purpose of apportioning congressional seats among the various states. In other words, the census should be nothing more than a headcount. It was never intended to serve as a vehicle for gathering personal information on citizens.

But our voracious federal government thrives on collecting information. In fact, to prepare for the 2010 census state employees recorded GPS coordinates for every front door in the United States so they could locate individuals with greater accuracy! Once duly located, individuals are asked detailed questions concerning their name, address, race, home ownership, and whether they periodically spend time in prison or a nursing home – just to name a few examples.

From a constitutional perspective, of course, the answer to each of these questions is: “None of your business.” But the bigger question is – why government is so intent on compiling this information in the first place?

The Census Bureau claims that collected information is not shared with any federal agency; but rather is kept under lock and key for 72 years. It also claims that no information provided to census takers can be used against you by the government.

However, these promises can and have been abused in the past. Census data has been used to locate men who had not registered for the draft. Census data also was used to find Japanese-Americans for internment camps during World War II. Furthermore, the IRS has applied census information to detect alleged tax evaders. Some local governments even have used census data to check for compliance with zoning regulations.

It is not hard to imagine that information compiled by the census could be used against people in the future, despite claims to the contrary and the best intentions of those currently in charge of the Census Bureau. The government can and does change its mind about these things, and people have a right to be skeptical about government promises.

Yet there are consequences for not submitting to the census and its intrusive questions. If the form is not mailed back in time, households will experience the “pleasure” of a visit by a government worker asking the questions in person. If the government still does not get the information it wants, it can issue a fine of up to $5000.

If the federal government really wants to increase compliance with the census, it should abide by the Constitution and limit its inquiry to one simple question: How many people live here?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul649.html
 
Census: A Little Too Personal

Last week Congress voted to encourage participation in the 2010 census. I voted “No” on this resolution for the simple, obvious reason that the census – like so many government programs – has grown far beyond what the framers of our Constitution intended. The invasive nature of the current census raises serious questions about how and why government will use the collected information. It also demonstrates how the federal bureaucracy consistently encourages citizens to think of themselves in terms of groups, rather than as individual Americans. The not so subtle implication is that each group, whether ethnic, religious, social, or geographic, should speak up and demand its “fair share” of federal largesse.

Article I, section 2 of the Constitution calls for an enumeration of citizens every ten years, for the purpose of apportioning congressional seats among the various states. In other words, the census should be nothing more than a headcount. It was never intended to serve as a vehicle for gathering personal information on citizens.

But our voracious federal government thrives on collecting information. In fact, to prepare for the 2010 census state employees recorded GPS coordinates for every front door in the United States so they could locate individuals with greater accuracy! Once duly located, individuals are asked detailed questions concerning their name, address, race, home ownership, and whether they periodically spend time in prison or a nursing home – just to name a few examples.

From a constitutional perspective, of course, the answer to each of these questions is: “None of your business.” But the bigger question is – why government is so intent on compiling this information in the first place?

The Census Bureau claims that collected information is not shared with any federal agency; but rather is kept under lock and key for 72 years. It also claims that no information provided to census takers can be used against you by the government.

However, these promises can and have been abused in the past. Census data has been used to locate men who had not registered for the draft. Census data also was used to find Japanese-Americans for internment camps during World War II. Furthermore, the IRS has applied census information to detect alleged tax evaders. Some local governments even have used census data to check for compliance with zoning regulations.

It is not hard to imagine that information compiled by the census could be used against people in the future, despite claims to the contrary and the best intentions of those currently in charge of the Census Bureau. The government can and does change its mind about these things, and people have a right to be skeptical about government promises.

Yet there are consequences for not submitting to the census and its intrusive questions. If the form is not mailed back in time, households will experience the “pleasure” of a visit by a government worker asking the questions in person. If the government still does not get the information it wants, it can issue a fine of up to $5000.

If the federal government really wants to increase compliance with the census, it should abide by the Constitution and limit its inquiry to one simple question: How many people live here?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul649.html
They should ask how many people live here and for some sort of identification number for each (so that people do not get counted more than once if they live for real or pretend in more than one place).
 
RON PAUL: It also demonstrates how the federal bureaucracy consistently encourages citizens to think of themselves in terms of groups, rather than as individual Americans….

Article I, section 2 of the Constitution calls for an enumeration of citizens every ten years, for the purpose of apportioning congressional seats among the various states. In other words, the census should be nothing more than a headcount……(the federal government_ should abide by the Constitution and limit its inquiry to one simple question: How many people live here?

Ron Paul doesn’t know what he’s talking about. He’s being retarded.

As per usual, he simply has a knee jerk reaction bordering on paranoia about virtually anything that is related to the government.

The very first law authorizing the Census in 1790 authorized the census to collect demographic information: race, age, gender, free or slave. It wasn't simply a "head count". And they clearly wanted information on "groups", contrary to Rontard's assertions. See the screen capture of the first Census law passed by congress in 1790, below.

I think the Congress who voted on this in 1790 knew a little bit more about what the intentions of “the founders” were, than Ron Paul does in 2010.

A nation that doesn't live in the stone age needs demographic and economic data on the citizenry living within it’s boundaries. Even the dudes in Congress in 1790 understood this.

Decisions and policy are made on the basis of data, empirical facts, and trends. What educated person doesn’t understand this? Maybe data doesn’t matter to the dude or gal working at Taco Bell, but those of us with responsible jobs or who use data with respect to transportation, education, law enforcement, environment, infrastructure, and health policy are quite familiar with the fact that spatial data, demographics, and general household economic factoids are one thousand percent necessary in a modern nation. This isn’t the year 1683 anymore.

census.jpg
 
They had to, in order to count the 3/5 of a man that the slave owner would get to vote for and to keep those "savage injun reskin mf'ers" from having any say in how they lived.
 
I love how upset the Cons are about this, but just rolled over on the Iraq war, warrantless wiretapping, tourture, and the depravation of civil rights of individuals because they are charged as "war criminals"!
 
I love how upset the Cons are about this, but just rolled over on the Iraq war, warrantless wiretapping, tourture, and the depravation of civil rights of individuals because they are charged as "war criminals"!

You really think Ron Paul rolled over on ANY of that?
 
They had to, in order to count the 3/5 of a man that the slave owner would get to vote for and to keep those "savage injun reskin mf'ers" from having any say in how they lived.


I’ll give it a C minus for spin.

I’ll count you in for agreeing with Ron Paul that the nation doesn’t need to collect any census data whatsoever on demographics, economics, and spatial trends.

The VERY FIRST census passed by the very first Congress, required the obtaining of information that went beyond a mere head count for voting purposes……and undoubtedly was collected to obtain information on the “military and industrial strength of the nation."



The First Census


“The object of the inquiry last mentioned was undoubtedly to obtain definite knowledge as to the military and industrial strength of the country.

Thus, the demand for increasingly extensive information….began with the First Congress that dealt with the subject.

census2.jpg
 
Ron Paul doesn’t know what he’s talking about. He’s being retarded.

As per usual, he simply has a knee jerk reaction bordering on paranoia about virtually anything that is related to the government.

The very first law authorizing the Census in 1790 authorized the census to collect demographic information: race, age, gender, free or slave. It wasn't simply a "head count". And they clearly wanted information on "groups", contrary to Rontard's assertions. See the screen capture of the first Census law passed by congress in 1790, below.

I think the Congress who voted on this in 1790 knew a little bit more about what the intentions of “the founders” were, than Ron Paul does in 2010.

A nation that doesn't live in the stone age needs demographic and economic data on the citizenry living within it’s boundaries. Even the dudes in Congress in 1790 understood this.

Decisions and policy are made on the basis of data, empirical facts, and trends. What educated person doesn’t understand this? Maybe data doesn’t matter to the dude or gal working at Taco Bell, but those of us with responsible jobs or who use data with respect to transportation, education, law enforcement, environment, infrastructure, and health policy are quite familiar with the fact that spatial data, demographics, and general household economic factoids are one thousand percent necessary in a modern nation. This isn’t the year 1683 anymore.

census.jpg
Sorry Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution predates the 1790 law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articl...stitution#Section_2:_House_of_Representatives

All you have done is shown that the abuses Ron Paul talked about with the census gathering data not relevant to it's original purpose of a head count, started at a very early age.

And how on earth does gathering information on race determine infrastructure needs? You are just trying to make yourself sound like you understand things above what the commoners do.

I agree that a lot of the information is useful, but there is no question it has been abused and you can get much of the same demographic information from other sources without the force of government that will harm those who decide they do not want to give it.
 
Sorry Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution predates the 1790 law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articl...stitution#Section_2:_House_of_Representatives

All you have done is shown that the abuses Ron Paul talked about with the census gathering data not relevant to it's original purpose of a head count, started at a very early age.

And how on earth does gathering information on race determine infrastructure needs? You are just trying to make yourself sound like you understand things above what the commoners do.

I agree that a lot of the information is useful, but there is no question it has been abused and you can get much of the same demographic information from other sources without the force of government that will harm those who decide they do not want to give it.


It is obvious from the text of the Constitution that the framers contemplated more than a simple head count for the census and required the collection of demographic information. Maybe you could argue that the constitution limits the census to collection information regarding free persons, those bound to service for a term of years, indians and "all other person," but you cannot credibly argue that the only authorized question is "how many people live here?"

Here's the relevant language:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

A simple head count would not been sufficient to the task required under the Constitution.
 
I’ll give it a C minus for spin.

I’ll count you in for agreeing with Ron Paul that the nation doesn’t need to collect any census data whatsoever on demographics, economics, and spatial trends.

The VERY FIRST census passed by the very first Congress, required the obtaining of information that went beyond a mere head count for voting purposes……and undoubtedly was collected to obtain information on the “military and industrial strength of the nation."





census2.jpg

You know dickweed, if you'd actually bothered to understand the Constitution and early laws rather than just google-and-show the very first shit you think strikes gold in dismissing this then you might actually find something that kind of undermines the point you are trying to make, like say the actual document you referenced:
http://www2.census.gov/prod2/decennial/documents/1790b-02.pdf
Look under the ancient table provided on page 6 that you referenced a small part of:
This law is nothing more than trying to establish power that favors white males - you know like the people you love to rail on against having power? (Even though you are one - supposedly).
 
All you have done is shown that the abuses Ron Paul talked about with the census gathering data not relevant to it's original purpose of a head count, started at a very early age.

So Ron Paul is right, and every single congress since 1790 is wrong.

I can't take that argument seriously.

And how on earth does gathering information on race determine infrastructure needs? You are just trying to make yourself sound like you understand things above what the commoners do.

I agree that a lot of the information is useful, but there is no question it has been abused and you can get much of the same demographic information from other sources without the force of government that will harm those who decide they do not want to give it.

If we follow the principles you and Ron Paul propose, how on earth are we going to make plans, or have any data whatsoever, on how to budget for Medicare - without demographics on the age of the population. Or, in conservative world, how did you guys come up with predictions on when Medicare or social security goes bankrupt, without demographic information?

Is Ron Paul and his supporters on this thread proposing that we simply fly blind, and obtain no census data with which to plan, to make decisions, or decide where spending and infrastructure priorities are?

With regard to race, I don't work with that data. So unlike conservatives, I'm not going to state (or more likely, "guess") with absolute certainty and expert knowledge that there is no value in that data.

I think the data is used to measure progress, both economic and social, with regard class, race, and gender, in this country. And how to allocate resources that are intended to help, for example, single mothers, or job training programs in low-income minority areas. But, I'm not an expert on the race data.

Personally, I wouldn't presume to play expert on a message board and issue a conclusive declarative statement that race and gender data has absolutely zero value in national policy or local decision making. But, I'm sure there's people who actually work with that data, than can explain it's significance with expert certainty.

Personally, I see zero-nada-zilch controversy that demographic data is needed in a modern nation state.

But, if Ron Paul feels we don't need any demographic data, that we can just fly blind, that's fine. I won't lose sleep over it because it's an extremist position that no one in a position of responsibility will ever support.
 
I’ll give it a C minus for spin.

I’ll count you in for agreeing with Ron Paul that the nation doesn’t need to collect any census data whatsoever on demographics, economics, and spatial trends.

The VERY FIRST census passed by the very first Congress, required the obtaining of information that went beyond a mere head count for voting purposes……and undoubtedly was collected to obtain information on the “military and industrial strength of the nation."





census2.jpg

NAILED THEM...

THREAD FAIL!
 
Back
Top