......
You guys make my head hurt sometimes.
Really? You don't think that the addition or subtraction of congressional districts to some states couldn't be a problem? Is there a conceivable political motive behind a politician trying to "know what's going on with the census"?
And what about the expenditure of funds to certain districts based on census data?
Obama may have a good reason to change the way the Census operates. I haven't heard it.
Look, the Census should, in theory, be insulated from political pressures, for the very reasons I have mentioned. Giving someone like Rahm Emanuel some kind of supervisory role over the Census seems to be a strange decision . . . unless you consider the obvious political motive. I think there's good reason to be concerned.
I want a good reason. Saying "is it a bad thing for a president to want to know what's going on with the census?" is not a reason.
He is essentially correct.
The original source of funds for food stamps is taxes, and those taxes stem from a variety of sources, mostly through individual and corporate income.
Those funds are then allocated by law to the ultimate recipients.
Personally, I don't have a problem with it, as it is in no-ones best interest to allow outright starvation in this country.
The missing piece of the puzzle for a lot of conservatives is, as I have pointed out, that we are waaay more interrelated than they seem to realize.
I already gave you a good reason. You just don't want to hear it. You are just a partisan hack who wants to gainsay anything someone with a D after his name says or does.
I want to hear a good reason why anyone would be concerned. "I personally don't know why Obama wants control over the Census." is not a reason.
That's bull . Now you're just calling names. "Partisan hack"? Dude, Republicans suck ass, too. The fact that I disagree with Obama or don't think he's some sort of well-meaning saint doesn't make me a partisan hack.
Seriously, what's the legitimate reason? I've given you plenty of reasons for concern. Tell me why I shouldn't be concerned. From what I can tell, your argument is, essentially, that we should just trust that Obama is well-meaning. Or that he has ideas, or something.
LOL He seriously doesn't get it. WOW.
Doobs, just to help you out here. No one is disputing the notion that the White House taking control of the Census would be politicizing it and generally poor. The dispute is that there is no proof thats happening other than people reading far too much into a statement meant to calm people down. You just picked it up and ran with it like a fool.
No you haven't given me any legitimate reason to be concerned. Your argument is, essentially, "Chicago politics!"
Pretty much.
As Confucious says:
"He who reads Fox News and believes he is getting the whole truth deserves to be spanked on the internet"
At least, I'm pretty sure it was Confucious that said that...
It's sad, I used to respect your takes. But this is pretty pathetic.
What happened to all that hope and change stuff, shouldn't change be more than which side is lining its pockets?
Look, I understand that Republicans and those who pretend to not be Republicans are scared less about a more accurate census, but if you are telling me that Obama has just announced in advance that he is going to be changing the figures once he gets them, I grant you a hearty lol.
Of course, by the time there's proof that's what Rahm's doing, it will be too late.
To advance the other side of that weak logic of yours, there is no proof that's not happening other than people who have their heads up Obama's rear drinking the Obama koolaid that everything's on the up and up.
What evidence do you have it hasn't been accurate?
Man, you guys are so sad.
Sorry I burst your idealistic bubble. I don't have much faith in politicians, period -- I'm just glad the Republicans are out of power for awhile. They really sucked. I had no big problem with Bush until he started a completely unnecessary war. I have no big problem with Obama currently.
If you show me a congressman/senator/president who gives up the perks of his/her office, I will vote for that person every time. Otherwise, yes, they are all lining their pockets one way or another. The best hope is something productive gets done in the meantime. Wasn't happening with the Republicans, so we'll try this for awhile.
It's not possible to.
Increases unemployment benefits certainly doesn't create jobs; it does the opposite. What is the goal? To create jobs, or to make sure people get paid?
Why doesn't the govt. just write a $50K check to every household in the country and do away with pay altogether? Why does anyone need to work at all? Maybe Haight-Ashbury had it right after all?
Obviously a rhetorical question, and we all know the answer, but unemployment is simply a degree of that philosophy, isn't it?
And again, I did NOT say that I was against all unemployment payments, in fact, as I have mentioned, my family has been the recipient of them; but they are not "stimulus".
If this had come from Karl Rove, I'm betting you'd be pretty fervently against it.
But whatever, if they politicize it, they politicize it, what goes around, comes around.
The census bureau itself has estimated significant undercounts in the past.
Y'all have a nice weekend, off to the slopes for a nice, romant.....errr nevermind, going skiing, but have three children in tow; nothing romantic about it, but it should be fun.
Great. Those people have to eat and pay rent in the meantime, so here we are.
Immediate stimulus to the economy does create and sustain jobs.Increases unemployment benefits certainly doesn't create jobs; it does the opposite. What is the goal? To create jobs, or to make sure people get paid?
No, not at all.Why doesn't the govt. just write a $50K check to every household in the country and do away with pay altogether? Why does anyone need to work at all? Maybe Haight-Ashbury had it right after all?
Obviously a rhetorical question, and we all know the answer, but unemployment is simply a degree of that philosophy, isn't it?
So now you are for it?And again, I did NOT say that I was against all unemployment payments, in fact, as I have mentioned, my family has been the recipient of them; but they are not "stimulus".
They absolutely have a stimulative effect on the economy, so they are indeed stimulus.
In a Census, some people are not counted. In 1990 we estimated the number of people not counted by conducting a post-enumeration survey separately from the Census and comparing the findings. The net undercount for 1990 is the difference between how many people were actually counted in the 1990 census (the official count) and the estimate of how many people lived in the United States at that time (the adjusted count). The adjusted count is an estimate based on the survey and the census enumeration itself. If the adjusted count is greater than the official count, the difference is called an undercount. In a few cases, the official count is greater than the adjusted count. When that happens, we have an overcount, which we designate as a negative number. The net undercount rate is the ratio of the net undercount to the adjusted count; it is often expressed as a percent.
The data indicate that populations were undercounted at different rates. In general, Blacks, American Indians and Alaskan Natives, Asians and Pacific Islanders, and Hispanics were missed at higher rates than Whites.
To cite an actual example, in the United States overall, we estimate a net undercount of about 4.0 million people in 1990, giving us an undercount rate of approximately 1.6%. The estimate for Whites is about 1.8 million, for a rate of 0.9%. However, although fewer Blacks (1.4 million) than Whites were missed, they were missed at a higher rate, approximately 4.4%. Children were also disproportionately missed in the last census. The net undercount for children - about 3.2% - is twice the overall rate.
http://www.census.gov/dmd/www//techdoc1.html
The less guessing, the better.
If WHAT had come from Karl Rove.
And somehow Rahm's going to solve this problem?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
