I really don't understand how anyone can trust government. It is in their interest to deceive, to appear to be successful at all of their endeavours, and to redirect blame away from them. I suppose that is why there are two parties in American government so that whoever is in power has someone to point the finger at when things go wrong.
"The more you read and observe about this Politics thing, you got to admit that each party is worse than the other. The one that's out always looks the best." Mark Twain
Why are they conducting the census?When they did it in 2006,I present myself to be counted;hoping that a new state would be created from my present state,Delta State Nigeria.
There seems to be no end to the complications of government, nor the corruption of it.
But we do need government; that's the thing of it.
Maybe.....the whistleblowers will have an impact eventually. The right to whistleblow is one of the things that helps maintain that system of checks and balances that is our law.
Thank you for this info.
Well we do need order and security and that is the function of government. It seems though as if government has taken on more than what's needed and more than what was intended. It's perhaps too big now reaching more into our lives and our pockets.
There we disagree. There is no real reason why we can't rely on the private production of security and even law services.
http://mises.org/books/private_producti … efense.pdf
Of course, we don't need government to live, only food water and shelter! So yes we could provide our own security, our own justice and be only accountable to ourselves, but that too is a power that corrupts.
Lee, that's a bit of misinformation there. While I'm the last to give props to the government, this bit of "reporting" is just wrong. When these people say they were "hired and fired" what they really mean is that they were hired to do a particular job like Non-Response Follow-Up or Group Quarters and their tenure ended at the completion of that job. Now if you do a good enough job you can be and are considered for either other jobs or for extra coverage in areas that need more help. Sometimes that means moving to another county and sometimes it means you're out of work for a week or two while the next job gears up. Personally, I'm happy to be working and working on such an important job. This does, after all, determine representation in Congress. I can't think of a more important job right now.
Now are the job numbers massaged? Sure they are. Few people know for example that "seasonal jobs" are massaged by the Labor Department to smooth out the data so things don't seem as bad as they really are. That's a practice that dates back to the Clinton Administration, although subsequent administrations have continued the practice.
What the article doesn't tell you is that all Census jobs are temporary in nature. I could run out of work tomorrow and have to look for another job. Or I could be doing this for another month or so. It all depends on how much work there is to be done. Do you have any idea how labor intensive it is to try to count everyone in the US? Plus all the households? Plus all the people in hospitals, nursing homes, dormitories, military housing, merchant marine, fraternities, homeless, etc?
Nobody who knows anything about the unemployment numbers really believes them. That's for the journalists and news organizations to quote and lull people into apathy. Smart people don't fall for tricks like that.
Plus all the illegal immigrants. I'm not sure if that figure is taken into account because I'm not very learned on the subject but I'm sure that you guys have to ask some kind of questions about that right?
No we don't ask about illegal status or not. It's one of the reasons the numbers of illegals is squiffy.
If you've filled out your questionnaire, you know the questions that are asked. If not, somebody should have or will be showing up to ask them. Most of the questions are demographic in nature. It's how we know that in the 1920's, blacks in the South migrated to cities in the North and West because we ask about race as one of the questions.
Brenda, for all intents and purposes the Constitution is gone. It started going from almost the time it was ratified. A chip here, a chip there so that by now it's been all but destroyed. Ben Franklin said it best when he said we had a republic, if we could keep it. We haven't kept it.
Actually, no, the U.S. governmental system isn't supposed to be set up so that one Party has to point the finger at the other.
It's set up so (or WAS set up, from my understanding) so that EACH Party would be similar, but that citizens could choose from the best of those; and so that each Party (as are ALL government Officials) WILL adhere to their Oaths of Office and basically hold THEMSELVES accountable. That isn't happening, especially these days. That's what the Tea Partiers are trying to correct; but in that effort they may be succeeding only in widening the base of the possibility of corruption, unknowingly.
The current Administration should never have been allowed to be nominated! It went against the whole system. That's the problem.
Sorry, but that's incorrect. The Constitution was set up without taking party affiliation into consideration, which is why the political parties early on tried to monopolize elections.
It's interesting to note that when I began work with the Census I took an oath before God to preserve and protect the Constitution just like our soldiers and politicians do. Unlike many of our politicians that oath means something to me. I don't take Holy Oaths lightly.
What Constitution do you protect?
The original one?
Or the one that's being changed/misinterpreted/wadded-up to suit liberalism?
The one where, between the plain lines, interpretations are being inserted to fit the agenda of the current "President" and his grab on the Census Bureau?
That too, is a bit of a misconception. I'm sure the current Administration would love to oversee the census, unfortunately for them, it's prohibited by the Privacy Act of 1974. Win one for the people of the US.
I really don't think you have a great grasp of the Constitutional Convention or what went on there and how things evolved during the Washington Presidency. There were no real parties during that time. At best you had supporters and opponents of the Convention. It wasn't until Jefferson and Hamilton had their falling out during Washington's term that you saw the rise of political parties as we know them today.
So no, the original Constitution made no provision for political parties as they did not exist at that time. That is why the political parties have been able to twist and warp the intent of the Founders as they have for over two centuries and why we really don't have much of a Constitution left anymore.
As far as the American Party system and how it should've remained....
Suppose you're the owner of a company that makes something...let's say...shoes. You know that shoes are important. You like making shoes. You need to hire another worker.
Three people apply for the job.
The first one gives good references from having worked in a leather factory; he's experienced and wants to work for you; he will probably learn your system well and even add his knowledge to it.
The second has a good work reference too, seems to be a steady worker, says he's a quick learner, and wants to work for you too.
The third has varied experience in different fields, is very ambitious, smart, and says he wants to work for you. But, when pressed, he says he's a great "people person" and deals great with the public as well as other workers, and that he really wants the job but that he's not interested in making shoes as much as he's interested in teaching you how to make something else because he really believes everyone should go barefoot. He can change your company into something else altogether.
Which would you choose to work for you?
Wouldn't you first dismiss the third person, and then choose the best one from the other two applicants?
That would be the smart thing to do.
That would've been the smart thing for America to do.
Sure we have a Constitution left.
It just needs to be preserved and protected and ENFORCED in its correct state, it's original meaning, not changed to fit this new Administration.
Brenda, you are both right and wrong. Consider the right to bear arms - originally it meant everyone could own a flintlock rifle, so they could protect against the government and/or help the national militia. Wouldn't do much good nowadays, but neither do we want folks driving down the road with a .50 Cal. poking out the roof of their car.
What about the issues of abortion? Life, liberty and all that of the fetus?
The Constitution has been changed and may be again. Interpretations change as times change, and so they should. The problem occurs when change occurs because of an ideological balance shift in congress instead of what is actually to the benefit of the country. Or simply a new interpretation because of a power struggle among the powerful and/or rich.
I think the one thing people leave out when interpreting the Constitution is....common sense.
We don't have to change the Constitution from days of flintlocks to know that each citizen has the right to bear arms to protect himself and his country. Common sense tells us (and told us then) that anyone who uses that firearm in offensive ways instead of defensive ways not sanctioned by morality and law should be disarmed and jailed or whatever fits.
We don't have to change the Constitution to expound upon the abortion issue. Common sense tells us that the right to life means exactly what it says---the right to be a person. The unborn have that right of course! And common sense tells us that when and if an adult's desire for "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" takes precedence over an unborn baby's rights, then that's wrong. Because it might make the mother feel good to pursue the "happiness" of destroying an unborn unwanted child, but that's not the right kind of happiness; it's a murder that keeps that child from ever pursuing his/her own happiness.
The same with other issues. When a person's "pursuit of happiness" will infringe upon another person's happiness based on morality and law, then that's wrong too. We can't put every desire, especially wrong desires, under the umbrella of the Constitution and try to sanction them.
People understand this. They just claim to not understand it, so that they can pursue their "happiness" at the expense of others' happiness.
Responsibility based on common sense and morality is what's needed and what's being shirked. And it's being shirked at the expense of common sense and our nation's basis.
You're right in that common sense is needed, but we need more than that because the most uncommon thing in the world is common sense.
Some will demand the right to own a .50 caliber machine gun to "protect themselves". Their common sense disagrees with mine, and without a constitutional interpretation to back me up we will find garages that make a national guard armory look like a firecracker stand. Re; Waco Texas the the Neo Nazis of Norther Idaho.
Abortion; Your statement is true only if you define "unborn" to include a statement that any fertilized egg is a human being. Many will not agree; "common sense" tells them that a collection of a few dozen cells does not make a person. Likewise, some will say it's OK to kill if the mother had a bad experience in the conception or if the unborn is defective. Common sense varies and is not common at all.
"We can't put every desire, especially wrong desires, under the umbrella of the Constitution and try to sanction them." Absolutely true, as long as I define what is right or wrong and need not recognize your input. The constitution is not designed to protect only a few or even the majority. It is designed to protect all it's citizens. That, too, is part of the reason the document needs interpretation - most people are not very interested in protection of minorities, just themselves and other people that agree with them.
That makes no sense!
Why don't people realize that a "collection of a few dozen cells" DOES make a person?
People have common sense. And by experience (either seeing it happen to someone, or by personal experience) we KNOW that those cells DO make a person because we see that person grow inside the belly and then be delivered into this world. It's simply a fact of life. Please tell me that you don't think people are stupid!? I know that people do HAVE common sense; but maybe you can tell me why they don't USE that common sense?! I have my own opinion, but I'd like to hear you explain that.
And just in case someone wants to say it's a "potential" human being but not a human being yet, let me say that human life is different from a collection of anything.
One can take a few chocolate chips and flour and other things, but until it's all put together and baked, it doesn't make cookies.
Humanity is NOT like that. Human life is different from inanimate objects. Even, different from other life like animals, etc.
Most of humanity has the intelligence and common sense to make decisions and conclusions. They just don't bother to use either one. Instead they use incomplete data, past history of similar conclusions, beliefs that influence conclusions without truly searching for and examinng data. It comes down to laziness. That is one reason it is not used.
Common sense is uncommon. What I mean, of course, is that common sense that agrees with MY concept of it is rare. For instance, Chinese families that we would both find to be kind, hard working people have in the past left their girl babies in the killing fields to die. Nor are they the only nationality to have condoned or even still condone similar actions. It is only common sense - the family needs a boy baby, not a worthless girl. Common sense - to them, not to us. I dare say the common sense of the aboriginies still living in the Australian bush would agree with our common sense even less. Common sense would dictate that the Donner party eat their dead, but I believe that few people would. These differences are part of the reason people don't use common sense - they do, it just doesn't match my (or your) common sense.
And finally, the construction of common sense. You seem to indicate that a fertilized egg is human and offer as proof that it is common sense. Yet millions of people disagree - are they wrong? No - they are wrong only in that they disagree with what YOU have DEFINED as human. You defined a human in the manner you did just as you defined humanity to be something other than animal, then declared those definitions to be common sense. It doesn't work that way, Brenda.
The construction of useful common sense needs to come from data, experiences, histories, etc. It cannot come from a knee jerk reaction to what we might want, or even believe, to be true. Yet almost by definition that is exactly where it mostly does come from - a knee jerk reaction.
You have defined humanity as a common sense approach; to show what I am trying to say just try to actually define what it is to be human. Is it shape? Intelligence? Genetics? Parentage? (I reject the concept of the soul - if I cannot test for it it does me no good however true it might be) I assure you that if you are honest with yourself, it is not as easy as it sounds.
Why do we need a census when every legal citizen has a social security number? If they want to know who lives where they can match social security numbers against DMV records. Wouldn't take millions of people to do that!
This would be far more accurate than a Census which misses 25% of the population anyways.
And the Government reporting unemployment numbers is a total joke.
So once again we can see there is no compelling reason to trust anything out of the mouth of Uncle Sam.
Not everyone has a social security number.
Not everyone has DMV records. My 6-year-old daughter doesn't. You can assume she lives with mer mother and me, but what if we were separated or divorced? I'm nclined to agree with Mike that you can get an aggregate count from SSNs but you can't get a count by district, which is the main goal fo the census.
On what planet? Try to get a bank account, a job, or go to school without one in the United States.
Have you ever met anyone who doesn't have one?
And it is still far more accurate than the Census.
"For 2010, it is estimated that Census Bureau workers will interview (or attempt to interview) about 48 million people across the country who did not mail back their Census forms."
Not everyone is being counted either. When you fill out the form you are not to include children in college. They say that the Census went out to college students, but no one in my daughters dorm got a census to fill out.
I am uncertain who said it, but "there are lies, damn lies, and statistics."
by SportsBetter 11 years ago
Are Democrats and Republicans the same party?If you look at the facts, you can see many similarities between Republicans and Democrats. One is they both get funding from Goldman Sachs. Why would the same people fund both parties? Both parties agree with The Federal Reserve printing money, going...
by Arthur Russ 3 years ago
As a European, the one thing I find most confusing about American Politics is that the Republicans are ‘Red’ and Democrats ‘Blue’; the complete opposite to most of the rest of the world.It does not matter how hard I try I can never get use to a ‘Right-wing’ political party using the colour of...
by ga anderson 3 years ago
Sanders' positive comments about Cuba's socialism prompted a look around.I found plenty of anti-Bernie thoughts, but I kept looking until I found one that I thought was least biasedMy thoughts:First, Cuba has a lot of problems, and not a few of them are caused by American sanctions. So, we are not...
by Ralph Schwartz 5 years ago
I've read countless numbers of threads about partisan political talking points over the years. They range from abortion, gun control, immigration, social justice, healthcare, protected classes of people, voting rights, and national defense; just off the top of my head. About half of...
by William Johnson 8 years ago
Do you think we need more than two major political parties in the USA?Do you think the country would be better with more parties represented on a bigger scale?
by Faye V 21 months ago
I feel this would be very hard to do on a Political forum. Most threads represented here are political in nature, and the line is well drawn via the thread title at times. It is very hard to get across that people, in general, should not be categorized, set into a group void of the fact that people...
Copyright © 2023 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|