Background checks vs Census compliance
- Thread starter HiBC
- Start date
- Status
carguychris
New member
+1. Furthermore, now that aviation has been commonplace for 4 generations, why is it surprising and/or alarming that the federal government might know where your house is located?
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
The functional difference is that it has nothing to do with the census. Unless they intend to begin defining congressional districts by GPS co-ordinates then there is no need for such information to be part of the census. If Google or any other PRIVATE organization would like to drive around and take pictures, or fly-over shots and mark GPS co-ordinates then they have every right to do so.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
The coordinates are for the cruise missiles if you get ornery. 
Mike Irwin
Staff
"The functional difference is that it has nothing to do with the census."
Actually, it has a LOT to do with the census, counting the population, and maintaining census records over time.
Street names change, even house numbers on houses on streets can change over time. But GPS coordinates are static.
By cross mapping GPS coordinates to streets and houses, records can be updated FAR faster, and maintained far more quickly, accurately, and ultimately cheaply.
Actually, it has a LOT to do with the census, counting the population, and maintaining census records over time.
Street names change, even house numbers on houses on streets can change over time. But GPS coordinates are static.
By cross mapping GPS coordinates to streets and houses, records can be updated FAR faster, and maintained far more quickly, accurately, and ultimately cheaply.
Mike Irwin
Staff
" The coordinates are for the cruise missiles if you get ornery."
They need to order a few up...
They need to order a few up...
Mike Irwin
Staff
"fewer laws would get passed, which is a good thing. Fewer laws= more freedom."
I'm glad that you think so.
In fact, the opposite might well be true.
With such a large and unweidly congress, the reverse might be true. While few laws might get passed, those that are passed might be so pervasive and so all-encompassing that it would make the current law structure seem like a bargain.
The analogy comes from baseball.
If you're swinging from the heels with every pitch trying to hit home runs, you're going to strike out a lot.
But when you actually connect with one, it's going to be one hell of a blast.
I'm glad that you think so.
In fact, the opposite might well be true.
With such a large and unweidly congress, the reverse might be true. While few laws might get passed, those that are passed might be so pervasive and so all-encompassing that it would make the current law structure seem like a bargain.
The analogy comes from baseball.
If you're swinging from the heels with every pitch trying to hit home runs, you're going to strike out a lot.
But when you actually connect with one, it's going to be one hell of a blast.
Evan Thomas
Inactive
I think it depends slightly more on which laws are passed, not how many there are...
Most current Congresspeople (with a few notable exceptions) vote in the interests of their major campaign donors, not in the interests of their constituents; the "freedom" of the latter isn't their major concern. One benefit of some ungodly increase in their number might be that the $$ would have to be spread a lot thinner. (Well, I can dream...
)Hey kids! Instead of fretting about the census, let's all write letters to our Senators and Representatives about (fill in the issue of your choice)! Let's tell 'em we really mean it, and vote accordingly in the next election.
I don't think I buy the analogy, Mike. If every hit depended on working out a compromise among hundreds of hitters, they'd only ever bunt, and that not very often...
Last edited:
Every law passed, by its very nature, restricts a freedom that was previously held. Some restrict freedoms of one to the benefit of another- for example laws against stealing. That law protects one person's property from another by removing the freedom to steal.
The vast majority of laws passed in the last 100 years do not fall in to this category.
Mike Irwin
Staff
"If every hit depended on working out a compromise among hundreds of hitters, they'd only ever bunt, and that not very often..."
Or, everyone would pile in amazing amounts of crap as both adjuncts to the bill and as riders, especially riders.
If there are only going to be 3 or maybe 5 laws passed in a legislative session, you think the're just going to be tiny little piddling things?
What would be the drawback to driving in as much as possible in such a bill?
Not much, really.
There's no line item veto, so just as today a bill that the President wants might be weighed down with lots of stuff he doesn't. But, he really wants the primary item, so he might well sign it just to get that, or maybe never get it again.
In re-examination, though, I really don't think there would be all that much difference if the legislature were 1,200 or so members.
Why?
Because we still have a two-party system, and I don't see that changing much no matter how much you increase the size of the governing body.
Sure, you might get a few third-party candidates in, especially from the really psycho fringe areas of California where the Green Party simply isn't green enough.
But what would that accomplish? They'd be isolated, unproductive, and completely out of touch. They would have enough punch to make anyone want to caucus with them, much less ally openly with them.
Or, everyone would pile in amazing amounts of crap as both adjuncts to the bill and as riders, especially riders.
If there are only going to be 3 or maybe 5 laws passed in a legislative session, you think the're just going to be tiny little piddling things?
What would be the drawback to driving in as much as possible in such a bill?
Not much, really.
There's no line item veto, so just as today a bill that the President wants might be weighed down with lots of stuff he doesn't. But, he really wants the primary item, so he might well sign it just to get that, or maybe never get it again.
In re-examination, though, I really don't think there would be all that much difference if the legislature were 1,200 or so members.
Why?
Because we still have a two-party system, and I don't see that changing much no matter how much you increase the size of the governing body.
Sure, you might get a few third-party candidates in, especially from the really psycho fringe areas of California where the Green Party simply isn't green enough.
But what would that accomplish? They'd be isolated, unproductive, and completely out of touch. They would have enough punch to make anyone want to caucus with them, much less ally openly with them.
Mike Irwin
Staff
"Freedom to steal..."
That's funny, I don't recall seeing in any of our foundation documents anything even remotely like "the pursuit of life, liberty, and the five-fingered discount."
That analogy is flawed on its very face because it's well proven that people who intend to break the law in some manner are not deterred by laws that make such behavior illegal.
If you're already going to steal, your freedom isn't abridged because you don't give a damn one way or the other.
That's funny, I don't recall seeing in any of our foundation documents anything even remotely like "the pursuit of life, liberty, and the five-fingered discount."
That analogy is flawed on its very face because it's well proven that people who intend to break the law in some manner are not deterred by laws that make such behavior illegal.
If you're already going to steal, your freedom isn't abridged because you don't give a damn one way or the other.
From the OP
Lots of Comment!!
Now,we have established that non-compliance could result in a $5000 fine.I don't have a yellow sheet in front of me,and I don't know if being charged with breaking a federal law with a maximum penalty of $5000 could potentially tieup a background check.
There is a woman Senator(I think) who has this issue on her website.I think she is in Washington State.Among the questions on the long questionaire,to be administered by Acorn(can a felon work for ACORN) are the names and phone numbers of all in the household,what hour/minute do you leave for work? What hour/minute do you return home?They do not ask,"Are you a US citizen?
I believe in choosing battles wisely,but not being a doormat.It would be great if a few million Americans said "No"
But,it would be terrible if they failed the next background check
My capacity to think "Oh,there is nothing to worry about,they wouldn't do that...."
Is rapidly evaporating.
Lots of Comment!!
Now,we have established that non-compliance could result in a $5000 fine.I don't have a yellow sheet in front of me,and I don't know if being charged with breaking a federal law with a maximum penalty of $5000 could potentially tieup a background check.
There is a woman Senator(I think) who has this issue on her website.I think she is in Washington State.Among the questions on the long questionaire,to be administered by Acorn(can a felon work for ACORN) are the names and phone numbers of all in the household,what hour/minute do you leave for work? What hour/minute do you return home?They do not ask,"Are you a US citizen?
I believe in choosing battles wisely,but not being a doormat.It would be great if a few million Americans said "No"
But,it would be terrible if they failed the next background check
My capacity to think "Oh,there is nothing to worry about,they wouldn't do that...."
Is rapidly evaporating.
Every April 15, you are required to report to the government that is employed by your countrymen every cent you made over the previous year, so that they can determine how much of it they will take.
If one man takes my money it is stealing, if 1,000's do it, it is called taxes. What you call it does not change the fact that you are taking something of value that isn't yours.
Anyhow, the census no longer uses the long form. Instead, they are using the "American Community Survey."
Mike Irwin
Staff
"If one man takes my money it is stealing, if 1,000's do it, it is called taxes. What you call it does not change the fact that you are taking something of value that isn't yours."
OK, so you've identified the "crime" that is being perpetrated against you.
Why aren't you:
1. Reporting said "crime" to the police and demanding that the police arrest the perpetrators of said "crime"?
2. If the police aren't willing to help you, why aren't you exercising your Second Amendment rights to defend yourself against the perpetrators of said "crime"?
Come on! Rise up! Defend yourself! Be a man and show them who's boss when it comes to your money!
Could it be that you're actually not enough of a fool to actually claim that taxation under the laws of the United States, as passed by the duly elected representatives to our various governmental bodies, is actually a "crime" in the manner in which you're portraying it?
So much Constitution thumping goes on in these forums.
Well, here's a little tidbit straight out of the Constitution...
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises..."
Note how that doesn't say:
"The Congress shall use the bully power of the Federal Government to unilaterally steal the bread from the working man's mouth..."
Jesus wept...
OK, so you've identified the "crime" that is being perpetrated against you.
Why aren't you:
1. Reporting said "crime" to the police and demanding that the police arrest the perpetrators of said "crime"?
2. If the police aren't willing to help you, why aren't you exercising your Second Amendment rights to defend yourself against the perpetrators of said "crime"?
Come on! Rise up! Defend yourself! Be a man and show them who's boss when it comes to your money!
Could it be that you're actually not enough of a fool to actually claim that taxation under the laws of the United States, as passed by the duly elected representatives to our various governmental bodies, is actually a "crime" in the manner in which you're portraying it?
So much Constitution thumping goes on in these forums.
Well, here's a little tidbit straight out of the Constitution...
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises..."
Note how that doesn't say:
"The Congress shall use the bully power of the Federal Government to unilaterally steal the bread from the working man's mouth..."
Jesus wept...
carguychris
New member
+1. The other reason is that the census can be checked by overlaying the GPS coordinates on georeferenced aerial photographs. This is easily done with readily available GIS software. An auditor could readily check whether any areas were undercounted or overcounted by simply looking at which houses are marked on the photo.
GPS also makes it a lot harder for a dishonest census taker to sit on their couch and fill out bogus census forms while watching "Law & Order SVU" reruns and sipping Miller Lite.
If he or she has to hike to each house and log the GPS coordinates, it makes it a lot less tempting to commit fraud.If this seems ominous, keep in mind that many large cities and urban property tax appraisal agencies already have GIS systems with a lot more data in them than what the census bureau will have. Welcome to the 21st century.
Last edited:
I will await my census form... I will then answer the questions about population honestly and will further honestly answer every other question with the appropriate answer... "NOT APPLICABLE"...
Definition...
Brent
Definition...
I guess the ages of those living here is "related demographic information"... If they need any publicly available info, they know where to find it... If it isn't public info... well, then it is private isn't it?
Brent
"accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."
don't forget the rest:
and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
don't tell you that you believe that the rest of that sentence is being followed? As they are wont to do, the politicians have corrupted the meaning of 'general welfare' to mean anything and everything.
The fact that representatives are no longer in proportion destroys the apportionment rule that is found in Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3. The income tax was not unconstitutional before the Sixteenth Amendment unless it was misapplied, as was done with Pollock v. Farmers' Loan and Trust. The Sixteenth Amendment made the apportionment rule inapplicable to income taxes, including taxes on income derived from property, by providing that Congress has the power to tax incomes from any source without having to apportion the tax by population.
Last edited:
- Status