You sound confused.

FYI: I am not registered with a political party. I don't like nearly anyone in national US politics. Some are much better than others. Some seem alright but it's not my work or life and I don't know about the stories of people in all of the lesser positions. This isn't a BASH-OBAMA-RAMA thread. This is a thread about an action he's taking/planning to enact. This is a thread about me finding NO alternative motivation or reason for this change other than corruption. I've explained that this change is problematic legally. I've explained that this change is problematic for politicizing the census. Democrats have long advocated using estimates in the census which the vast majority of commerce secretaries have strongly advocated not using. I'll continue asking for any other motivation/reasons Obama could have for this move other than politicizing the census and using whichever estimates Rahm wants. All of the experts have advised against this method but it's politically advantageous for Obama to use so he's quietly seeking to do it anyway for the 2010 census. I'm still waiting on alternative reasons this is a good idea.

The Office of the President of the United States should do what it can to avoid even the appearance of politicizing such an important task. Here Obama is openly politicizing it against the advice of nearly every Commerce Secretary and no one has thus far even proposed a single alternative reason that this is a good idea, let alone proposed a feasible one.

>>Global Trade within a resource-based economy would still function as it does today, except without the need to purchase respective nations' currencies. <<

Such a need does not exist now.

>>Actually, if you think about what I say above<<

We thought about it, then we shredded it because you're wrong.

>>Now, there is a world equivalent value of x resource: 1 tonne of sweet potatoes in New Guinea would = 1 tonne of sweet potatoes in Britain, because, of course, 1 tonne of sweet potatoes would = (just as an example) 20 tonnes of grain EVERYWHERE.  It SOLVES the inequality of the current monetary system.<<

Your sweet potato example is lovely and pointless. We can already exchange sweet potatoes and grain with money.

>>False.  Banks would not only still exist, but they would also loan resources.<<

Many resources don't stay as well as currency. Especially when you don't refrigerate or freeze them.

>>A resource based system would not result in the scarcity of resources.  What do you think people would putting in their savings accounts?  RESOURCES<<

This is just silly.

>>Yes there is: a better standard of life.<<

We've been over this a dozen times. It would rape and pillage people's standards of living and create great poverty.

>>I'm, going to stop wasting my time blowing your points out of the water.  I'd advise you to try and explain what this 'dutch disease' thing is more precisely, because whatever it is, I don't think you understand it well enough.<<

You're like 12. You haven't addressed anyone's points. Give it up.

I'm 100% wrong because you can't google and click the first half dozen results? I'm sorry you don't know any decent news media sources to reference and find out what's going on. Please take note of your level of awareness.

"Why Obama Wants Control of the Census "
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123423384887066377.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
- - - - -

- - - - -
Funny how the guy who doesn't estimate/sample is the guy who can't give accurate numbers; it's the ones who have no problem making up numbers who we should depend on!

"Obama shifts Census oversight, triggering angry protest by Republicans"
http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=41986&dcn=todaysnews
- - - - -

- - - - -
So he's not just a hypocrite when he talks about transparency, but also when he talks about bipartisanship.
- - - - -

- - - - -
Oh he'll make sure they're counted. Or not "counted," certainly not, but a bigger than accurate number will be given to them to ensure that they are represented!

I'm sure I could find more sources. Some of you are having trouble. My advice is, just don't vote or post if you have no idea what's going on.

No. I'm not a socialist. They'd throw me under a train or in front of a bus, regardless of my intentions and whether or not I was right. The new definition of equality means you're only equal if you agree with their endless grabs for more power. Unless you agree with their ideal that we need to create the largest government possible (we're aiming at as close to God as we can legislate) to take care of us and make everything right, you're not included with the "us" crowd that everything must be "equal" to.

LOL. I didn't know it was you. Not many old names still around here.  You're way too old for my incompetent children comment to apply to you.

Now I'm calling you old. Nothing's coming out right tonight!

Thank you for that fine example of willful ignorance, Econamatrix. You have no regard for the subject matter of this thread but instead make completely irrelevant references to "the last crowd."

Thank you for your contribution as well, Gladiator. The more people who respond thinking they're posting "in defense" of President Obama who have NOTHING of substance to say, the more it appears you have NO explanation for this change.

Maybe it's not important to you that every Commerce Sec. (save Clinton's) has advised strongly against estimation ("sampling") in conducting the census, Question. Maybe it's not important to you that President Obama is politicizing the cenus, which determines Congressional representation and has a large role in determining the distribution of federal funds. I suppose if you just don't care that this method yields inaccurate numbers in whichever direction that the conductor of the census wants it's not important. I suppose if you just don't care that the White House can manipulate these subjective numbers, whereas the Department of Commerce had to publish its methods and regulations (the White House is granted much more secrecy in the way it conducts its business), then it's not important. Thank you for informing us of your apathy.

I shall respect him when he mails me a bomb!

I think that came out wrong.

Maybe he was aiming for it but that's the closest he could find? Kids these days are just so incompetent. I remember my brother bringing that home on discs, testing bombs he and associates had made in the back yard... They just don't make 'em like they used to.

Jump. Jump now.

It's 2009. You don't have to eat your family because of a bad fishing year anymore.

Edit: Yes, I did just say "It's 2008."