Civic Literacy Test

[SicEmBaylor]

This is the kind of test that people ought to have to pass in order to have the privilege to vote. Should you be voting? Take the test and find out...

I made a 96.97% missing only #33.

http://www.americancivicliteracy.org/resources/quiz.aspx

[yermom]

why do you hate black people?

[rekamrettuB]

There's more than 33 questions? Ya I'm out.

[SicEmBaylor]

why do you hate black people?

:D

[yermom]

i missed #7 and #30 :O

[Curly Bill]

I've taken it once before, and if I remember right I missed one question, but I don't remember which one, and I'm not taking it again. ;)

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

Semi-unrelated, what do people's political compass' look like around here?
http://www.politicalcompass.org/test
Economic Left/Right: 1.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.87

[FirstandGoal]

90.91%

Fairly easy and a few of them I was able to guess correctly on just using common sense.

[Soonerfan88]

I missed Socrates & the Puritans. Guess I should have paid more attention in Philosophy.


As for my political compass, I'm pretty much a centrist.

Economic Left/Right: -0.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.62

[Penguin]

29/33

Economic Left/Right: -0.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.79

[yermom]

i'm a little right of Gandhi

[SicEmBaylor]

i'm a little right of Gandhi

Everyone is a little right of Gandhi.

[SunnySooner]

90.91, missed #8, 27, and 33. But I can still kick your *** on Jeopardy. ;)

[SicEmBaylor]

90.91, missed #8, 27, and 33. But I can still kick your *** on Jeopardy. ;)

My breadth of knowledge is very deep but not wide.

[sooner59]

My breadth of knowledge is very deep but not wide.

Mine is deep in certain areas. Outside of that it is pretty wide but of medium depth. I tend to be a jack-of-all-trades, master-of-none.....until I finish my masters in May, then that **** is on paper. :D

[sooner59]

90.91, missed #8, 27, and 33. But I can still kick your *** on Jeopardy. ;)

I'll take you on! I can't play trivia games with my friends and family because I always win, so I feel bad and suggest Yahtzee. I am what you would call....a fountain of worthless knowledge.

[sooner59]

Oh yeah and for my scores...

30/33 or 90.91% (missed #18,27,33)

Economic Left/Right: -0.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.00

[SicEmBaylor]

Economic Left/Right: 7.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.15

I'm a little surprised by that result, but it really has more to do with the way in which the questions were phrased.

[jkjsooner]

It would never work as it would probably easily impact some minority groups more heavily than the population as a whole. It would be seen in the same light as the reading tests that were used to keep blacks from voting.

I'll let you decide on the validity of those court rulings. For now it is what it is and this could not pass judicial challenges - at least so my non-lawyer self believes.

Frankly, I think the rulings have gone too far. They should be limited to intent. If the court thinks the intent was to discriminate then they should be able to overturn a rule. If the intent is clearly in the public's best interest and for uncontrollable reasons it impacts one group more than the other then the rule/law should be allowed.

[AlboSooner]

I think it's ok to vote without ever knowing that Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and Aquinas would concur that certain permanent moral and political truths are accessible to human reason

[OhU1]

30/33. Missed two questions related to Lincoln.

[cccasooner2]

100% on civics (It just means I knew the answers to questions they asked not what they could have asked, if that makes any sense.)

Economic Left/Right: -2.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.13
I guess I should be wearing sandals even in the snow? :(

[JohnnyMack]

30/33

[SicEmBaylor]

[]

[jkjsooner]

I think it's ok to vote without ever knowing that Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and Aquinas would concur that certain permanent moral and political truths are accessible to human reason

Agreed.

A couple of the questions seemed a little subjective to me and definitely not what should be on a test for voting rights. One I can remember is the globalization question. While 99% of economists would agree with the answer (increases productivity), there is still room for debate.

Personally, I think there is plenty of room for debate on globalization. It might increase productivity temporarily, it's debatable whether it's done so in every country and whether it will always do so.

While we have definitely benefited from globalization, I'm not sure this will always be the case. There might be a point where we realize that the period of productivity growth is over and we enter a period where our standard of living simply drops to the level of our competitors.

One easy way to imagine that this could happen is due to our national debt which in large part is a consequence of globalization.

Another is our loss of a talent pool. Due to differences in cost of living, our employees can't compete with China and India in certain areas. No matter how much our politicians push for it, many feel it is no longer advisable for students to go into math, engineering and science. We've seen enrollment decline in these fields and at some point this will negatively affect our economy.

The problem I have with economists is that they try to validate economic theories based on 10 or 20 years of evidence and in some cases it might take much much longer.

An obvious example is cutting taxes and increasing spending. If you just looked at our standard of living, hell, it's a great thing and can remain great for a long long time. If you applied the economic tests that some do to other economic theories (and turned a blind eye to building structural problems) then you would conclude that cutting taxes and increasing spending is good for a country's GDP. Fortunately this situation is so obvious that economists understand that we can only recieve temporary benefits from it.

I'll use the Greenspan anti-regulation stance as an example. It looked great for 25 years. It got to the point where nobody would be taken seriously by the economic community if he/she pushed for regulation of financial institutions. Afterall, there was 20 years of evidence supporting almost no financial regulation. Now, of course, you see a lot of economists backing down on what was considered obvious just a few years ago.


And I'm way off topic. The point is that I'd rather see these tests stick to questions of fact.

[sooner59]

Hey Sicem, gotta question for ya. IF...a test like this was required to be able to vote, which of these would you prefer?

1. If you pass the test, you can vote....all votes weighted equally.

2. If you score higher, your vote is weighted slightly heavier. (a 97% has more input than a 70%)

Just curious...

In fact, if anybody has an opinion, go for it...

[Curly Bill]

Hey Sicem, gotta question for ya. IF...a test like this was required to be able to vote, which of these would you prefer?

1. If you pass the test, you can vote....all votes weighted equally.

2. If you score higher, your vote is weighted slightly heavier. (a 97% has more input than a 70%)

Just curious...

In fact, if anybody has an opinion, go for it...

White, male, property owner...:D

[yermom]

Agreed.

A couple of the questions seemed a little subjective to me and definitely not what should be on a test for voting rights. One I can remember is the globalization question. While 99% of economists would agree with the answer (increases productivity), there is still room for debate.

Personally, I think there is plenty of room for debate on globalization. It might increase productivity temporarily, it's debatable whether it's done so in every country and whether it will always do so.

While we have definitely benefited from globalization, I'm not sure this will always be the case. There might be a point where we realize that the period of productivity growth is over and we enter a period where our standard of living simply drops to the level of our competitors.

One easy way to imagine that this could happen is due to our national debt which in large part is a consequence of globalization.

Another is our loss of a talent pool. Due to differences in cost of living, our employees can't compete with China and India in certain areas. No matter how much our politicians push for it, many feel it is no longer advisable for students to go into math, engineering and science. We've seen enrollment decline in these fields and at some point this will negatively affect our economy.

The problem I have with economists is that they try to validate economic theories based on 10 or 20 years of evidence and in some cases it might take much much longer.

An obvious example is cutting taxes and increasing spending. If you just looked at our standard of living, hell, it's a great thing and can remain great for a long long time. If you applied the economic tests that some do to other economic theories (and turned a blind eye to building structural problems) then you would conclude that cutting taxes and increasing spending is good for a country's GDP. Fortunately this situation is so obvious that economists understand that we can only recieve temporary benefits from it.

I'll use the Greenspan anti-regulation stance as an example. It looked great for 25 years. It got to the point where nobody would be taken seriously by the economic community if he/she pushed for regulation of financial institutions. Afterall, there was 20 years of evidence supporting almost no financial regulation. Now, of course, you see a lot of economists backing down on what was considered obvious just a few years ago.


And I'm way off topic. The point is that I'd rather see these tests stick to questions of fact.

i was thinking the same thing. too many subjective/policy type questions that could be debated.

[SicEmBaylor]

Hey Sicem, gotta question for ya. IF...a test like this was required to be able to vote, which of these would you prefer?

1. If you pass the test, you can vote....all votes weighted equally.

2. If you score higher, your vote is weighted slightly heavier. (a 97% has more input than a 70%)

Just curious...

In fact, if anybody has an opinion, go for it...

That's an interesting idea. So, if you score a 60% then you are credited with 60% of a whole vote. The biggest problem I see is that it would require ending anonymous voting. I have a friend who is a huge proponent of ending the anonymous vote, but I think it's a fairly important principle.

[SicEmBaylor]

And, yeah, several of the questions were highly subjective. You have to take into account that the test was created by ISI which is a conservative organization.

However, it is the sort of generalized civics test that I favor.

[mgsooner]

I done got 8 of 33. Is that good?

[sooner59]

I done got 8 of 33. Is that good?

Sure...if you're Canadian. ;)

[SicEmBaylor]

Sure...if you're Canadian. ;)

Sadly, I'm not so sure the average Canadian score wouldn't be higher than the average American score.

[mgsooner]

Sadly, I'm not so sure the average Canadian score wouldn't be higher than the average American score.

WfukfbfjIL4

[Blue]

So in a deep recession govt should lower taxes and increase spending?

I was glad to get that one wrong.

[mgsooner]

So in a deep recession govt should lower taxes and increase spending?

I was glad to get that one wrong.

Didn't you hear? Lowering taxes solves everything, always.

[Blue]

Didn't you hear? Lowering taxes solves everything, always.

The lowering of taxes I agree with, the spending not so much.:D

[mgsooner]

The lowering of taxes I agree with, the spending not so much.:D

Unfortunately all of these spending cuts that are allegedly going to happen are by and large a myth. That will eventually happen, but only when we are finally forced to do it in the face of ruin.

[Blue]

Unfortunately all of these spending cuts that are allegedly going to happen are by and large a myth. That will eventually happen, but only when we are finally forced to do it in the face of ruin.

I agree. Chinas President agrees...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703551604576085803801776090.html?m od=WSJ_hp_LEADNewsCollection

[Midtowner]

You answered 31 out of 33 correctly — 93.94 %

Economic Left/Right: -1.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.36

[GKeeper316]

voting isn't a privilage. it's a right guaranteed by the constitution.

sic's just a sad, hateful little man, pissed at the world.

[GKeeper316]

So in a deep recession govt should lower taxes and increase spending?

I was glad to get that one wrong.

theoretically, the money from the "increased spending" would find its way into the economy in the form of wages paid, services rendered, etc. however in todays environment, that money wouldn't find its way back into circulation, it would go to a bank to pay down existing debt.

[SicEmBaylor]

voting isn't a privilage. it's a right guaranteed by the constitution.
sic's just a sad, hateful little man, pissed at the world.
http://www.blurtit.com/var/mypictures/k/kmo/bush_o_rly.jpg
Really? Where in the Constitution does it guarantee that?
The Constitution prevents restricting the right to vote based on sex and race, but it does not explicitly guarantee everyone the right to vote. The closest the Constitution comes to that is requiring that the individual states be (small r) "republican" governments, but the definition of a republican style government can be pretty broad.

[GKeeper316]

http://www.blurtit.com/var/mypictures/k/kmo/bush_o_rly.jpg
Really? Where in the Constitution does it guarantee that?
The Constitution prevents restricting the right to vote based on sex and race, but it does not explicitly guarantee everyone the right to vote. The closest the Constitution comes to that is requiring that the individual states be (small r) "republican" governments, but the definition of a republican style government can be pretty broad.

here ya go skippy...






the Supreme Court ruled that the right to vote in federal elections was located in the Article I, section 2 of the Constitution description of the House of Representatives as “chosen. … by the People of the several States,” and in the references to the election of senators found in the Seventeenth Amendment.2

[SicEmBaylor]

here ya go skippy...

That's a Supreme Court interpretation not an explicit guarantee. Keep looking.

Edit: Here's a good explanation of my point: http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#vote


The Right To Vote

The Constitution contains many phrases, clauses, and amendments detailing ways people cannot be denied the right to vote. You cannot deny the right to vote because of race or gender. Citizens of Washington DC can vote for President; 18-year-olds can vote; you can vote even if you fail to pay a poll tax. The Constitution also requires that anyone who can vote for the "most numerous branch" of their state legislature can vote for House members and Senate members.

Note that in all of this, though, the Constitution never explicitly ensures the right to vote, as it does the right to speech, for example. It does require that Representatives be chosen and Senators be elected by "the People," and who comprises "the People" has been expanded by the aforementioned amendments several times. Aside from these requirements, though, the qualifications for voters are left to the states. And as long as the qualifications do not conflict with anything in the Constitution, that right can be withheld. For example, in Texas, persons declared mentally incompetent and felons currently in prison or on probation are denied the right to vote. It is interesting to note that though the 26th Amendment requires that 18-year-olds must be able to vote, states can allow persons younger than 18 to vote, if they chose to.

[GKeeper316]

That's a Supreme Court interpretation not an explicit guarantee. Keep looking.

Edit: Here's a good explanation of my point: http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#vote

if the supreme court interperates an article of the constitution in a certain way, then thats what that article means. thats why we have a supreme court and not a king, you retard.

the supreme court decides what the constitution says, regardless of its implicity or lack thereof.

[SicEmBaylor]

if the supreme court interperates an article of the constitution in a certain way, then thats what that article means. thats why we have a supreme court and not a king, you retard.

the supreme court decides what the constitution says, regardless of its implicity or lack thereof.

Wrong. When the Supreme Court interprets a Constitutional provision then that's what it means as interpreted by the Supreme Court. Unless of course you believe that the court and those who sit on it are totally infallible, free of their own political prejudices, and have never ever made a mistake in their interpretation. And if you think that then I'm definitely not the one who's the retard.

[Midtowner]

Maybe in the hypothetical sense, but the SCOTUS makes the rules we all have to play by until the SCOTUS changes its mind. For now, if the last on-point holding says the Constitution says voting is a right, then it is.

Unless, of course, SicEm thinks Marbury v. Madison is bad law...

Hell.. what's next? You going to argue that the gold standard still applies because laws passed by Congress only reflect the political and biased attitudes of Congress at the time the law was passed?

[jkjsooner]

I think you guys are arguing semantics here. In many areas constitutions (including our's) are intentionally vague and left to the interpretations of congress and the courts. Many times there are grand ideas expressed which are left to those entities to hash out exactly what it means.

If you were not allowed to look at interpretations a lot of the constitution would have little or no meaning.

On the other hand, I do believe in many states you had to be a land owner to vote so there is precedent to artificial rules on voting qualifications. And, as SicEm said, a 17 year old not being allowed to vote is one such qualification which is not specified in the constitution.

[OrlandoSooner]

10 out of 33 and my vote counts the same as yours...







Only joking, 30/33

[jkjsooner]

Ugh, one I missed was question 33. I picked A but I was complaining to myself that they screwed up the question and that deficit is the first derivative of debt. I was sure they wanted me to pick A so I did...

I have a tendency to do that at least once on every test. I'll convince myself that the person who made the test was wrong but answer the one I thought they wanted me to answer...

That being said, the answer is kinda meaningless. Of course if A = B then A / N = B / N. I saw "per person" and gave up on it before actually reading the full choice as it seemed absurd to present debt per person. I get it, their intent was to make sure you knew the difference between debt and deficit and they had to come up with something that was correct so they put the "per person" answer in there.

Which, by the way, is something politicians on both sides fudge on. They know their constituents (including me apparently) are math illiterate so they muddy the definitions to make themselves look better.

33) If taxes equal government spending, then:
A. government debt is zero
B. printing money no longer causes inflation
C. government is not helping anybody
D. tax per person equals government spending per person
E. tax loopholes and special-interest spending are absent

I think there was another one. I know what it was. #10. When I read "first ammendment" I had "bill of rights" in my head so I chose "right to bear arms" without reading the rest of them. I need to be more careful when I take these things...

[Pogue Mahone]

31 out of 33; I missed 33, too, and No. 13, the philosopher question.

Economic Left/Right: -5.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.51

[The Profit]

You answered 32 out of 33 correctly — 96.97 %

Average score for this quiz during January: 75.7%

You can take the quiz as often as you like, however, your score will only count once toward the monthly average.

If you have any comments or questions about the quiz, please email [email protected].

You can consult the following table to see how citizens and elected officials scored on each question.


There is no way that Simple Sarah from Wasilla passes this test.

[Ike]

I'm concerned with what the criteria would be to determine whether or not someone's mental illness should preclude them from voting. There are some who would say the simple desire to vote is a big enough mental illness to preclude someone from voting. There are always going to be those people...

Simple depression is considered a mental illness, but should depression alone preclude someone from voting? What about anxiety?

I just don't see how you could design a just and objective system to determine whether a person has the temperament or mental competency to vote.


:D

[oudanny]

Missed 8 and 33 - 93.94%. Politically I would say that I'm a little right of center but I don't really trust politicians to do what is in the best interest of the country. They seem too focused on narrow issues whether it be the extreme left or the extreme right.

[texas bandman]

Economic Left/Right: -4.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.87

I'm almost at the same place on the graph as Nelson Mandela....I hope I don't have to spend that many years in prison.

[texas bandman]

You answered 29 out of 33 correctly — 87.88 %
I missed:
Question #8 - C. appoint additional Supreme Court justices who shared his views
Question #13 - E. certain permanent moral and political truths are accessible to human reason
Question #29 - B. a resident can benefit from it without directly paying for it
Question #33 - D. tax per person equals government spending per person

[soonerchk]

I am smart enough vote and too smart to run for office.

[DIB]

31 of 33

Economic Left/Right: 4.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.97

Just call me Friedman

[Veritas]

30/33

Right like Friedman, but far more south on the Libertarian side. Basically, my stance is that you should be free to put whatever you want in your various orifices without government proscription or subsidy. :D

[JohnnyMack]

30/33

Right like Friedman, but far more south on the Libertarian side. Basically, my stance is that you should be free to put whatever you want in your various orifices without government proscription or subsidy. :D

Does that include mustard based BBQ sauce?

[Veritas]

Does that include mustard based BBQ sauce?
Is it the version based on natal stem cells? If so then yes!

[Sooner_Bob]

I think it's ok to vote without ever knowing that Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and Aquinas would concur that certain permanent moral and political truths are accessible to human reason

Who? :P

[texaspokieokie]

have to admit, i did poorly.

[NormanPride]

You answered 26 out of 33 correctly — 78.79 %

Answers to Your Missed Questions:
Question #4 - B. Would slavery be allowed to expand to new territories?
Question #6 - D. establishing an official religion for the United States
Question #7 - D. Gettysburg Address
Question #14 - B. stressed the sinfulness of all humanity
Question #15 - E. Thomas Jefferson’s letters
Question #27 - A. the price system utilizes more local knowledge of means and ends
Question #30 - C. decreasing taxes and increasing spending

I suck at history, #27 was confusing to me, and I do not agree with #30.

[delhalew]

You answered 26 out of 33 correctly — 78.79 %

Answers to Your Missed Questions:
Question #4 - B. Would slavery be allowed to expand to new territories?
Question #6 - D. establishing an official religion for the United States
Question #7 - D. Gettysburg Address
Question #14 - B. stressed the sinfulness of all humanity
Question #15 - E. Thomas Jefferson’s letters
Question #27 - A. the price system utilizes more local knowledge of means and ends
Question #30 - C. decreasing taxes and increasing spending

I suck at history, #27 was confusing to me, and I do not agree with #30.

If you thought that separation of church and state was in the Constitution, you have a lot of company.

31/33. I missed 33 and 14...durr.

Big shocker! I'm Libertarian Right.:D

[GKeeper316]

Wrong. When the Supreme Court interprets a Constitutional provision then that's what it means as interpreted by the Supreme Court. Unless of course you believe that the court and those who sit on it are totally infallible, free of their own political prejudices, and have never ever made a mistake in their interpretation. And if you think that then I'm definitely not the one who's the retard.

well i just asked my dad, who was a practicing attorney for 14 years, and i and many others would call him an expert on con law... i'm right and you're wrong. as long as 5 out of 9 justices say a particular article of the constitution means x, then it means x until such time as the court reverses its opinion.

i don't deny the fallability of the people on the court, and i admit that they can be wrong. but their decisions are law.

[SicEmBaylor]

well i just asked my dad, who was a practicing attorney for 14 years, and i and many others would call him an expert on con law... i'm right and you're wrong. as long as 5 out of 9 justices say a particular article of the constitution means x, then it means x until such time as the court reverses its opinion.

i don't deny the fallability of the people on the court, and i admit that they can be wrong. but their decisions are law.

I never said otherwise -- you're being dense. Obviously I know it's the law. My point is that I disagree with certain decisions. It doesn't take a Con-Law expert to know that when the court issues a majority opinion it's the law. I really can't imagine why you needed to ask your dad that or why it would take an "expert" in con-law to answer that question.

And, no, I'm not wrong. Again, the courts are hardly infallible. They make mistakes. It's the law, but it doesn't make them right. That was my point.

[JohnnyMack]

well i just asked my dad, who was a practicing attorney for 14 years, and i and many others would call him an expert on con law... i'm right and you're wrong. as long as 5 out of 9 justices say a particular article of the constitution means x, then it means x until such time as the court reverses its opinion.

i don't deny the fallability of the people on the court, and i admit that they can be wrong. but their decisions are law.

My Dad can beat up your Dad. My Dad was an attorney (as well as a Federal Judge) for 39 years. He says your Dad wouldn't know a mens rea from a men's wearhouse.

[GKeeper316]

I never said otherwise -- you're being dense. Obviously I know it's the law. My point is that I disagree with certain decisions. It doesn't take a Con-Law expert to know that when the court issues a majority opinion it's the law. I really can't imagine why you needed to ask your dad that or why it would take an "expert" in con-law to answer that question.

And, no, I'm not wrong. Again, the courts are hardly infallible. They make mistakes. It's the law, but it doesn't make them right. That was my point.

yes you did. you said the constitution doesn't guarantee anyone the right to vote, and i proved to you otherwise. now you're trying to say you didn't say what you said... or something.

[SicEmBaylor]

yes you did. you said the constitution doesn't guarantee anyone the right to vote, and i proved to you otherwise. now you're trying to say you didn't say what you said... or something.

You didn't prove otherwise at all. You merely pointed out that the constitution requires that our elected officials be...well...elected. That, in and of itself, doesn't guarantee the right to vote. Namely, it doesn't preclude limitations on the right to vote notwithstanding in cases of race and gender.

Having said that, I thought we were arguing over whether or not a court ruling is law which, obviously, it is. This is a point that I never contested -- I was merely pointing out that just because the courts interpret the Constitution in a certain way doesn't mean they're absolutely right...which obviously they are not.

You're trying to argue a point that I don't even disagree with you over. I think you're being intentionally dense in a Leroy-esque kind of way (no offense to Leroy).

[Mixer!]

http://www.compareinsuranceonline.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/argument-clinic-monty-python.jpg

[DIB]

Isn't the right to vote already limited by age and whether you were a felon (for a term equal to your incarceration) and whether you are incapacitated?

[soonerchk]

My Dad can beat up your Dad. My Dad was an attorney (as well as a Federal Judge) for 39 years. He says your Dad wouldn't know a mens rea from a men's wearhouse.

LEGAL DAD SMACK!!1!1!

[olevetonahill]

LEGAL DAD SMACK!!1!1!

I'll Take JMs dad over Gomers.;)

[texaspokieokie]

Isn't the right to vote already limited by age and whether you were a felon (for a term equal to your incarceration) and whether you are incapacitated?

also, decapitation will dis-qualify you.

[jkjsooner]

well i just asked my dad, who was a practicing attorney for 14 years, and i and many others would call him an expert on con law... i'm right and you're wrong. as long as 5 out of 9 justices say a particular article of the constitution means x, then it means x until such time as the court reverses its opinion.

i don't deny the fallability of the people on the court, and i admit that they can be wrong. but their decisions are law.

One thing I've learned is that when you argue with lawyers about these issues, you have to state whether you're arguing from a philosophical standpoint or a legal standpoint.

Someone who is arguing from a more philosophical standpoint isn't going to be swayed by judicial precendence. It doesn't mean they disagree with the concept of judicial precedence but that they're simply arguing from a different starting point.

My argument is that there is only so far you can go when discussing the Constitution without taking SCOTUS ruling into account simply because parts of the Constitution is left vague and meant to be interpreted by either congress or the courts.

[texaspokieokie]

i'm not a legal expert (or any kinda expert), but sometimes i think the SC decisions are wrong.

also, when a 5-4 vote occurs, that means 4 of the "experts" thot it was wrong.

one old man (or woman) gets to decide something for the other 300 mil.

[Mixer!]

Sh!thouse lawyers, unite! :D

[Midtowner]

One thing I've learned is that when you argue with lawyers about these issues, you have to state whether you're arguing from a philosophical standpoint or a legal standpoint.

Yup.

The difference between arguing about what the rules actually are and what they should be.

[yermom]

yeah, 90% of the time i don't really care what the law is :D

[Half a Hundred]

#33 was a terrible question. For example, if a balanced budget included provisions for social safety net disbursements, along with a highly progressive tax scale including zero tax at the bottom, would everyone's tax per person equal the government spending per person? I'm the biggest proponent of progressive taxation that there is, but I can't even defend that assertion.

[prrriiide]

31/33. Missed #13 on Socrates & #33 on taxes.

Economic Left/Right: -5.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.79

[Midtowner]

would everyone's tax per person equal the government spending per person?

On average yes. Per person, no. The question was about spending per person. Nowhere in the question did it talk about the amount each person ultimately paid.

[Fraggle145]

30/33

Economic Left/Right: -5.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.90

[jkjsooner]

#33 was a terrible question. For example, if a balanced budget included provisions for social safety net disbursements, along with a highly progressive tax scale including zero tax at the bottom, would everyone's tax per person equal the government spending per person? I'm the biggest proponent of progressive taxation that there is, but I can't even defend that assertion.

As I see it, the goal of the question was to determine if a person knew the difference between debt and deficit.

You're also misinterpreting the correct answer (as I did when I scanned it). All they're saying is if A = B then A/N = B/N. They're not saying each person pays the same tax and gets the same benefit. They're saying average tax per person = average benefit per person.

I don't like the question but the answer isn't wrong.

[Half a Hundred]

As I see it, the goal of the question was to determine if a person knew the difference between debt and deficit.

You're also misinterpreting the correct answer (as I did when I scanned it). All they're saying is if A = B then A/N = B/N. They're not saying each person pays the same tax and gets the same benefit. They're saying average tax per person = average benefit per person.

I don't like the question but the answer isn't wrong.

It's semantically unclear, and thus a crappy question. If they wanted to talk about averages, they should have said average.

[TUSooner]

Missed 32 & 33 because I did not read my answers carefully. :O But I was unsure of a couple of my right answers.

Using this test a voting requirement is absurd, though, as is generally the case with SicEm's suggestions for good government.

[Midtowner]

It's semantically unclear, and thus a crappy question. If they wanted to talk about averages, they should have said average.

Amount per person is an average.

You just didn't comprehend the question.

[ouwasp]

90.91%

missed 13, 27,33...I almost chose the correct answer on #13, darn it...