31 Comments

EDD says...

The ECONOMICS question "Cut taxes and government spending by 50% or more" is probably the most ill-advised question I've ever seen on a socio-economic quiz, even if one assumes we're talking US economy here and that only Americans take the test. That said, with questions like "End "corporate welfare." No government handouts to business" and "Let people control their own retirement" it would take a blind man to not notice the bias.

That said, my scores were 60% and 40% respectively.

NetRunner says...

100% Personal, 20% Economic, Liberal.

The only economic question that I answered in a way other than "Disagree" was "End "corporate welfare." No government handouts to business.", to which I answered agree.

I suspect this is geared towards trying to get liberals and independents to accidentally self-identify as Libertarians. The Personal section is written like liberal social orthodoxy, and the Economic section uses charged terms to encourage you to agree.

But then, the title bar at the top does say "Advocates for Self-Government".

JiggaJonson says...

Your PERSONAL issues Score is 60%.
Your ECONOMIC issues Score is 0%.

LIBERAL

Am I the only person who answered Disagree to all the economy questions?

-Without some of the corporate welfare that went on, our recession would have been a full blown recession similar to the one that hit china under the same circumstances.

-Without gov barriers on free international trade we'd be screwed because american products cost are high to very high compared to international slave labor crap

-If people controlled their own retirement they simply wouldn't do it OR they'd end up losing ALL their money (as opposed to MOST of their money) in a financial meltdown like the current recession

-Private charity would probably only happen if you read a chapter of the gospel in exchange for a ham sandwich

-And a cut of 50% of government spending is simply naive
------------------------------------------------------------

I'm sure a lot of people will disagree with me but I feel like that's what living in a community is; it's being responsible as a citizen for participating in your own government and using that government for the benefit of your entire society.

[Edit] Also avoid playing the blame game whenever possible. I really like this video when I saw it recently: http://www.videosift.com/video/Victim-Blame-Rationalizing-The-Opposition-To-Healthcare

blankfist says...

-Without some of the corporate welfare that went on, our recession would have been a full blown recession similar to the one that hit china under the same circumstances.

-Without gov barriers on free international trade we'd be screwed because american products cost are high to very high compared to international slave labor crap

-If people controlled their own retirement they simply wouldn't do it OR they'd end up losing ALL their money (as opposed to MOST of their money) in a financial meltdown like the current recession

-Private charity would probably only happen if you read a chapter of the gospel in exchange for a ham sandwich

-And a cut of 50% of government spending is simply naive



There's no proof of any of this. 1) There's no proof the bailouts helped the recession, and it was manipulation of markets that lead to the recession in the first place.

2) With Social Security, the government's version of the Ponzi Scheme, you are essentially saying people are too irresponsible and stupid to live with freedom and self-reliance. And everyone, even if they choose not to save, should be guaranteed a payout when they retire.

3) Private charity happens all the time. Even in hospitals, there are charity wings. People are very generous. But, less want to give when there's a safety net already in place and they're taxed so heavily as it is.

4) Cutting taxes by 50% is not nearly enough. Abolishing the income tax completely would only cut the Federal income by 1/3. Think about that. Why do they need so much money to operate? Is it to pay for those 700+ hegemonic military bases in 130 countries overseas? Yeah, we couldn't do without those.

Fusionaut says...

Your PERSONAL issues Score is 80%.
Your ECONOMIC issues Score is 50%.

According to your answers, the political group that agrees with you most is Centrist.

I was on the Top left hand of the centrist box. So it was like the conjunction of liberal, libertarian, and Centrist

GeeSussFreeK says...

>> ^Psychologic:
Would slander laws be included under government censorship of free speech?
Would laws prohibiting intercourse in public places be considered a law regarding sex between consenting adults?


Yes. Though, I think it was aimed more towards gay marriage, hard to say. It also doesn't really draw a difference between levels of government. I scored 100% assuming it was all federal.

Also, your ideals there seem a bit distant from history Jigga

^1. Why weren't any dot-coms bailed out back in the day? Because they didn't have powerful lobbies. Corporate welfare encourages corporate interference in government, as some have called it, a corpocracy. Where the rich write the laws for their benefit at the cost of every other competing business. It also encourages coercion and collusion in government against the good of the people. Why do Americans pay twice as much as the rest of the world for sugar? Because sugar lobbies have successfully "protected" themselves from compeating in the world market, at the tune of 6 billion a year. There is no logical limit to bailing out one company vs another either. It is completely arbitrary. To contine with the original idea of the dot-coms, we are doing fine again even without the bail out that didn't happen. You don't need free money to make things work, in fact, it was the easy free money that make the dot-com bubble in the first place...easy money is bad money usually.

^2. You don't seem to understand exchange rates or trends in labor vs cost when it comes to trade. Either that, or you are purposefully being inflammatory, I can't figure out which. When money goes out of a country and into another, that foreign money becomes more valuable over time. In due course it becomes more costly to buy overseas goods than domestic goods, jobs that fled overseas come back. In my industry, we are seeing that happen right now; all the phone desk jobs went overseas, now jobs are coming back in droves because of the weak dollar. Some would say that because places like japan subsidies things like cars, then we should tariff them so our cars can compete. But, if the government of japan wants to buy every American part of a car, then over time the dollar will become stronger and it will not be cost effective for them to do so for long. Things shift in this model, from country to country until things more of less reach an equilibrium. Protectionism encourages those gaps that you would seek to rectify. Your heart is in the right place my friend, we just need to move your head there as well.

^3. I don't think you understand the circumstances of SS. You are trying to spin it like Bush did the war. First it was about one thing, now another. It was about weapons, now it is about freeing Iraq and terrorism. SS was about the great depression. You had peoples savings wiped out in what was arguably a government caused financial catastrophe (a failure of the fabled fed, lender of last resort who didn't lend as a last resort...oops). Once the mistake had been made, and the bank system collapsed, large portions of savings of American's were wiped out instantly. SS was created to solve this problem. So it is not that people can't and didn't save, but they did and now it is gone. If you want to spin SS, then realize that is what you are doing. But the great depression is over, and so should SS.

^4. Are you saying you don't think organizations like the red cross exist? Are you saying that you can't have a charity that isn't faith based? If that is so, then you are free to make one, like right now...this very instant. It isn't very hard now with the web, you just need gumption to go and do it...and that is the American way (Gumption I mean, not the internet...although...)!

^5. This isn't really an argument. I might as well say not cutting the budget is naive. An argument needs a real predicate, this is just an attack. You would have to show why it is naive. I could talk about why it is good, but that would be giving this non-argument more credit than it is worth.

JiggaJonson says...

I'm going to address some of this in no particular order

"You are essentially saying people are too irresponsible and stupid to live with freedom and self-reliance

That's exactly what I'm saying. I feel like our current system isn't ideal but it's much better than nothing. I would rather people participate in the regulatory process than plan their own retirement. And to ^GeeSussFreeK, No I'm not trying to spin it in any particular direction (like a magician, 'Watch THIS hand while THAT hand gives you retirement'). I feel like there is a genuine need for social security because I honestly believe people on the whole are irresponsible. And should those individuals be made to suffer? Probably, but I feel strongly that the other responsible people in their lives who have to pick up the pieces of their shattered lives should have less of a burden (this is one of many sundries).

--------------------------
"Private charity happens all the time."

A heavy handed tactless comment on my part. Yes of course I realize private charities like the Red Cross and others like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, etc. exist. Yes, as my two critics above mentioned, an array of fantastic private charities exist already despite government welfare. But notwithstanding both private and government programs, there are herds of families that find themselves starving, homeless or otherwise destitute. Why you want to do away with government welfare is beyond my current understanding of poverty in America.

--------------------------
"Cutting taxes by 50% is not nearly enough."

This is the one point I think there is some wiggle room on. I absolutely agree that military spending is often superfluous and I mean that in an egregious way. If anything though, I think the funds the government has need to be redirected instead of cut. Start investing in things like education, public transportation systems and green energy instead of spending millions on bombs and jets that don't work.

Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

New Blog Posts from All Members