Take the Quiz

Rana said:
Not a bother, I am a magnet! You are sweet to do that for me!
Click to expand...
Well....actually I'm bragging....you ever try to kill an internet troll? It's almost as difficult as getting rid of a business consultant once you've hired them or dodging a politicians campaign workers once you've made the mistake of donating money to them. You just can't get rid of them!! They're like human cockroaches.
 
the first question might be loaded...

1. is it truly a subsidy or welfare? because back then...that was not necessarily cheap....

2. i want cites to back up the first question. because if that is true, that is fucked.
 
i got a 96. the questions i got right were by sheer luck. I didn't know a single answer.

"
[SIZE=+1]85-110[/SIZE]you know a lot and should be an activist if you're not one already

"

.. the fuck?
 
<(' . '<) said:
i got a 96. the questions i got right were by sheer luck. I didn't know a single answer.

"
[SIZE=+1]85-110[/SIZE]you know a lot and should be an activist if you're not one already

"

.. the fuck?
Click to expand...
It was tough and I guessed on quite a few!
 
Most of it was intuition, like, I understand the principles they are discussing here, so C makes sense. That meant I was rarely off by much. Also, there's some questions where its like, you wouldn't even ask this question if the answer didn't come out to X, because it would be pointless...
 
Rana said:
You didn't learn anything? and what about the quiz was not correct information? Do not speak of my dear Molly!
Click to expand...
The site admitted that the questions were trivia, which is by definition useless information. The important thing to know is that government spends too much money and gets its filthy hand on stuff that it has no business.
 
Looks like I read a tad too much. :palm:


ngart1.png
 
Must say I just came across this article by Arthur Laffer, seems spot on with the quiz. Likely someone already posted the article, but just seems to fit in well here:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...5393882112674598.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

AUGUST 2, 2010
The Soak-the-Rich Catch-22
By ARTHUR LAFFER

Tax reduction thus sets off a process that can bring gains for everyone, gains won by marshalling resources that would otherwise stand idle—workers without jobs and farm and factory capacity without markets. Yet many taxpayers seemed prepared to deny the nation the fruits of tax reduction because they question the financial soundness of reducing taxes when the federal budget is already in deficit. Let me make clear why, in today's economy, fiscal prudence and responsibility call for tax reduction even if it temporarily enlarged the federal deficit—why reducing taxes is the best way open to us to increase revenues.

—President John F. Kennedy,
Economic Report of the President,

January 1963

If only more of today's leaders thought like JFK. Sadly, in the debate over whether to extend the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, and if so whether the cuts should be extended to those people who are in the highest tax bracket, there is a false presumption that higher tax rates on the top 1% of income earners will raise tax revenues.

Anyone who is familiar with the historical data available from the IRS knows full well that raising income tax rates on the top 1% of income earners will most likely reduce the direct tax receipts from the now higher taxed income—even without considering the secondary tax revenue effects, all of which will be negative. And who on Earth wants higher tax rates on anyone if it means larger deficits?


Columnist Kimberley Strassel discusses Nancy Pelosi's plan to have a tax vote before November, and OpinionJournal.com assistant editor Allysia Finley reports on the battle to reform state spending.

...
Click to expand...
 
neener neener I got 175...LOL!

Of course I just answered the questions in a way that supported the progressive ideology of corportations are evil.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top