T1B

Posted: **Tue Jul 19, 2011 4:48 pm**

no it isn't

Posted: **Tue Jul 19, 2011 4:51 pm**

Cuda wrote:no it isn't

Explain how it isn't. If I were to say, "Todd Helton is batting .324," would you correct me by saying, "No he isn't. His batting average is .324"? I contend it's a distinction without a difference.

Posted: **Tue Jul 19, 2011 11:38 pm**

mvscal, the one you got wrong was kind of a silly math question, but, it was correct.

you might try to argue that the capitalism question was an opinion, but all three of the other answers were clearly incorrect, so it has to be the right answer by process of elimination.

the ones i could see people missing was the one about the bill of rights and it's connection to the federalists/confederalists food fight back in the day. i knew i got it right, because for some reason that part of high school american history sunk in more than other parts. thanks again to mrs kazienko for beating it into my thick skull.

it's a shame that most americans didn't benefit from having a HS american history teacher as good as mine.

gettnig the one about fdr shamelessly trying to stack the SC was thanks to my gramps who told me what a POS fdr was and used that fact as one example.

Posted: **Tue Jul 19, 2011 11:40 pm**

so, B, which ones did you consider "opinion" and please give us your opinion why the answer you chose was better. there were a few that i did not know the right answer to, but, in each case, eliminating obvious wrong answers made it pretty obvious.

Posted: **Wed Jul 20, 2011 12:46 am**

Smackie Chan wrote:It's really not. If tomorrow the amount of tax revenue equaled gov't spending, would the debt magically disappear?

If taxes equalled spending there wouldn't be any debt.

Posted: **Wed Jul 20, 2011 1:03 am**

mvscal wrote:
Smackie Chan wrote:It's really not. If tomorrow the amount of tax revenue equaled gov't spending, would the debt magically disappear?
If taxes equalled spending there wouldn't be any debt.

as has already been 'splained, taxes=spending results in no deficit for that particular period of time. debt refers to total balance since the start of said gubmint. there can be no arguing the accuracy of the "correct" answer.

Posted: **Wed Jul 20, 2011 1:05 am**

You answered 31 out of 33 correctly — 93.94 %

Posted: **Wed Jul 20, 2011 1:22 am**

mvscal wrote:
Smackie Chan wrote:It's really not. If tomorrow the amount of tax revenue equaled gov't spending, would the debt magically disappear?
If taxes equalled spending there wouldn't be any debt.

If only. But there is already debt, so making taxes equal spending, which is how the question was worded, does not result in zero debt. It would only be that way if revenue always equaled spending, but that wasn't the question.

Posted: **Wed Jul 20, 2011 1:47 am**

Smackie Chan wrote:If only. But there is already debt,

Which is irrelevant to the hypothetical scenario posited by the question.

Posted: **Wed Jul 20, 2011 2:11 am**

mvscal wrote:
Smackie Chan wrote:If only. But there is already debt,
Which is irrelevant to the hypothetical scenario posited by the question.

Who said it was hypothetical?

Posted: **Wed Jul 20, 2011 2:33 am**

Smackie Chan wrote:
mvscal wrote:
Smackie Chan wrote:If only. But there is already debt,
Which is irrelevant to the hypothetical scenario posited by the question.
Who said it was hypothetical?

It's a test, dumbshit. If they wanted you to consider debt v. deficit, it would have been incorporated into the question. You can't assume parameters that aren't specified by the problem.

Posted: **Wed Jul 20, 2011 5:09 am**

jesus, douchebag, it's okay every so often to admit you were wrong.

Posted: **Wed Jul 20, 2011 5:30 am**

I will...when I'm actually wrong.

Posted: **Wed Jul 20, 2011 9:47 am**

mvscal wrote:
Smackie Chan wrote:Who said it was hypothetical?
It's a test, dumbshit. If they wanted you to consider debt v. deficit, it would have been incorporated into the question. You can't assume parameters that aren't specified by the problem.

I'm not the one assuming parameters that aren't given - you are. Nowhere in the question did it say to assume you're starting from a position of zero debt.

The answer they give as being correct will always be correct, irrespective of whether there's zero debt or a massive debt as a starting point. It's a catholic truth, and will never not be true. The answer you're flailing miserably to prove is more correct is only true when there's no debt to start with. And remember, this is a civics test to see how much the average American knows. If Joe Average ('sup, Cuda) doesn't know we are under a burden of crippling debt, he might choose the answer you did. But if the person taking the test is aware of the debt, and does not assume parameters (e.g., zero debt) not given, the universally correct answer is the one they give as being correct. Ya follow, Skippy?

Posted: **Wed Jul 20, 2011 12:49 pm**

Smackie Chan wrote:Nowhere in the question did it say to assume you're starting from a position of zero debt.

Did they say you're starting from a position of 14 trillion in debt or even five dollars in debt? No, they didn't say anything at all about the starting position of debt.

The answer they give as being correct will always be correct, irrespective of whether there's zero debt or a massive debt as a starting point. It's a catholic truth, and will never not be true.

If taxes equal spending, there will be no debt. That statement is true all day long. It isn't even arguable. If you want to insert other variables into the equation, they need to be specified. Right now you're attempting to argue that 2 -2 = -50.

Posted: **Wed Jul 20, 2011 2:50 pm**

mvscal wrote:
Smackie Chan wrote:Nowhere in the question did it say to assume you're starting from a position of zero debt.
Did they say you're starting from a position of 14 trillion in debt or even five dollars in debt? No, they didn't say anything at all about the starting position of debt.

I made NO assumptions about ANY starting point. I took the information given at face value and chose an answer that would be correct without having to assume anything. You didn't. You made the assumption that the starting point was zero debt, which was NOT a given.

If taxes equal spending, there will be no debt. That statement is true all day long. It isn't even arguable.

It's only true and inarguable IF the starting point is zero debt. If it's anything other than that, it's false.

Pick a period of time starting with today - a day, a week, a month, a year, 100 years...doesn't matter. For whatever period you choose, assume that taxes (revenue) equals expenditures over that period. After that time period, will the US have zero debt? Now go back and read the question on the test and see if your answer here matches your answer there. Do the same thing with the answer they give as being correct.

If you want to insert other variables into the equation, they need to be specified.

I'm inserting NOTHING into the equation. No additional variables, no assumptions. I'm using ONLY the information given.

Right now you're attempting to argue that 2 -2 = -50.

I'm arguing no such thing. I'm only stating that under ANY given conditions over ANY period of time, if Federal income equals outgo, the average amount collected from each person would equal the average amount expended for each person, and that the debt would be zero ONLY if the starting point is zero. Nothing more, nothing less. You're reading a helluva lot into the question on the test and the responses I've provided that simply are NOT in evidence or given as part of the question. And you've yet to provide any shred of evidence that what I'm arguing is incorrect. Because you can't.

Posted: **Wed Jul 20, 2011 3:27 pm**

it is an american civics test. they probably assumed you'd reference your knowledge of the country's financial past when answering a pretty basic question. as in, oh look, the late 90s: revenues exceed expenditures; that must mean the usa has zero debt! dipshit.

Posted: **Wed Jul 20, 2011 10:53 pm**

damn mv, just give up.

you are wrong.

SC has done a fine job of explaining why your answer could be incorrect. you have given no such example of how the correct answer is wrong. remove that answer from the choices and your argument holds some water, but, they didn't remove it.

Posted: **Thu Jul 21, 2011 12:43 am**

smackaholic wrote:you have given no such example of how the correct answer is wrong.

I have.

And my example is 100% correct, not up for debate.

It was, indeed, a horseshit question. The person who wrote the question is WRONG.

Matter of fact, as long as there's duties/tariffs/whatnot, there's absolutely no way for the answer they gave to their question to be right.

Period.

Some of y'all's must have skipped math class to study for civics class.

Posted: **Thu Jul 21, 2011 1:01 am**

Dinsdale wrote:
smackaholic wrote:you have given no such example of how the correct answer is wrong.
I have.

And my example is 100% correct, not up for debate.

It was, indeed, a horseshit question. The person who wrote the question is WRONG.

Matter of fact, as long as there's duties/tariffs/whatnot, there's absolutely no way for the answer they gave to their question to be right.

Period.

Some of y'all's must have skipped math class to study for civics class.

Dins, yours is at least arguable, however, i think you are wrong. completely open markets do increase productivity.

the real question is, is productivity the end all be all of an economy.

on that point, i agree with you. i think free trade with ruthless slave labor pseudo-capitalist countries is butfukking us in the mouf.

Posted: **Thu Jul 21, 2011 1:08 am**

Dinsdale wrote:Matter of fact, as long as there's duties/tariffs/whatnot, there's absolutely no way for the answer they gave to their question to be right.

Do you consider tariffs & duties to be forms of taxes? Not sure about whatnot.

Posted: **Thu Jul 21, 2011 1:20 am**

Smackie Chan wrote:
Do you consider tariffs & duties to be forms of taxes? Not sure about whatnot.

Of course they are.

But by "person," one would naturally infer that refers to "American persons."

And individual persons don't pay duties and tariffs, regardless.

If the Bangladeshis pays duties on their exports to America, how does that factor into "per person"?

And correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the USA try and buy up foreign debt, and lots of other things, to try and turn a profit? So, if they actually make a profit (or lose their shirt), does that not bring in revenue? Any revenues made (or lost), which there's always some, one way or another, renders their answer mathematically impossible.

So not only is the answer WRONG (beyond debate), it even brings a semantics debate into the fold, which we could debate until the end of time...

if that doesn't constitute a "horseshit question," then I hope someone can explain what a "horseshit question" is. (How much more can I tee stuff up for you fools?)

Posted: **Thu Jul 21, 2011 2:04 am**

Dinsdale wrote:by "person," one would naturally infer that refers to "American persons."

And individual persons don't pay duties and tariffs, regardless.

If the Bangladeshis pays duties on their exports to America, how does that factor into "per person"?

And correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the USA try and buy up foreign debt, and lots of other things, to try and turn a profit? So, if they actually make a profit (or lose their shirt), does that not bring in revenue? Any revenues made (or lost), which there's always some, one way or another, renders their answer mathematically impossible.

So not only is the answer WRONG (beyond debate), it even brings a semantics debate into the fold, which we could debate until the end of time...

if that doesn't constitute a "horseshit question," then I hope someone can explain what a "horseshit question" is. (How much more can I tee stuff up for you fools?)

As I already stated, the question was poorly worded, so we're in agreement on that. And we both answered the question "correctly," so we agree there.

Statistics/metrics can be sliced & diced & analyzed any number of ways. One way to do it would be to consider Federal revenue from all sources to be commingled in one big pot. Despite the fact that a good chunk of that money is not contributed by American individuals, there's nothing inherently "wrong" with taking the total amount in the pot, dividing it by the country's population, and considering the result, for sake of argument and analysis, to be the average amount contributed by each person, even though it's a given that some people contributed nothing and much of the cash wasn't contributed by Americans at all. It's strictly an analytical exercise at that point to set a baseline for comparison against expenditures. A reason for doing this might be because of the mathematical impossibility you cited of trying to come up with a completely accurate picture. Liberties such as that are taken all the time when doing statistical analyses.

Posted: **Thu Jul 21, 2011 5:01 pm**

Smackie Chan wrote:commingled

Good word.

Sin,
Smackaholic, and people who say shit like "free gifts, foreign imports, advance warning," etc.

Posted: **Fri Jul 22, 2011 2:18 am**

mvscal wrote:I will...when I'm actually wrong.

I thought he was talking to Smackie

Posted: **Fri Jul 22, 2011 1:59 pm**

Dinsdale wrote:
Smackie Chan wrote:commingled
Good word.

Sin,
Smackaholic, and people who say shit like "free gifts, foreign imports, advance warning," etc.

We actually use that stupid word at work. I think maybe we invented it. It is the word we use for sorting our outgoing mail.

Sorting, for you not familiar with the mail bidness, is running all your mail through this gizmo that sorts it by zipcode. the USPS gives a nice discount when you hand them a tray of mail already sorted to a zip or group of zips. The fewer zips in the tray, the better the rate.

Anyhoo, the worst part about using this made up word is that they insist on mispronouncing it. The double m, last I checked means the o should be short as in communist POS ('sup marty?). We or should I say, they, pronounce it comingling.

I have asked why they don't either spell it correctly or pronounce it correctly. The answer I get is STFU and just go change the feed tires again.

Posted: **Fri Jul 22, 2011 2:32 pm**

com·min·gle [kuh-ming-guhl]

The proper pronunciation is 'kuh' as in cunt. Emphasis is on the second syllable.

Posted: **Fri Jul 22, 2011 2:41 pm**

well, whata ya know, it is a real word. and we do butcher the pronunciation. we pronounce it co-mingling.

Posted: **Fri Jul 22, 2011 3:35 pm**

smackaholic wrote:I have asked why they don't either spell it correctly.

I bet there's a long pause followed by uproarious laughter every time you pose this question.

Posted: **Fri Jul 22, 2011 3:53 pm**

It's about as savory a word as "co-conspirator."

Posted: **Fri Jul 22, 2011 4:21 pm**

smackaholic wrote:
Dinsdale wrote:
Smackie Chan wrote:commingled
Good word.

Sin,
Smackaholic, and people who say shit like "free gifts, foreign imports, advance warning," etc.
We actually use that stupid word at work. I think maybe we invented it. It is the word we use for sorting our outgoing mail.

Sorting, for you not familiar with the mail bidness, is running all your mail through this gizmo that sorts it by zipcode. the USPS gives a nice discount when you hand them a tray of mail already sorted to a zip or group of zips. The fewer zips in the tray, the better the rate.

Anyhoo, the worst part about using this made up word is that they insist on mispronouncing it. The double m, last I checked means the o should be short as in communist POS ('sup marty?). We or should I say, they, pronounce it comingling.

I have asked why they don't either spell it correctly or pronounce it correctly. The answer I get is STFU and just go change the feed tires again.

You haven't even mastered three letter words yet, and you're up in arms over the misspelling of "commingling?" Sweet mother of fuck.

Posted: **Fri Jul 22, 2011 4:32 pm**

what'd you score on the civics test, einstein?

Posted: **Fri Jul 22, 2011 4:35 pm**

I didn't take it. Regardless, memorizing factoids isn't a true measure of intelligence, comprehension is. And the fact you still can't grasp remedial english really says something.

Posted: **Fri Jul 22, 2011 4:45 pm**

Dinsdale wrote:It's about as savory a word as "co-conspirator."

sin,

dins

director of the dept of redundancy dept.

Posted: **Fri Jul 22, 2011 11:35 pm**

Dinsdale wrote: people who say shit like "free gifts...",

Free gifts is a good. Some gifts are considered income and you are required to pay taxes on the value of the gift, so you couldn't consider those gifts free.

Posted: **Fri Jul 22, 2011 11:43 pm**

free gift is redundant as dins claims. of course the fact that it is an accepted phrase among normal american english speakers doesn't interest him in the least.

the gubmint having it's hand out per usualm doesn't change this.

Posted: **Fri Jul 22, 2011 11:49 pm**

smackaholic wrote:the gubmint having it's hand out per usualm doesn't change this.

What part of 'free' do you not understand?

Posted: **Sat Jul 23, 2011 12:40 am**

mvscal wrote:
smackaholic wrote:the gubmint having it's hand out per usualm doesn't change this.
What part of 'free' do you not understand?

I understand the part that makes free gift redundant.

If something is not free, it is not a gift.

Face it, you got busted by the redundancy sheriff.

Happens to the best of us.

At least you didn't say something was "for free". That is one that irks me. No telling what effect it has on Dins Shakespeare.

Posted: **Sat Jul 23, 2011 12:46 am**

Dinsdale wrote:
Smackie Chan wrote:commingled
Good word.

Sin,
Smackaholic, and people who say shit like "free gifts, foreign imports, advance warning," etc.

I suppose mingled could've been used, but it is usually used when talking about people getting together, whereas commingled is more often used when talking about things.

What's your take on reiterate?

Posted: **Sat Jul 23, 2011 12:39 pm**

smackaholic wrote:the gubmint having it's hand out per usualm doesn't change this.

Unreal...

T1B

Civics Literacy Test

Re: Civics Literacy Test

Re: Civics Literacy Test

Re: Civics Literacy Test

Re: Civics Literacy Test

Re: Civics Literacy Test

Re: Civics Literacy Test

Re: Civics Literacy Test

Re: Civics Literacy Test

Re: Civics Literacy Test

Re: Civics Literacy Test

Re: Civics Literacy Test

Re: Civics Literacy Test

Re: Civics Literacy Test

Re: Civics Literacy Test

Re: Civics Literacy Test

Re: Civics Literacy Test

Re: Civics Literacy Test

Re: Civics Literacy Test

Re: Civics Literacy Test

Re: Civics Literacy Test

Re: Civics Literacy Test

Re: Civics Literacy Test

Re: Civics Literacy Test

Re: Civics Literacy Test

Re: Civics Literacy Test

Re: Civics Literacy Test

Re: Civics Literacy Test

Re: Civics Literacy Test

Re: Civics Literacy Test

Re: Civics Literacy Test

Re: Civics Literacy Test

Re: Civics Literacy Test

Re: Civics Literacy Test

Re: Civics Literacy Test

Re: Civics Literacy Test

Re: Civics Literacy Test

Re: Civics Literacy Test

Re: Civics Literacy Test

Re: Civics Literacy Test

Re: Civics Literacy Test