PDA

View Full Version : Might be test time eh?



Uncle Bill
10-31-2010, 01:17 PM
If you think you are having a problem discerning where you stand in the political spectrum, take this brief exam. Very short and quite revealing. Found myself to be on the cusp of conservative/libertarian...50% personal, 90% economic. Hadn't realized I was so transparent, since they didn't have a 'redneck' slot on the wheel.

UB







So, you think you know where you stand, politically. The result from this short test may surprise you and give you some food for thought.You'll be asked just 10 questions, and then it instantly tells you where you stand politically. It shows your position as a red dot on a "political map" so you'll see exactly where you score.The most interesting thing about the Quiz is that it goes beyond the Democrat, Republican, and Independent.The Quiz has gotten a lot of praise. The Washington Post said it has "gained respect as a valid measure of a person's political leanings." The Fraser Institute said it's "a fast, fun, and accurate assessment of a person's overall political views." Suite University said it is the "most concise and accurate political quiz out there."Click on the link below...

Click here: World's Smallest Political Quiz (http://www.theadvocates.org/quizp/index.html)

subroc
10-31-2010, 01:55 PM
70-70

Libertarian

YardleyLabs
10-31-2010, 03:37 PM
The questions themselves are interesting.


Government should not censor speech, press, media, or internet: I agreed with this, but one has to accept that eliminating censorship would include eliminating all laws that currently restrict child pornography.

Military service should be voluntary. There should be no draft: I answered maybe on this one. I love the fact that neither of my children had to worry about the draft. However, I also think the absence of a draft promoted the idea of a "painless" war. Also, if we ever again face a war of national survival, I would hope that the draft would be instituted again quickly.

There should be no laws regarding sex for consenting adults: I agree with this.

Repeal laws prohibiting adult possession and use of drugs: I answered maybe on this one. The issue is not simply recreational drugs, but all laws currently requiring prescriptions for drugs, and would not distinguish between drugs that might simply make you high as distinct from those that might be fatal or used for crimes such as date rape.

There should be no National ID card: I I agreed with this, but there will be no effective enforcement of immigration laws in the absence of such an ID.

End "corporate welfare." No government handouts to business.: Corporate welfare may be in the eyes of the beholder. Is a special tax deduction for one industry, but not another, a form of corporate welfare? hat about businesses that exist almost solely because of their sales to government? How do you classify publicly financed football stadiums or special incentives provided for "economic development"? All these are forms of corporate welfare. I answered "maybe".

End government barriers to international free trade. I agreed on this. However, there are a lot of ramifications including, for example, the elimination of all farm subsidies since subsidizing an industry effectively precludes competition. Also, our own companies operate at a serious disadvantage as long as we expect them to perform functions such as financing employee health insurance that are not borne by companies in other countries.

Let people control their own retirement; privatize Social Security.: I disagreed with this. For those that agree, one question will be how to reimburse those who have paid in hundreds of thousands of after tax dollars and received no benefits.

Replace government welfare with private charity.: This is, of course, a misstatement. The only real option is to eliminate government welfare. There i no chance that it will be replaced by private charity. I voted no.

Cut taxes and government spending by 50% or more.: Federal government revenues now total about $2.2 trillion so this would reduce Federal spending not by 50%, but by about 70-80%. The total Federal budget left would be less than we now spend on the mix of defense and debt service. At the local level, public schools would largely be forced to close, as would all state universities in the country. The rhetoric might sound good, but I think few would be willing to live with the consequences. I voted no.

Needless to say, I scored as a left/libertarian.

luvmylabs23139
10-31-2010, 04:01 PM
70/100 Libertarian. No big suprise.

Marvin S
10-31-2010, 05:05 PM
60 - 100 - Don't believe doping is victimless & certainly have no problem showing my ID within reasonable bounds.

Being a Right leaning Libertarian is not all that bad :cool:.

biggeorge50
10-31-2010, 05:53 PM
Centrist - just what my far right son says I am. However, my far left brother says I'm far right. He says my son is so far right he disappears over the horizon.

BonMallari
10-31-2010, 06:24 PM
60 - 100 - Don't believe doping is victimless & certainly have no problem showing my ID within reasonable bounds.

Being a Right leaning Libertarian is not all that bad :cool:.

same score...same ideas/attitude as Marvin, which is a good thing

JDogger
10-31-2010, 09:56 PM
Looks like libertarian is the predominate score. Some more right, some more left...now where, oh where, is that some right, some left, libertarian candidate to come from?

JD

Hew
11-01-2010, 04:19 AM
Looks like libertarian is the predominate score.
Yeah, that's shocking given the "test" is a Libertarian website. And hey, what do you know....on the same "test" website you can also join and/or donate money to the Libertarians.

dnf777
11-01-2010, 05:09 AM
One tick left of center.

subroc
11-01-2010, 05:29 AM
...Let people control their own retirement; privatize Social Security.: I disagreed with this. For those that agree, one question will be how to reimburse those who have paid in hundreds of thousands of after tax dollars and received no benefits...

It would take a generation, but is an effort that is worth starting.

It will be unsustainable in less than a generation anyway.

YardleyLabs
11-01-2010, 06:12 AM
It would take a generation, but is an effort that is worth starting.

It will be unsustainable in less than a generation anyway.
Actually, the unsustainability problem is smaller than it appears and transitory. The changes made in 1986 pretty much did the job, despite the fact that the resulting surplus was used immediately to justify the deficit. Now we need an adjustment of about 10% in he combination of benefits and rates to reflect changes in post-retirement life expectancy. Once past the baby boomer bust, the imbalance in the system goes away and surpluses return. I think the primary reason the problem gets treated hysterically is because of one simple fact: the amounts that have already been borrowed will need to be repaid to cover the costs of the benefits that were already purchased. The Bush plan buried this into an estimated $2 trillion plus in borrowing that would be needed for the "transition and cuts in benefits that would effectively confiscate the contributions already made by younger tax payers. In fact, the social security trust was the primary source of financing for deficits incurred under Bush. Bush himself made it clear that, as far as he was concerned, social security taxes were simply another source of revenues to pay for government programs, whether or not related to the program itself.
Some in our country think that Social Security is a trust fund -- in other words, there's a pile of money being accumulated. That's just simply not true. The money -- payroll taxes going into the Social Security are spent. They're spent on benefits and they're spent on government programs. There is no trust. We're on the ultimate pay-as-you-go system -- what goes in comes out. And so, starting in 2018, what's going in -- what's coming out is greater than what's going in. It says we've got a problem. And we'd better start dealing with it now.(http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2005/02/20050209-15.html)
In fact, current funding levels for social security are sufficient to pay benefits through 2040-2050 with no change. If economic growth is better than projected, the funds might never run out. If worse, the adjustment needed is still limited. However, one has to accept and demand that it is possible to prepay the cost of future benefits through government and have those obligations honored. That means living within our means over time. Instead, the Bush approach argued that permanent deficits were acceptable. Inherent in this belief was an implicit assumption that we would ultimately default on our debt obligations either through non-payment in the case of social security, or through devaluation in the case of debt sold to the public and to foreign investors.

ppro
11-01-2010, 06:15 AM
I guess I am not libertarian . I scored 20/100 conservative

ducknwork
11-01-2010, 06:36 AM
Hmm. 40-30, centrist. Go figure. I guess I get to hang out with Yardley and DNF.:o

The description is dead nuts on target though:

Centrist prefer a "middle ground" regarding government control of the economy and personal behavior. Depending on the issue, they sometimes favor government intervention and sometimes support individual freedom of choice. Centrists pride themselves on keeping an open mind, tend to oppose "political extremes," and emphasize what they describe as "practical" solutions to problems.


The questions were waaaaay too vague, IMO. Too hard to answer some of them definitively.

david gibson
11-01-2010, 06:49 AM
Hmm. 40-30, centrist. Go figure. I guess I get to hang out with Yardley and DNF.:o

The description is dead nuts on target though:


The questions were waaaaay to vague, IMO. To hard to answer some of them definitively.

exactly. for instance, i dont advocate getting rid of welfar completely, but it needs to be tightened up, so thats a maybe. same with SS. 70/60 here, to the left a hair and top line of centrist. last i took this test 2 years ago i was a tad right.

road kill
11-01-2010, 06:58 AM
My score was 50-50.

Dead center!!:D


RK

david gibson
11-01-2010, 08:37 AM
My score was 50-50.

Dead center!!:D


RK

not in this crowd dude, 50/50 is considered right wing extremism, remember?

Cody Covey
11-01-2010, 11:26 AM
The questions themselves are interesting.


Let people control their own retirement; privatize Social Security.: I disagreed with this. For those that agree, one question will be how to reimburse those who have paid in hundreds of thousands of after tax dollars and received no benefits.

Needless to say, I scored as a left/libertarian.
Why do democrats spew this crap when they know that no one is suggesting completely getting rid of Social Security without addressing people that have already paid. When Bush said privatize social security he was talking about 2%. What i think they should do is phase out social security. everyone who has already paid in gets what they paid while no new people would be added. They can invest how they see fit and if they don't to bad for them. That money will go back into the economy via the buying of goods and services since they didn't invest.

Marvin S
11-01-2010, 11:50 AM
Yeah, that's shocking given the "test" is a Libertarian website. And hey, what do you know....on the same "test" website you can also join and/or donate money to the Libertarians.

It's hard not to end up being some sort of Libertarian :) . When Virginia Postrel was Editor of Reason I could ID with the cause, when Nick Gillespie took over things changed & I no longer even read the magazine.

But, from people's postings on this particular forum their scores make me wonder. Not those who consider themselves somewhat conservative as most are MOR's, but the lefty's :confused:.

road kill
11-01-2010, 11:55 AM
It's hard not to end up being some sort of Libertarian :) . When Virginia Postrel was Editor of Reason I could ID with the cause, when Nick Gillespie took over things changed & I no longer even read the magazine.

But, from people's postings on this particular forum their scores make me wonder. Not those who consider themselves somewhat conservative as most are MOR's, but the lefty's :confused:.

You beleive my score don't you?
I'm sure everyone was totally honest, aren't you???:rolleyes:



RK

YardleyLabs
11-01-2010, 01:10 PM
Why do democrats spew this crap when they know that no one is suggesting completely getting rid of Social Security without addressing people that have already paid. When Bush said privatize social security he was talking about 2%. What i think they should do is phase out social security. everyone who has already paid in gets what they paid while no new people would be added. They can invest how they see fit and if they don't to bad for them. That money will go back into the economy via the buying of goods and services since they didn't invest.
Unless you happen to have $4 trillion in cash, there is no way to pay back current participants. The Bush plan contained two elements. One was to borrow the "gap" between benefits owed and the funds available from current tax payments (with repayment over 30 years) while diverting a portion of current tax receipts to user controlled investment accounts. The other part was a reduction in benefits. It was a smoke and mirrors plan that basically sought to conceal the fact that the accumulated debt owed to the trust by the US government was being written down and paid for with benefit cuts. Social security as it stands now is virtually self financing. It has generated trillions in surpluses over the last 25 years, and continues to generate surpluses today. What is not self financing is the US government, and it hasn't been since Clinton was in office (even then it was only self financing briefly). The Bush plan did nothing at all to address that problem.

road kill
11-01-2010, 01:12 PM
Unless you happen to have $4 trillion in cash, there is no way to pay back current participants. The Bush plan contained two elements. One was to borrow the "gap" between benefits owed and the funds available from current tax payments (with repayment over 30 years) while diverting a portion of current tax receipts to user controlled investment accounts. The other part was a reduction in benefits. It was a smoke and mirrors plan that basically sought to conceal the fact that the accumulated debt owed to the trust by the US government was being written down and paid for with benefit cuts. Social security as it stands now is virtually self financing. It has generated trillions in surpluses over the last 25 years, and continues to generate surpluses today. What is not self financing is the US government, and it hasn't been since Clinton was in office (even then it was only self financing briefly). The Bush plan did nothing at all to address that problem.

And what has the Obama plan done to address the problem??


Just askin.......


RK