Here is a civics quiz. Take it and see how you do.
http://www.americancivicliteracy.org/resources/quiz.aspx
Both regular citizens and elected officials have taken the quiz. Amazingly the averasge citizen seems to do better than the average elected government official. For example:
1. 79% of those elected to government positions don't know that the Bill of Rights expressly prohibit establishing an official religion for the US.
2. 39% don't know that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are the inalienable rights referred to in the Declaration of Independenc etc.
So the question begs, should those who seek to serve in government first be required to learn the basics of the Constitution and general framework of the Republic?
http://www.americancivicliteracy.org/2008/additional_finding.htm
Originally posted by whodeyaccording to the survey -- the average score on this test for the 164 who said they've held an elected office was 44%, and the average overall score for the 2508 in the sample was 49%.
Here is a civics quiz. Take it and see how you do.
http://www.americancivicliteracy.org/resources/quiz.aspx
Both regular citizens and elected officials have taken the quiz. Amazingly the averasge citizen seems to do better than the average elected government official. For example:
1. 79% of those elected to government positions don't know that the ...[text shortened]... framework of the Republic?
http://www.americancivicliteracy.org/2008/additional_finding.htm
this explodes the myth that people who run for office are these elites who are out of touch with what ordinary people think and believe.
Originally posted by MelanerpesIt does nothing of the sort. It merely demonstrates that they're just as stupid as the general populace. Being an 'elite' doesn't mean you're smarter. It just means you're richer.
according to the survey -- the average score on this test for the 164 who said they've held an elected office was 44%, and the average overall score for the 2508 in the sample was 49%.
this explodes the myth that people who run for office are these elites who are out of touch with what ordinary people think and believe.
Originally posted by rwingettbut if you aren't as stupid as the general populace, can you truly be in touch with the way the general populace views the world?
It does nothing of the sort. It merely demonstrates that they're just as stupid as the general populace. Being an 'elite' doesn't mean you're smarter. It just means you're richer.
Originally posted by whodeyI missed two: question 7 and question 33. But question 33 is misleading:
Here is a civics quiz. Take it and see how you do.
http://www.americancivicliteracy.org/resources/quiz.aspx
Both regular citizens and elected officials have taken the quiz. Amazingly the averasge citizen seems to do better than the average elected government official. For example:
1. 79% of those elected to government positions don't know that the ...[text shortened]... framework of the Republic?
http://www.americancivicliteracy.org/2008/additional_finding.htm
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 answered (A). But the correct answer is apparently (D). But (D) doesn't follow. Presumably the question is asking what follows if total taxes equal total government spending. But it is fallacious to infer from this that the actual taxes per person equals the actual spending per person.
I think it is logical to assume that the number of people used to determine per person spending and the per person taxing is the same. It is the same country after all.
If the taxation and spending are equal, then if you divide each by the same number of people, then it will result in the same per person rate.
I missed one. I missed the one about FDR threatening to appoint people who believed as he did. I didn't think that was a threat because Presidents do that naturally.
As for why a is not correct, we know nothing of the debt the country already has.
Originally posted by EladarMaybe. I was thinking that if, generally, the revenue generated via taxation equals the amount the government spends, then we could not have a debt by definition. But it simply isn't the case that equality of overall taxation and overall spending entails that taxation per person equals spending per person. That only follows if we're talking about average taxation per person as a mean, and average spending per person as a mean. If the government taxes some people more than others, and spends more money on some people than others, then even if the sums come out the same, it would be false that actual taxation per person equals actual spending per person. The correct answer does not follow without the additional assumption that we're talking about averages as means.
I think it is logical to assume that the number of people used to determine per person spending and the per person taxing is the same. It is the same country after all.
If the taxation and spending are equal, then if you divide each by the same number of people, then it will result in the same per person rate.
I missed one. I missed the one about FDR ...[text shortened]... turally.
As for why a is not correct, we know nothing of the debt the country already has.
I guess it all centers around the definition of per person. If you think about it as a total amount divided by the population number, then that would be the definition a mean.
If you mean how much each person pays or spends individually, then there would be no such number at all. It would be totally meaningless. If you exclude Congress, there could be no number for spending at all. There would be a lot of different answers for paying taxes.
- Joined
- 07 Mar 09
- Moves
- 29156
Originally posted by zeeblebot100%
i tied rwingett:
You answered 30 out of 33 correctly — 90.91 %
Average score for this quiz during September: 74.4%
missed 10, 30, and 33.
(Tho I have to ask: is this some kind of right-wing think-tank providing welfare for the college-educated children of rich donors that lack the social skills to hold a real job?)
Anyways - why should it surprise anyone that those above the laws and norms of our little republic have the least knowledge of the underlying rules and mores? They are not subject to their application. Why should they commit them to memory?