Multiple Choice: Fill in the Bubbles Or Else!

Because we are about to decide between presidential candidates grounded in two different philosophies regarding fiscal and monetary policy, I have invited a special guest to write here about supply-side ideology, the concept that continuing to distribute public treasure up toward the already wealthy will "trickle-down" toward those with less wealth, much less wealth, zero wealth, and less-than-zero wealth. 

By less-than-zero wealth I mean people who are sunk in debt. (And we all know how much former Governor Romney hates, really hates, debt. Unless it's the kind of debt he creates for his own personal financial gain.)

Our guest's presentation will especially address the concerns of the moderate Democrats and Republicans among us, those who "just believe that a successful businessman can do more to help the economy" than the current president. 

So consider this post a teaser. Below are three multiple choice questions. When I see that three (or more) people have posted comments with answers to the questions below (or any other remark), I will post our guest's update. As did Dr. DeBunk's from a few posts ago with respect to health care, this Fired Up! exclusive will give you what you need to vote your conscience with respect to the economy.

Question 1*

Throughout all of human history, we people have tended to crap up or destroy our habitats. Ninety percent of the oceans are blue, biological deserts. We are ruining the remaining ten percent of the green oceans that produce the plants eaten by the fish and other sea creatures that we eat. We are slowly eating up all the life in the ocean. Worldwide, the fishing industry loses about $54 billion a year, and requires massive government subsidies to keep going. Still, we do have this ever-shrinking 10 percent to live with. What fraction of the ten percent do the 7 billion of us take?

A. 5%

B. 10%

C. 15%

D. 33%

Question 2

The Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission struck down a century of law and enabled corporations to spend a whole lot more money influencing the outcomes of elections. How much is a whole lot? PhRMA, the pharmaceutical industry's trade assosiation, spent $200,000 on federal elections in 2008. After Citizens United, contributions made by PhRMA, and distributed to both parties in the next election cycle, rose to:

A. $1 million

B. $3.6 million

C. $7 million

D. $10.3 million

Question 3 (related to 2)

Can citizens of countries other than the United States, including Saudi Arabia, Japan, Bahrain, and Belgium, influence the outcome of our elections because of the Citizens United ruling?

A. No, of course not.

B. Yes.

 

*Thanks to Stuart L. Pimm and Lee Fang for the facts.

 

 

Copyright 2005-2013, Fired Up!, LLC