Curve for October 2010? Forum

[gdane]

Anyway, completely off topic of this thread, what do you all think of that October 2010 curve?

It is what it is son. Can't do anything about that. A removed question would be cute though.

[cofc2008]

Politics? Really guys? Well, since you all brought it up....

56-57 seats for the democrats is a huge stretch. Basically, it's not going to happen.

The Republicans are going to have a majority in the House, unless divine intervention come into play.

The current administration has angered many of the voters who put it in office. The black panther intimidation case, the Arizona immigration bill, the stimuli (how fitting for a TLS forum) and the response to BP oil spill have not been successful/executed properly in the eyes most Americans. This criticism doesn't just come from the right either: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lO1lO1CVkTE

Obama came in as the wonder kid...someone who could unite the country and enact policies that lead to real change, but he has failed thus far. It's not about whether there is time to let the policies work their magic--Stimulus money hasn't even gone to the people who it was intended for and that doesn't take a long amount of time to accomplish. It's about whether the policies will work at all, and no one has been very convincing in saying they will. Obama keeps bringing up the past administration as the cause of his failures, but no one wants to hear that anymore. We don't want excuses, we want accountability.

Reagan's economic reform was successful in a similar situation as today's. Obama's plan for recovery is nearly an exact opposite. Can both of them be effective? The bottom line is that America elected a president with absolutely no experience. Americans, specifically younger Americans, were swayed by empty promises of change and celebrity endorsements. It was a stupid decision and the country is paying for it now and down the road. Somehow, he convinced the whole world that he could do something revolutionary, even though he has never been in a position of executive power. He was voted the winner of the Nobel peace prize before he even took office (notice I said voted, not awarded). Most people "drank the Obama kool-aid," and now regret it.

The one piece of legislation whose effectiveness can be debated is the healthcare bill. However, it has too many questions and potential problems to be an asset in reelection.

My prediction: Senate--Dems: 51, Repubs: 47. House--Dems: 205, Repubs: 230.

[3|ink]

Politics? Really guys? Well, since you all brought it up....

56-57 seats for the democrats is a huge stretch. Basically, it's not going to happen.

The Republicans are going to have a majority in the House, unless divine intervention come into play.

The current administration has angered many of the voters who put it in office. The black panther intimidation case, the Arizona immigration bill, the stimuli (how fitting for a TLS forum) and the response to BP oil spill have not been successful/executed properly in the eyes most Americans. This criticism doesn't just come from the right either: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lO1lO1CVkTE

Obama came in as the wonder kid...someone who could unite the country and enact policies that lead to real change, but he has failed thus far. It's not about whether there is time to let the policies work their magic--Stimulus money hasn't even gone to the people who it was intended for and that doesn't take a long amount of time to accomplish. It's about whether the policies will work at all, and no one has been very convincing in saying they will. Obama keeps bringing up the past administration as the cause of his failures, but no one wants to hear that anymore. We don't want excuses, we want accountability.

Reagan's economic reform was successful in a similar situation as today's. Obama's plan for recovery is nearly an exact opposite. Can both of them be effective? The bottom line is that America elected a president with absolutely no experience. Americans, specifically younger Americans, were swayed by empty promises of change and celebrity endorsements. It was a stupid decision and the country is paying for it now and down the road. Somehow, he convinced the whole world that he could do something revolutionary, even though he has never been in a position of executive power. He was voted the winner of the Nobel peace prize before he even took office (notice I said voted, not awarded). Most people "drank the Obama kool-aid," and now regret it.

The one piece of legislation whose effectiveness can be debated is the healthcare bill. However, it has too many questions and potential problems to be an asset in reelection.

My prediction: Senate--Dems: 51, Repubs: 47. House--Dems: 205, Repubs: 230.

Rabble Rabble Rabble!

Are you sure you’re speaking from reason or is that your upbringing talking?

I don’t think anyone is in a position to accurately judge whether or not Obama has failed since the consequences of any POTUS extend far beyond his/her term. In fact, there is very little he or anyone else could have accomplished by this time in that position.

Reganomics wouldn’t help our economy today. This isn’t to say that Reganomics is not a sound practice or that it didn’t contribute to a rebound in the 80’s. Rather, it would be ineffective in our current situation. Reducing taxes is useful. People buy more products and businesses respond with expansion. However, in order to expand, that business needs to secure financing. The problem is that financing is really hard to get right now. Banks aren’t lending to businesses at the rate they used to because of the fear of inflation in the near future and because it’s far safer to buy treasury notes ATM. We have to increase incentive to lend. One way to do that is to start fighting the national debt. Therefore, instead of cutting taxes, cut spending and divert excess funds to the debt. Enact a plan to pay the debt off in 50 years or so with funds that cannot be diverted for other use. That will secure lenders’ faith in the future value of the dollar.
Rabble! Rabble! Rabble!
Focus! Focus! Focus!

[cofc2008]

Politics? Really guys? Well, since you all brought it up....

56-57 seats for the democrats is a huge stretch. Basically, it's not going to happen.

The Republicans are going to have a majority in the House, unless divine intervention come into play.

The current administration has angered many of the voters who put it in office. The black panther intimidation case, the Arizona immigration bill, the stimuli (how fitting for a TLS forum) and the response to BP oil spill have not been successful/executed properly in the eyes most Americans. This criticism doesn't just come from the right either: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lO1lO1CVkTE

Obama came in as the wonder kid...someone who could unite the country and enact policies that lead to real change, but he has failed thus far. It's not about whether there is time to let the policies work their magic--Stimulus money hasn't even gone to the people who it was intended for and that doesn't take a long amount of time to accomplish. It's about whether the policies will work at all, and no one has been very convincing in saying they will. Obama keeps bringing up the past administration as the cause of his failures, but no one wants to hear that anymore. We don't want excuses, we want accountability.

Reagan's economic reform was successful in a similar situation as today's. Obama's plan for recovery is nearly an exact opposite. Can both of them be effective? The bottom line is that America elected a president with absolutely no experience. Americans, specifically younger Americans, were swayed by empty promises of change and celebrity endorsements. It was a stupid decision and the country is paying for it now and down the road. Somehow, he convinced the whole world that he could do something revolutionary, even though he has never been in a position of executive power. He was voted the winner of the Nobel peace prize before he even took office (notice I said voted, not awarded). Most people "drank the Obama kool-aid," and now regret it.

The one piece of legislation whose effectiveness can be debated is the healthcare bill. However, it has too many questions and potential problems to be an asset in reelection.

My prediction: Senate--Dems: 51, Repubs: 47. House--Dems: 205, Repubs: 230.

Rabble Rabble Rabble!

Are you sure you’re speaking from reason or is that your upbringing talking?

I don’t think anyone is in a position to accurately judge whether or not Obama has failed since the consequences of any POTUS extend far beyond his/her term. In fact, there is very little he or anyone else could have accomplished by this time in that position.

Reganomics wouldn’t help our economy today. This isn’t to say that Reganomics is not a sound practice or that it didn’t contribute to a rebound in the 80’s. Rather, it would be ineffective in our current situation. Reducing taxes is useful. People buy more products and businesses respond with expansion. However, in order to expand, that business needs to secure financing. The problem is that financing is really hard to get right now. Banks aren’t lending to businesses at the rate they used to because of the fear of inflation in the near future and because it’s far safer to buy treasury notes ATM. We have to increase incentive to lend. One way to do that is to start fighting the national debt. Therefore, instead of cutting taxes, cut spending and divert excess funds to the debt. Enact a plan to pay the debt off in 50 years or so with funds that cannot be diverted for other use. That will secure lenders’ faith in the future value of the dollar.
Rabble! Rabble! Rabble!
Focus! Focus! Focus!

So the spending spree we've seen in the last two years is increasing incentive to lend? You basically made a point that supports the "fail" adjective for the policies. If his economic plan is neither encouraging people to buy, nor increasing incentive to lend, how is it not a failure?

And what's with the upbringing or reason comment? Did I present a short-sighted opinion devoid of any evidence? That would be a reason to question whether I am simply regurgitating stuff I have heard from my family. I didn't give a ringing endorsement for the Repubs either. Both parties are corrupt and inefficient. I was simply giving my opinion that Obama and the Dems are in trouble and that the policies of the last two years are not working in their favor or the American people's. Give me Ron Paul any day of the week.

You mentioned the point about time being the real judge of a president's effectiveness. I'm glad you brought that up. All of the blame for the economy falls to Bush even thought the housing market collapsed because of Clinton-era policies. He lowered the requirements for getting a loan and people spent beyond their means as a result. When a little (emphasis on little) economic hiccup comes along, people can no longer afford their house and the little hiccup because one great big f-ing disaster. You are right in that policies take many years to affect the economy. I never questioned this. In my opinion, Obama's policies will fail by any measure--even if it takes 10 years to realize it.

Rabble....

[CGI Fridays]

[aesis]

Throw out Shakespeare and give me -12!

[CGI Fridays]

Throw out Shakespeare and give me -12!

No, keep Shakespeare!!!

[incompetentia]

So the spending spree we've seen in the last two years is increasing incentive to lend? You basically made a point that supports the "fail" adjective for the policies. If his economic plan is neither encouraging people to buy, nor increasing incentive to lend, how is it not a failure?

The point that was made was not that the policies have been a resounding success, but rather that the source of the problem was simply something different than mentioned. Now I'm not an economist, but most of the major markers seem to have at least stabilized in '09...is it not possible that by being able to not discourage further both lending and buying, that the policies have been at least somewhat effective?

Regardless. I still think -12 is optimistic, whether or not we have 101 scored items. Would be very nice, though.

[dcman06]

Politics? Really guys? Well, since you all brought it up....

56-57 seats for the democrats is a huge stretch. Basically, it's not going to happen.

The Republicans are going to have a majority in the House, unless divine intervention come into play.

The current administration has angered many of the voters who put it in office. The black panther intimidation case, the Arizona immigration bill, the stimuli (how fitting for a TLS forum) and the response to BP oil spill have not been successful/executed properly in the eyes most Americans. This criticism doesn't just come from the right either: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lO1lO1CVkTE

Obama came in as the wonder kid...someone who could unite the country and enact policies that lead to real change, but he has failed thus far. It's not about whether there is time to let the policies work their magic--Stimulus money hasn't even gone to the people who it was intended for and that doesn't take a long amount of time to accomplish. It's about whether the policies will work at all, and no one has been very convincing in saying they will. Obama keeps bringing up the past administration as the cause of his failures, but no one wants to hear that anymore. We don't want excuses, we want accountability.

Reagan's economic reform was successful in a similar situation as today's. Obama's plan for recovery is nearly an exact opposite. Can both of them be effective? The bottom line is that America elected a president with absolutely no experience. Americans, specifically younger Americans, were swayed by empty promises of change and celebrity endorsements. It was a stupid decision and the country is paying for it now and down the road. Somehow, he convinced the whole world that he could do something revolutionary, even though he has never been in a position of executive power. He was voted the winner of the Nobel peace prize before he even took office (notice I said voted, not awarded). Most people "drank the Obama kool-aid," and now regret it.

The one piece of legislation whose effectiveness can be debated is the healthcare bill. However, it has too many questions and potential problems to be an asset in reelection.

My prediction: Senate--Dems: 51, Repubs: 47. House--Dems: 205, Repubs: 230.

Well Obama signs laws, he doesn't "make them"..

But really, I'm disappointed that with huge Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress, nothing major could pass through quickly. The Health care bill was watered down and though it's better than what we have now, we still have to do more (that will continue to be argued). We are not any closer to resolving Afghanistan. Gas prices are trending up toward $3/gallon for the nation. And gays still can't serve openly in the military, not to mention his administration is appealing the federal court ruling that called it unconstitutional, and the Republicans, most who would like DADT removed eventually, vote against it... Among democrats, many of the newly elected ones esp. are fiscally conservative and they wouldn't budge for much of the health bill especially.

I think a Speaker Eric Cantor (I think he's more charismatic than Boehner) is almost inevitable at this point. But the Dems should be able to hold onto the Senate. In 2012, Sarah Palin may be our new President if things continue to hold up.

[incompetentia]

Palin's negatives are too high. She polls horribly among minorities and women in what's a decidedly conservative year.
2012 is not going to be a cakewalk for either side, though. It was almost too obvious going into '08 that the strong Dem support would fade...

[grover23]

Regardless. I still think -12 is optimistic, whether or not we have 101 scored items. Would be very nice, though.

i agree. would be surprised with more than -11.

[minnbills]

Throw out Shakespeare and give me -12!

No, keep Shakespeare!!!

Has that question even been resolved yet?

[cofc2008]

So the spending spree we've seen in the last two years is increasing incentive to lend? You basically made a point that supports the "fail" adjective for the policies. If his economic plan is neither encouraging people to buy, nor increasing incentive to lend, how is it not a failure?

The point that was made was not that the policies have been a resounding success, but rather that the source of the problem was simply something different than mentioned. Now I'm not an economist, but most of the major markers seem to have at least stabilized in '09...is it not possible that by being able to not discourage further both lending and buying, that the policies have been at least somewhat effective?

Regardless. I still think -12 is optimistic, whether or not we have 101 scored items. Would be very nice, though.

He said the Reganomics wouldn't work because there is no incentive to lend and then explicitly said that we needed to provide more incentive. He went on to say that lessening the national debt by cutting back on spending is a way to do that. There have been no cutbacks on spending and the national debt has soared. Therefore, I reiterate my point: if the policies are doing neither, how can they not be a failure? No one buying + no one lending = no recovery.

On a different note, -12 please.

[3|ink]

So the spending spree we've seen in the last two years is increasing incentive to lend? You basically made a point that supports the "fail" adjective for the policies. If his economic plan is neither encouraging people to buy, nor increasing incentive to lend, how is it not a failure?

The problem is that Obama isn’t focusing on increasing incentives to lend because he doesn’t see that as the problem. In fact, very few people do. I didn’t see you mention this once in your post, yet this is the biggest problem facing our economy. Anyway, I can only speculate that Obama is stuck in the old Keynesian mindset that has no bearing on the present. This isn’t so much a presidential failure as it is a failure of the general public to recognize the problem. If they don’t see it, they can’t demand it in the polls. That isn’t to say that Obama isn’t partly to blame. Rather, our problems are our problems, not Obama’s or Bush’s or Clinton’s (though Clinton’s Fannie & Freddie changes are kind of screwing us right now).

I’m not supporter or Obama or any politician. They’re all equally lame to me. However, I’m not quick to blame other people or make judgments about failed or successful policies. I can’t say if he’s succeeding for failing. I just know he’s not doing what would be theoretically best for the economy. He may have knowledge about our current state of affairs that is only privy to a man in his position.

That would be a reason to question whether I am simply regurgitating stuff I have heard from my family. I didn't give a ringing endorsement for the Repubs either. Both parties are corrupt and inefficient. I was simply giving my opinion that Obama and the Dems are in trouble and that the policies of the last two years are not working in their favor or the American people's. Give me Ron Paul any day of the week.

I didn’t assume you were stuck to any particular party. The problem was the blame game, which is apparently against your own philosophy. Remember saying:

Obama keeps bringing up the past administration as the cause of his failures, but no one wants to hear that anymore. We don't want excuses, we want accountability.

Obama can’t blame anyone but you can. Don’t blame anyone. Blaming = complaining and complaining doesn’t sway people. Respectful criticism is far more powerful. Otherwise, people see you as another rabble rouser and disregard you. In Obama’s case, you and many others correctly view him as a complainer when he whines about the past administration. Don’t make the same mistake.

You mentioned the point about time being the real judge of a president's effectiveness. I'm glad you brought that up. All of the blame for the economy falls to Bush even thought the housing market collapsed because of Clinton-era policies. He lowered the requirements for getting a loan and people spent beyond their means as a result. When a little (emphasis on little) economic hiccup comes along, people can no longer afford their house and the little hiccup because one great big f-ing disaster. You are right in that policies take many years to affect the economy. I never questioned this. In my opinion, Obama's policies will fail by any measure--even if it takes 10 years to realize it.

Rabble....

[JJDancer]

Throw out Shakespeare and give me -12!

No, keep Shakespeare!!!

+1!

[JJDancer]

It would be just amazing if LSAC threw us a pleasant curveball, making it a -13 or -14 curve (no questions removed from scoring). Probably no more than a 10% chance of this being the case though.

I think -12 is definitely possible. -11 is more likely though.

[3|ink]

It would be just amazing if LSAC threw us a pleasant curveball, making it a -13 or -14 curve (no questions removed from scoring). Probably no more than a 10% chance of this being the case though.

I think -12 is definitely possible. -11 is more likely though.

I'd be happy with a -11. A -12 would be glorious.

[jarofsoup]

hah. I have always wondered how ugly TLS could get if we started talking about politics.

I dont think Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich or any of those folks could get elected. Repubs will run John Thune, or that asshole from minnessota, Pawlenty.

I dont really understand the GOP. The tea party plat form is based on a plat form that is flawed. I mean everyone on here has studied logic and knows that the things that they stand for just don't makes sense.

On the House. Boenher is next in line for speaker, and he will get it most likely. If the Dems hold onto the house they will put in Steny Hoyer as speaker. Nancy Pelosi said she will not run again for speaker.

Regannomics= "The Great Recession" We can all think Ronald for us not being able to find jobs when we graduate from law school. If you live in Cali you can also thank him for shutting down the mental institutions and why UC Hastings is surrounded by piss and shit.

[3|ink]

I dont really understand the GOP. The tea party plat form is based on a plat form that is flawed. I mean everyone on here has studied logic and knows that the things that they stand for just don't makes sense.

Can anyone who has studied logic name the flaw above?

[cofc2008]

Obama can’t blame anyone but you can. Don’t blame anyone. Blaming = complaining and complaining doesn’t sway people. Respectful criticism is far more powerful. Otherwise, people see you as another rabble rouser and disregard you. In Obama’s case, you and many others correctly view him as a complainer when he whines about the past administration. Don’t make the same mistake.

When did I blame anyone? All I said was that his policies will fail or are failing. I never once stated that they are bringing the economy down. I only said that, in my opinion, they aren't helping. They could very well bring the economy down, but I never said that. I'm not complaining either (I would argue that blaming is not equal to complaining), but I do have some opinions on the issue. The only point where I levied some blame was when discussing the Clinton-era policies that led to the housing market collapse, and that was to support my point that Obama should stop blaming Bush for everything.

Is my criticism not respectful? Define "respectful" please. I have not condemned Obama or the Dems. I have not blamed them for anything (except Clinton and the housing market, which is a reasonable point in my eyes). I have merely pointed out that general consensus: the policies are not working. I always try to be respectful and I feel that I have been, but I do have some serious criticisms. If I cannot criticize without being disrespectful, then so be it.

[CGI Fridays]

Are you guys serious?!?! There's a "waiting for the Oct LSAT scores" thread (not sure about exact title).

Please take your politics there so I can come here when I want to read peoples' opinions on the curve.

[gdane]

Ill put an end to this now. Democrats will keep their majorities in both houses of Congress. However, they will be very, very, very slim majorities. The lack of cooperation and "bipartisanship" that we saw in the last 2 years will continue and get worse.

In 2012, Sarah Palin will win the nomination, but she will be destroyed by Obama. The economy will be much improved by 2012 and thus any fear mongering about immigrants and whatnot, issues that Palin and the Republicans will surely run on, wont resonate with a lot of people.

In spite of denying it, the Republicans embrace the tea party. Why? Because they're votes. It doesn't matter what the tea party platform is, all the Republicans want are their votes. Democrats would do the same if there was an extreme left wing group.

I see a lot of flaws in jarofsoups argument, but because I stopped caring about LSAT stuff Im having a hard time remembering. I think I see some circular reasoning.

[3|ink]

I think I see some circular reasoning.

TITCR

[cofc2008]

Are you guys serious?!?! There's a "waiting for the Oct LSAT scores" thread (not sure about exact title).

Please take your politics there so I can come here when I want to read peoples' opinions on the curve.

Ok ok. Sorry to invade the curve thread but I saw that some people were discussing politics and I had to throw in my two cents. I am done discussing politics on this thread. Promise.

[OrdinarilySkilled]

Ill put an end to this now. Democrats will keep their majorities in both houses of Congress. However, they will be very, very, very slim majorities. The lack of cooperation and "bipartisanship" that we saw in the last 2 years will continue and get worse.

In 2012, Sarah Palin will win the nomination, but she will be destroyed by Obama. The economy will be much improved by 2012 and thus any fear mongering about immigrants and whatnot, issues that Palin and the Republicans will surely run on, wont resonate with a lot of people.

In spite of denying it, the Republicans embrace the tea party. Why? Because they're votes. It doesn't matter what the tea party platform is, all the Republicans want are their votes. Democrats would do the same if there was an extreme left wing group.

I see a lot of flaws in jarofsoups argument, but because I stopped caring about LSAT stuff Im having a hard time remembering. I think I see some circular reasoning.

Racist against alaskans much?