A problem Bush would have missed on the ACT

<p>There was a question the reading about the fiscal policy that stated if government is spending to much what should they do? Well the correct answer was spend less, but I know Bush would have put answer B- Issue tax cuts.</p>

<p>Actually, the question was about Keysnian economic theory. It asked, "In a period of recession, what should the government do? The answer is both, "hike spending and cut taxes." In a period of inflation, the government should hike taxes and cut spending, but most politicians (according to the passage, and I think it's true as well) will refuse to raise taxes or cut spending because such things are unpopular with voters.</p>

<p>From reading econ before, I thought Keyes was the one who said, that in order to get out of a recession, government should increase spending. Generally that seemed to show post-WW2, when we got out of the depression.</p>

<p>But I was going based upon what the story said, and I'm pretty sure it said, cut spending but I could be wrong.</p>

<p>Well, Bush would have missed a lot more questions than that one... say what you will about his leadership characteristics, but he is not exactly the brightest tool in the shed.</p>

<p>Destinypath, that question would pertain directly to fiscal policy, which is based on Keynesian theory.</p>

<p>It's funny how you guys have way higher scores then his old one that got him into Yale. I wonder what Bush would score if he took the SAT again?</p>

<p>But does the SAT truly measure intelligence? Actually don't answer, I don't want to start the debate again, LOL!</p>

<p>what was his original score?..</p>

<p>1206 unrecentered
1280 recentered</p>

<p>So I can say I beat Bush! YAY! 1480, woohoo! Wait... that doesn't say much. How did Clinton or Kerry do?</p>

<p>I believe I read somewhere that Clinton scored a 1490 before the re-centering. This could be as high as a 1600 re-centered.</p>

<p>Im Not Sure Bush Coulda Got Any Of The Questions Right...</p>

<p>Say what you want, but a 1280 is a perfectly respectable score. Especially since, even as a important man's son, he wouldn't have done much prep (the SAT was much less preppable back then...also not many people bothered to since their weren't the overabundance of services available today. And I can't imagine Bush being one of the few people to actually buckle down and study, despite pressure he might have felt from daddy).</p>

<p>It is a respectable score, to be sure. However, call me elitist if you want, but I would like to think that the commander-in-chief of the most powerful nation in the world should be smarter than at least 95-99% of the population, just as a basic litmus test. More importantly, they need to have leadership skills, integrity, and all that, but they DO need to be very smart, too. Not extremely smart, that is not necessary, but "above average" doesn't cut it.</p>

<p>No, the SAT does not measure intelligence perfectly, but the fact remains that very smart people DO score high on it. Bush is not one of these people (that is not to say Kerry is, but I am not one to know).</p>

<p>It's also nice to see standardized tests taking political stands. Let's be serious guys...every democractic politician ever to live scored a 1600 on their SATs and no republican ever broke 1300! I mean could it be possibly any other way? Also keep in mind Bush was from the mid-west and probably only took the test once with no prep. This isn't a political forum, but calling Bush stupid gets the left.....absolutely nowhere. In fact it detracts from the little credibility they have.</p>

<p>Awesome point. I love when people build instead of tear down.</p>

<p>Let's put it at this: </p>

<p>Bush Sucks!</p>

<p>Yes indeedy! Hey, hey, Bush has been "misunderestimated". Hahahhahahahha.</p>