Do you think Bush would have outspent Obama the last 4 years?

I dunno, more war? What is it good for?

 

What point are you trying to make with this thread?

 

I don't know about all this politics stuff, but I'm just wondering about Dwight Howard's stats:

2012-13 Statistics
PPG19.0 RPG10.00 APG2.0 EFF+ 14.00

How is he already averaging 19 and 10 when the Rockets haven't even played a game yet?

 

all of it in the exact same way, since most of it was automatic stablizers rather than discretionary, or stuff that congress voted in a long time ago.

Probably would have rammed throough another destructive round of tax cuts too.

 

Not mention he would have declared a sequel to the critically acclaimed war in Iraqistan, Iran: It's Kinda Spelled Like Iraq So Let's Bomb It 3D (rated PG-13 for brief nudity, sexual situations, and life like violence).

 

I think it also imparts another important question, how long will it take for the changes to actually produce effects. Republicans love to talk about how Reaganomics lead to the successful America during the Clinton era, but have a hard time accepting the notion that some or all of Obama's changes might have an induction period...

 

War(s)

 

Well to be fair. Both of Bush's wars were paid for with supplementals and not officially on the books, so we really can't calculate how much he would have spent the last four years.

 

I think both Bush and Romney would have probably spent as much if not more were either President in 2008. Some sort of stimulus fund would have been pushed to prevent the next Great Depression, we probably would still be continuing the Iraq War, may very well push for a war with Iran and thus be caught in 3 wars in the Middle East and would definitely have a continuation of the Bush tax cuts.

I'd say we would probably spend as much if not more were a Republican president these past 4 years and jopat and other Repubs would shrug their shoulders at the deficit as we'd read Fox News articles of America's holy war against the new axis of evil, Iran, Afghanistan and Iraq.

I'm not for being in a huge deficit however I'd rather we spend money building up our own infrastructure with healthcare for all, affordable student loans, pell grants, better education departments, well compensated teachers, EMS, fire department, and police instead of on more wars and more tax cuts that ultimately don't help the economy or add more jobs.

 

I vote yes, and I don't think there can be much reasonable doubt about this.

Since,

(1) over the last 30+ years, only Reagan grew the federal budget faster than GW Bush, and
(2) Obama grew it more slowly than anyone since Eisenhower (even including the stimulus),

I conclude that Bush most probably would have greatly outspent Obama. He grew federal spending at five times the rate of Obama.

With a Bush stimulus, I assume he would have tilted much more of that to military and further tax cuts for the wealthy "job creators" (sic.)

For reference:

 

Good post and this same issue has been debated for years. Numbers mean nothing to the OP.

 

Yep... that chart doesn't even account for the fact that the Stimulus was born under Bush II, but went into action under Obama.

[/thread]

 

The sad part is that if we would have actually spent more, like the government is supposed to do during a depression, we'd probably have 5-6% employment.

 

The stimulus should have been twice as much, or Congresss could pass the the more modest American Jobs act, but most of it would have been in the form of badly needed infrastructure projects and aid to ailing state governments which would have kept teachers/police/firemen from being laid off and exacerbating the depression. (Let's be clear, it was a depression, not a recession).

So roughly an extra 500 billion to a trillion should have been spent. With record low borrowing costs, this is more than feasible financially.

 

Wasn't it speculated it would maintain the jobs lost or add another 3 million jobs to the private and public sector?