(07-26-2018, 09:27 AM)MalabarJag Wrote:

(07-26-2018, 08:17 AM)mikesez Wrote: You might not be wrong, but you should give examples.
Let me give two.
Obama came into office on the heels of Bush passing the bailouts with Republican support.  The Republcians had just passed a stimulus in 2005.  Suddenly, stimulus was bad.  Buying up banks to bail them out had been OK, but doing the same to GM and Chrysler was not.  Why? The only things that changed were party affiliation and skin color or the man in the White House.  
Personally, I think it was more about party affiliation, but, the people who say it was skin color are not without evidence.

You are either knowingly lying, or clearly have no clue. The bank bailouts were passed with more Democrats than Republicans. Even the leftist Politifact admits this. There were plenty of "right wing" critics of the bank bailout and the Pubs who voted for it were centrists, not conservatives.

Stimulus wasn't "suddenly bad." The nature of Obama's so-called stimulus, vastly increasing spending instead of the tax cut method in the Bush stimulus (and it was in 2001, not 2005), was the point of disagreement.

These points had nothing to do with Obama's skin color. It had nothing to do with party affiliation either, other than the fact that those policies are tied to party affiliation.

Let's see that politifact article.  The bailout started in the Senate, and a majority of the Republican senators voted yes.  Then the bailout went to the House, where a majority of Republican members voted no.  Then it went to the President, and the Republican signed the bill.
So in two out of three steps the Republican party endorsed the legislation.  It's also true that a majority of the Democrats supported the bill in the Senate and in the House, but that's not relevant to my point.  My point is that Republicans used to support that kind of thing, and then changed their minds.

As for stimulus, we both have the dates wrong.  Bush passed two stimuli, 2001 and 2008.  You are correct that the Bush stimulus was purely temporary tax cuts, both times, but the Obama stimulus was 2/3 spending and 1/3 tax cuts.  But every spending bill passed during the Bush Administration also added to large deficits, all deficits are stimulative, and all of them for the first six years had majority Republican support.  I don't see how doing the taxes and the spending in separate bills is really more morally defensible than combining them, but, whatever.

---