(07-26-2018, 11:49 AM)MalabarJag Wrote:

(07-26-2018, 11:23 AM)mikesez Wrote: 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.

The word Politifact was a link, and you are dead wrong about the Senate.

I know it was a link.  
I read it.  I looked at the vote breakdowns offered. 
Go ahead and check my math.
If you divide the number of Republican senators voting yes by the total number of Republican senators that year, you get more than 50%.
A majority of Republicans in the Senate voted yes.
How the Democrats voted is irrelevant to my point.  My point is the Republican votes changed after Obama became President, either due to partisan hypocrisy, some kind of unexplained political repentance, or racism.

---