Or, as The Who sang, "Here comes the new boss, same as the old boss".
Then-candidate Obama was 100% correct when he described then-President Bush's bailout as 'Bush's failed economic policy of borrow-and-spend'.
Unfortunately, President Obama calls the same economic policy 'stimulus'.
In what meaningful way is it different from what Bush was doing? Are we going to hear a peep of criticism from Democrats about this?
I doubt it. In an Indy Star story covering Obama's planned visit to Elkhart, we see what 'stimulus' is all about. Pork, and paying off constituency groups, at the expense of the nation.
"Instead of focusing on a stimulus that will continue to open up the credit markets and create jobs, this bill spends billions on Democrats' wish-list projects," Indiana Rep. Mark Souder said last month after voting against the House version of the package. Souder, a Republican, represents part of Elkhart County.
The Bush bailout was spent on Republican cronies. The Obama bailout will be spent on Democratic cronies. The country will continue to slide towards depression. Thanks for nothing. Is this what 'change' amounts to? Different cronies? Is that the best we could do?