I was not going to post Here Anymore

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

I would have voted for Kasich as a successful governor,

So you concede that the best prescription for a sick economy, is a large dose of conservative economic principles? Because that's exactly what Kasich did, and you concede he has been a successful governor.

Yet you are voting for someone whose economic strategy is the exact opposite of what you say made Kasich a successful governor.

Doesn't make sense. You are voting for someone who will do the exact opposite to the country, of what Kasich did in Ohio, even though you say he was a success in Ohio.

[Slipknot]

I don't tweet or read tweets

you all know the facts, some of you just choose to ignore or interpret them your own ways or excuse the countless lies.

Our freedoms are being stripped right before your eyes people, it's time to elect some candidates who will stand up for what made this country what it is.
Tomorrow we lose more freedom, it's sad if this is not blocked

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...799_print.html

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

So you concede that the best prescription for a sick economy, is a large dose of conservative economic principles? Because that's exactly what Kasich did, and you concede he has been a successful governor.

Yet you are voting for someone whose economic strategy is the exact opposite of what you say made Kasich a successful governor.

Doesn't make sense. You are voting for someone who will do the exact opposite to the country, of what Kasich did in Ohio, even though you say he was a success in Ohio.

What I said was between Kasich and Hillary I would have a tough choice. Not so much with Trump.

Kasich has cut income taxes and raised sales tax and I think on cigarettes as well, at least that is what I recall I had read about him before. Trump's plan has income taxes for the rich followed by wishing and praying for growth and repatriated money. Oh, and a huge increase in military spending...

When have we seen tax cuts and big increases in military sending again...?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

When have we seen tax cuts and big increases in military sending again...?

Reagan and the following economic boom. And even Bush II which worked very well until the unrelated bank failures made everything else irrelevent.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Reagan and the following economic boom. And even Bush II which worked very well until the unrelated bank failures made everything else irrelevent.

Now don't go bringing inconvenient facts into this.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Now don't go bringing inconvenient facts into this.

Right. Without that pesky bank failure that war would have paid for itself...

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Right. Without that pesky bank failure that war would have paid for itself...

The bank failure had nothing to do with military spending. The military had been gutted by Clinton and would have had to be rebuilt without the war. The Bush tax cuts, again not related to the bank failure helped fuel economic growth for most of Bush's administration and would have more than covered the refurbishing of the military. Of course the war made it more expensive. All wars do and have done. You just asked for the last time we have seen tax cuts and big increases in military spending, not massive increases due to war.

You conveniently passed on Reagan.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The bank failure had nothing to do with military spending. The military had been gutted by Clinton and would have had to be rebuilt without the war. The Bush tax cuts, again not related to the bank failure helped fuel economic growth which would have more than covered the refurbishing of the military. O course the war made it more expensive. All wars do and have done. You just asked for the last time we have seen tax cuts and big increases in military spending, not massive increases due to war.

You conveniently passed on Reagan.

You are right, I did. I was thinking of Bush. You can argue the costs of 'refurbishing' the military, but in times of war, historically, taxes went up to cover the cost.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The bank failure had nothing to do with military spending. The military had been gutted by Clinton and would have had to be rebuilt without the war. The Bush tax cuts, again not related to the bank failure helped fuel economic growth for most of Bush's administration and would have more than covered the refurbishing of the military. Of course the war made it more expensive. All wars do and have done. You just asked for the last time we ahave seen tax cuts and big increases in military spending, not massive increases due to war.

You conveniently passed on Reagan.

There's so much wrong with this post. Clinton didn't gut military spending, he held it steady after a decline by Reagan and Bush 41.

The Bush tax cuts mostly just increased the deficit while economic growth was driven by a real estate bubble.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device