Speakeasy forum: Skin in the game?.................................... Do to.

that for the most part, Romney would be better for Canada.

I found this interesting and wonder why nobody picks up on the omissions: >>Obama's plan to maintain most government spending, and his promise to re-invest half of the billions saved from the pullout of Iraq and Afghanistan into infrastructure, may mean opportunities for Canadian companies.>>>

BO complained that the wars were unfunded on credit cards via borrowed money from China. How can he take money saved from the wars ending and now spend it without borrowing again and increasing the national debt?

access to the actual numbers spent on the wars and the money borrowed from China, you have no way of knowing if ALL of the borrowed money was used on the wars, do you? You are making an assumption....however, in any event, you don't get to condemn Bush for 'unfunded wars' (which indicates that money wasn't coming from the taxpayers and was being borrowed to pay for it) and then praise BO for saying he would use the money 'saved' from not funding wars anymore and then spending it somewhere else instead since it would also have to be borrowed. It would automatically keep increasing the national debt to do so. If he was really interested in reducing the national debt or even the annual deficit, the money 'saved' would just end at a zero that wouldn't have to be spent at all. That's the problem with liberals.......to them, a debt that's paid off and zeroed out means you have new found money and you start charging on that card all over again but for something else now instead and your bottom line never gets better.

the more you spend, the more you save, on each item. We can't afford all those savings as a country.

Canadian companies could feel the pinch. Too bad!

Romney made a point during the second presidential debate of highlighting Canada's low corporate tax rate. He has promised to cut the U.S. rate, which could affect Canada's ability to attract foreign investment. His proposed cuts to government funding could result in less work for Canadian companies that have taken advantage of U.S. government contracts.

When liberals talk about cutting spending, this is what happens: They cut an agency, but only to the point where it slows down the growth.......most agencies have an automatic ceiling that increases with inflation or pay raises or whatever, and that is the amount that gets 'cut', and then they use that new found money to spend somewhere else.

With Romney, he actually wants to cut the agencies.....by either eliminating them completely or merging those agencies into another or others that are similar, and use those savings to reduce the annual deficit and ultimately the national debt.

That's how households do it; that's how businesses do it.....and that's how our governments should be doing it. That's how you make headway because you increase the base tax revenue and get people back to work at the same time. You repeat this formula over and over as time goes by and you end up with a stable economy and a deficit that is again manageable and revenues that can now be used to begin to reduce the national debt as well.

I will never understand how countries and leaders believe that you can spend your way out of debt....it doesn't work, working households with a budget understand that they can't, and that's why so many countries are in trouble today.

and issue tax cuts so businesses can start up or hire more, you increase revenue automatically. Basic bookkeeping for business and for workers because they both end up with more money in their pockets to spend either personally (helps the economy) or as a business (helps the economy plus helps with jobs increases).

Companies Are Sitting On $500 Billion, Which Could Create 2.4 Million Jobs

The idea of US companies "hoarding cash" has been a front page-splashing story for a while. Companies in Standard & Poor's 500-stock index have been "hoarding" over $1 trillion, according to the Federal Reserve figures, "shunning investment," "laying off workers," and "stiffing" the people, so that they can have a cozy nest egg, as they ride out these topsy turvy times.

They're waiting until they have $600 Billion more money in their pockets THEN they'll start hiring?

invests in their own and expands or hires or buys more equipment until they know they aren't going to be hit with additional regulations and taxes and possibly lose government contracts come Jan 1.

You forgot about this information in your post......

>>>>Economists have pointed out that much of this "hoarded" cash is in the form of foreign profits, which corporations are hesitant to bring home, since that would mean surrendering up to 35 percent of it in taxes. This is probably why Microsoft borrowed $2.25 billion in unsecured debt last February, while sitting on $40 billion in cash and short-term securities, The Wall Street Journal speculated.

The researchers proposed the idea of a tax amnesty for repatriated cash, on the condition that the funds are put into an "infrastructure bank" for three years. That money would then be allocated to much-needed public infrastructure projects. In this scenario, 1.1 million new jobs would be created, and GDP would expand by 0.8 percent, the study predicts.

The "infrastructure bank" is more fantasy than reality, but sources hint that president Obama will call for cutting the top corporate tax rate later this month. If the plan goes through, will see if tempts our country's largest corporations to bring home some of their hoarded offshore loot, and put it in the pockets of the American people.>>>>

Why would any company bring home THEIR money just to give control of it all to the government to 'invest' instead of them?