Speakeasy forum

General discussion

Skin in the game?.................................... Do to.

by JP Bill / November 4, 2012 11:33 PM PST
Post a reply
Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: Skin in the game?.................................... Do to.
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: Skin in the game?.................................... Do to.
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
It looks like Canada agrees
by TONI H / November 5, 2012 12:51 AM PST

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?

Collapse -
I agree. This is also how credit card debt gets out
by Steven Haninger / November 5, 2012 2:14 AM PST

of control. People make a payment on their debt and consider the regained credit to be as good as found cash. If they can't make a payment, they take out another card or try to get their limit raised. Our government has their parallel to this but they don't need to ask their citizen creditors for approval.

Collapse -
(NT) ghetto financing approach
by James Denison / November 5, 2012 10:45 PM PST
Collapse -
RE: BO complained that the wars were unfunded on credit card
by JP Bill / November 5, 2012 2:43 AM PST
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?

Did he say "unfunded on credit cards" OR "funded BY/ON credit cards"?

Anyways...

America has been borrowing a bunch of money to help pay for a couple of wars....You haven't been borrowing ALL the money to support the wars...SOME has been coming from the American Taxpayer. When you stop the fighting AND make cuts, you don't borrow more money AND you have more of your tax revenue to use as you will.

When you borrow money, you don't just get the money and pay it off when the war is over OR at your leisure. You have to make payments on a regular schedule. Which has probably been going on for years, so you've been making payments for years.

It cost a lot to fight a war....way more than if the forces are sitting at home or even just maintaining there skills.

SO

You save money by not being in a war zone.
You're not borrowing more money.
You cut your expenses.

Same as when YOU are making a budget.

How can he take money saved from the wars ending and now spend it without borrowing

The short answer is

You take the money that's NOT being spent on wars, and ONLY spend that...and DON'T BORROW.

It wasn't ALL borrowed money that was being used to fight the wars.
Collapse -
Unless you have
by TONI H / November 5, 2012 7:11 AM PST

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.

Collapse -
Did I mention Bush?.......Did I praise anybody?
by JP Bill / November 5, 2012 11:08 AM PST
In reply to: Unless you have

I stayed on topic.


Have your rant Toni...get it all out.....You'll feel better.

Collapse -
It's like store advertisements
by James Denison / November 5, 2012 10:46 PM PST

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

Collapse -
RE: It looks like Canada agrees
by JP Bill / November 5, 2012 3:29 AM PST

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

Where did you get that from?

And that's why.............. If Canadians were electing the next U.S. president Tuesday, these polling results would have Mitt Romney holding his head in his hands. In almost every measure of polling demographic, including having the winner live next door, Barack Obama is a clear favourite. The data comes from a Forum Research Inc. poll - conducted for the National Post - of 1,735 randomly selected residents of Canada aged 18 or older.?

We may be "Crazy Canucks" BUT we're not THAT crazy.

Collapse -
(NT) So, a more efficent US would cut bucks to Canada.... too bad
by lylesg / November 5, 2012 4:23 AM PST
Collapse -
"efficient" NOT FOUND in provided link.
by JP Bill / November 5, 2012 4:40 AM PST

perhaps you could "cut and paste" a more efficent US would cut bucks to Canada From the provided link...then I'll discuss the statement with you.

Cut and paste.............not like pulling "facts?" out of thin air.

Collapse -
If the US Govt cuts back spending and corporate tax rates
by lylesg / November 5, 2012 10:43 AM PST

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.

Collapse -
RE:If the US Govt cuts back spending and corporate tax rates
by JP Bill / November 5, 2012 1:27 PM PST

Cut back in spending and cut back in revenue?

That's a wash?

You're right where you were when you started, still in the hole, not making headway.

The more things change the more they stay the same.

Collapse -
This is where you're wrong
by TONI H / November 5, 2012 6:07 PM PST

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.

Collapse -
RE: This is where you're wrong
by JP Bill / November 5, 2012 7:27 PM PST

THIS is where I'm wrong?

Cut back in spending and cut back in revenue?

That's a wash?

You're right where you were when you started, still in the hole, not making headway.


IF I cut expenses by $1000 AND have $1000 less revenue...It's NOT a wash?...I'm NOT in the same financial position?

Expense down 1K...Income down 1K...That's a wash!!!!

1K on one side of the ledger, 1K on the other side

Seems like Basic Bookkeeping.

This is what Conservatives do...when they cut an expense, they figure HEY, we have less expenses, let's have a tax cut.

Collapse -
You cut expenses
by TONI H / November 5, 2012 8:00 PM PST

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).

Collapse -
so businesses can start up or hire more
by JP Bill / November 5, 2012 8:23 PM PST
In reply to: You cut expenses

Is THAT guaranteed? Absolutely NO WAY that wouldn't happen?

Collapse -
PS
by JP Bill / November 5, 2012 8:42 PM PST
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?
Collapse -
Lowering Tax rates and cutting regulation costs
by lylesg / November 5, 2012 10:03 PM PST
In reply to: PS

for corporations/businesses has increased government revenue in the past and the US economic climate is perfect right now for it to happen again. Businesses expand and more people are working paying taxes. That combined with cut backs in government spending equals lower deficits and reducing the debt is the next step. A government increasing it's debt by near six trillion dollars in only 4 years obviously doesn't help the economy. Deficit spending increasing by one trillion plus doesn't help an economy, too. The returns are not worth the investment.

Even Canada learned this a few years back.

Collapse -
No company
by TONI H / November 5, 2012 10:11 PM PST
In reply to: PS

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?

Collapse -
Be careful with the cutting and pasteing...
by JP Bill / November 5, 2012 10:39 PM PST
In reply to: No company
The researchers proposed the idea of a tax amnesty for repatriated cash,

repatriated? (To restore or return to the country of birth, citizenship, or origin)

Made in America...transferred offshore?

Why would any company bring home THEIR money

THEIR money EARNED in America?

You should be asking why they sent it out of America in the first place...Since all they want to do is create jobs in America.
Popular Forums
icon
Computer Help 49,613 discussions
icon
Computer Newbies 10,349 discussions
icon
Laptops 19,436 discussions
icon
Security 30,426 discussions
icon
TVs & Home Theaters 20,308 discussions
icon
Windows 10 360 discussions
icon
Phones 15,802 discussions
icon
Windows 7 7,351 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 14,641 discussions

Tech explained

Do you know what an OLED TV is?

CNET explains how OLED technology differs from regular TVs, and what you need to know to make the right shopping decision.