English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

14 answers

Government spending is good for the economy. Although if it causes the taxes rate to increase, that's bad for the economy. But this war hasn't caused the tax rates to increase.

Anyway, you also have to consider what the alternative is. If we hadn't gone to war against Iraq, and they'd gotten nuclear weapons, and nuked New York, that would have been very bad for the economy. So even if the war is bad overall, it's still better than the alternative.

2007-08-16 17:50:08 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

It was in past wars when we had a significant industrial base. World War Two pulled us out of the Depression. But, with the transition to service industries within the Information Age, it really doesn't spread the wealth throughout America's business sector. A large field of major defense contractors has been reduced to a precious few. And those small to medium businesses which once fed goods and supplies into those larger contractors are fewer in number as well.

2007-08-16 23:02:16 · answer #2 · answered by desertviking_00 7 · 0 0

Any war has it's economic incentives, and economic penalties.

That said, this current 'war' is a relatively minor budget item. It's a small, part-time war. The actual cost of the war materiel and the aid programs ot Iraq pale in comparison to the social service programs in the U.S. budget.

If we want to reduce taxes, the best way to do it is to get the government out of the social services game. It would cut the government budget by a good 60%.

wsulliva

2007-08-16 23:06:21 · answer #3 · answered by wsulliva 3 · 0 0

Viewed in a vacuum, no. If the tax money were left in the hands of taxpayers, we'd all buy more stuff or invest in something with it, and be better off. If the government paid down its own debt with it, we'd all be better off.

Compared to the alternative, perhaps it is good for us. The alternative being a possible regional war in the Middle East.

2007-08-16 22:57:57 · answer #4 · answered by open4one 7 · 0 0

No, when Saddam was in power, it might have helped some. But now that he is gone, it is a waste of resources, people and money that could go to better causes like health care here at home. But then that is just my opinion and the politicians in power will do what they want anyway. My question to you is, why is their no honest politicians in America? From the Prez on down?

2007-08-16 22:57:53 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

i honestly don't think so. our gas prices are going up and they didn't before the war started. and the stock market cant stay in a level spot. but i'm not really sure if the war as anything to do with the stock market

2007-08-16 22:58:34 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

No, once we have to pay off the massive deficit we have incurred, it will become apparent that it has been harmful. The Bush tax breaks only made the deficit bigger, but they were implemented so that they could get the political support they needed.

2007-08-16 22:58:23 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

HELL NO!!
Our kids are gonna be paying for this war, since it is way too much for the US to pay for now!! In just one year, we've spent 750 billion dollars!!

Do you think that war is good for our economy?

2007-08-16 22:57:51 · answer #8 · answered by ♥ Xite ♥ 3 · 0 1

the truth. yes. there's nothing like starting a war to get a huge influx of business going. where does it go to? military arms, military uniforms, research and development. countries spend BILLIONS to get the best armor, the best weapons. guess which country has it all?

2007-08-16 23:02:12 · answer #9 · answered by Mars 4 · 0 0

Noo. war is never good neither is George Bush for this country.

2007-08-16 23:00:44 · answer #10 · answered by Miss M 4 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers