Note the drop until the lie-based war of 2003:
http://finance.yahoo.com/charts#chart3:symbol=^dji;range=20000104,20070904;indicator=volume;charttype=line;crosshair=on;logscale=on;source=undefined
Coincidence or fact?
2007-09-04 15:37:33 · 11 answers · asked by Chi Guy 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Ahhh, to launch a war for defense company profiteering. Great for the DOW. Bad for the country.
The market increase initiated in 2003 is a direct result of the $500 Billion US tax dollars given to to defense contratcors. Its basically your own tax money, and not new growth. Can this be any clearer?
2007-09-04 15:46:58 · update #1
- contractors - (above)
2007-09-04 15:48:17 · update #2
Why do you put so little faith in the people of the US in a free market to recover from the awful jolt of 9/11?
2007-09-05 08:40:03 · answer #1 · answered by ? 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm not sure where you studied economics, finance or statistics, but usually they tell you to check the dates of events before you try to establish causality.
Do you really think that a 50 billion dollar (yes, 50, not 500, the payment authorizations came in largely spaced increments) spending increase on the military caused the market to rise several thousand points even though the market started climbing a month BEFORE such a bill was even authorized, let alone spent? How would investing such a small amount of money into a single industry shift the TRILLIONS of dollars involved in the markets?
You might want to consider that Bush cut taxes in 2001 and began to accelerate how fast rates were being cut in 2003. These cuts not only cut the tax rates for individuals, but lowered the tax on every single investment made in the country. That might have had a little bit more to do with it than that small drop in the bucket you were talking about.
2007-09-06 16:53:39 · answer #2 · answered by Biggg 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's all in the framing of an argument. The argument could have easily been framed: In order for our war efforts to succeeded, we need certain tax relief efforts to spur on the markets. Or some variation there of. In the end, It's all smoke and mirrors. Our leaders are catering to the corporate market interest.
2007-09-04 22:51:40 · answer #3 · answered by nightwing7011 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
well... I think that the war spending clearly has clearly helped the economy...
the real question is "how much"... and "how much" has the tax cuts?
it is interesting that your graph is very friendly at the start of the war though...
I don't know if anyone has noticed the debt... but it's outrageous... and it doesn't seem to bother the economy... for now...
2007-09-04 22:54:33 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Does the drop have anything to do with 9/11?
2007-09-04 22:54:03 · answer #5 · answered by nosf37 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yeah, honestly... Because cutting taxes (i.e. cutting gov revenues) is sure to give us more money right? Isn't that kind of like saying that if one were to throw gasoline on a fire it'll most likely get embarrassed and put itself out?
2007-09-04 22:50:26 · answer #6 · answered by John S 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Wars put countries into debt. That old theory of making the economy work through war is crap.
2007-09-04 22:45:36 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
sorry ...you lose.
both tax cuts i had along with the interest rate drop were BEFORE CONFLICT....
im not rich but ill own my house fifteen years sooner...with bushs help NOT CLINTONS...
it made a difference here.
but im sure you sent your checks back didnt you...fat chance.
2007-09-04 23:02:21 · answer #8 · answered by koalatcomics 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
They do that to obfuscate those that do not know what the true facts of the issue are.
2007-09-05 06:20:25 · answer #9 · answered by Mario Savio 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
You have your "facts" confused! It's raining fuzzy math!
2007-09-04 22:44:09 · answer #10 · answered by Constitutional Watchdog 7 · 1⤊ 5⤋