Congressmen Derive Financial Profit From War

http://www.infowars.com/?p=2417
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_ralph_fo_080527_151_congressmen_deri.htm

Who profits from the Iraq war? More than a quarter of senators and congressmen have invested at least $196 million of their own money in companies doing business with the Department of Defense (DoD) that profit from the death and destruction in Iraq.
...
 War hawk Sen. Joe Lieberman (IConn.), chairman of the defense-related
Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, had at least $51,000 invested in these companies in 2006.

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), who voted for Bush’s war, had stock in defense companies, such as Honeywell, Boeing and Raytheon, but sold the stock in May 2007.

>>1
THANKS A LOT CAPTAIN OBVIOUS

BUT ALSO THANKS FOR PUTTING LIBFAGS NAMES DOWN THERE, SO THAT WE GET THE IMPRESSION REPUBLICAN FAGGOTS DIDN'T DO THE PROFITEERING THING

Considering that one of them aspires to be President I think it's pretty fucking important that people know that KKKlinton is a war profiteer.

But hey, you wanna see some Republicans and their profits?  Here you go:

Rep. Kenny Ewell Marchant (R-Tex.) $162,074 to $162,074
Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-N.J.) $115,002 to $300,000
Rep. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.) $65,646 to $65,646

There.  Now both sides have been picked on equally.  Feel better now?  Go change your diaper, get yourself a sippy-cup of juice and mull the implications over in your head.

They're not profiting from the war. It is market forces. Sorry.

Yes, market forces.  You're right.  There's a war and the military needs lots of new stuff on a constant basis.  They buy all their stuff from a select few companies.  Those companies make a ton of profit, driving their stock price up.  Indeed the market has made "defense" stocks desirable and profitable for stock holders.

Or did you think defense contractors were making money because the DOW was up?  Get real, clown.

>>5
War has cost this country billions.
Anyone can buy stock in military contractors.
Assuming the war is entirely motivated by money then "the rich" would be better off not starting a war and putting the money into civilian industries which will obtain more profit as a result of the peace.

ITT Niggers.

>>6
>would be better off not starting a war and putting the money into civilian industries which will obtain more profit as a result of the peace.
facepalm.png
It's funny how the fact that you don't understand anything about how the world works and your ideology goes hand in hand.

>>6
LOL.  How little you understand....
Yes, the war costs billions.  It costs the *taxpayers* billions of dollars.  But where do those dollars go?  TO THE COMPANIES THAT MANUFACTURE WEAPONS!  That's literally why the war is expensive, because the military needs to purchase new equipment constantly.  Or did you think that shit just appeared out of nowhere?
The defense industry has made roughly $755 million per day during this war.  There aren't many civilian sectors that can even hope to match that.

But maybe you don't see the conflict of interest here, so I'll spell it out for you, faggot.

As long as congressmen are making tons of personal profit by owning stocks in the companies that benefit from war they are never going to make a real effort to end the war.  It's especially bad because there so many Democrats, the party that practically promised to end the war, are involved in this fleecing.

But hey, if you enjoy having your tax dollars flushed down the toilet go ahead find another excuse to be an apathetic waste of space.

>>8
>>9
Rich people pay more tax than poor people.
Most of the nation's disposable income is in the possesion of lower and middle classes.
If there's a problem here it's the lower and middle classes whom are not observing current events and potential insider traders (politicians) closely enough and matching their investment strategies. My father starting putting money into defense contractors starting in December 2002 in response to the vast NATO army doing "exercises" in Saudi Arabia and he could be described as middle-upper class. I was 16 at the time so I just had savings, I did however take note of the low interest rates that occured for a long period of time and predicted high-risk mortgage lenders would be at risk sometime last year, but I spread my short selling into other high-risk lenders who weren't as badly effected so I didn't make that much money. I for one am glad to have evacuated money from those failing companies and put it to use in purchasing luxuries and in other investments, I have done a charitable service, it's the equivalent of donating $5000 to oxfam or something.

I think the problem is you guys just do not understand the service sector! I'm suprised none of you contemplate the idea of "intellectual labour" or whatever you might call the work done by managers to increase the efficiency of resource allocation.

Sorry, but that has nothing to do with the fact that the people who claim to want to end the war are actually making personal profit from it.

Nice tangent though.

>>10

Are you stupid or just trolling? This has nothing to do with the fact that our senate profits from the current war. If anything, you've highlighted us on the thought process of these politicians- so thank you for that.

>>12
Facts and reason can't stop me from sucking my masters cock. Go away.

>>11
>>12
What the fuck are you talking about! First of all I have done you a favour by ignoring the absence of proof concerning the ability of "the rich" to start a war, so I'll bring out this card now. Secondly you neglect to understand that the economy as a whole has suffered from the Iraq war, most people with money to invest are not directly involved in defense and would prefer their businesses to be taxed less than have an opportunity to make a quick buck investing in a defense contractor.
>>13
k

>>14
Ummm no one said "the rich" - a very vague term - started the war.  In case you haven't been reading the newspaper, it was G.W. who started the war aaaaaaand the Congress who supported and funded it with your tax dollars.
If you didn't notice the point here is that Congress, the people elected to represent the public, are profiting from the war at the tax payers expense.  I'm not sure how out of touch you are, but the 2006 congressional elections gave the Democrats a majority, and they got it by promising to end the war.  Funny how so many of those representatives are making a profit by not ending it.

Rich people who do not hold public office can invest their money wherever the hell the like, even if it is morally repugnant.  However there is a HUGE problem when public officials invest their money in an industry that benefits from a war they're supposed to be trying to stop.  Do you understand what a fucking conflict of interests is?

Are you fucking retarded or just a troll?


To address your second point:
Well, I pretty much destroyed it already because this isn't about "the rich" - It's about CONGRESSMEN profiting from war.  They do not care what the economy is like as long as they can get reelected.
Also, the economy doesn't matter to people who are truly wealthy.  They make money regardless of how much the man in the street suffers.  Hell, it's not like they even have to be tied to one economy, because there are plenty of foreign markets to invest in.

>>15
Name 3 congressmen who bought shares in defence contractors before the war.

Who cares if they bought in before the war.  If they bought in any time during the war they made a ton of money.

>>17
I SAID FACTS AND REASON AREN'T IMPORTANT, WHY ARE YOU TRYING TO STOP MY COCK-SUCKING APOLOGETICS AND RUNNING AWAY WITH IRRELEVANT RETARDED BULLSHIT WITH LOGIC?

No fucking dah. The only three reason you would vote for a war like the current Iraq war is that you wher ether tricked into it, you wher makeing a proffit out of it, or you wher black mailed into it.