<p>Okay that was just so depressing to watch…no wonder they have record profits</p>
<p>And we have people in jail for stealing a slice of pizza or smokin a doobie</p>
<p>Come on you corporate loving conservatives, explain this away and please don’t say its too much paperwork during a war…that doesn’t fly
cause, gee, you got most of the headquarters right here in the USA</p>
<p>I didn’t see the Sixty Minutes piece but I’ve been reading different threads of this for some time. As incompetent, corrupt, and hideously expensive the contracting has been, it’s down in the noise, given the problems of Bush & Iraq. The Bush administration is, as they say in the military, a target rich environment.</p>
<p>Actually Halliburton reported poor profits on its Iraq work as Xiggi posted recently…</p>
<p>Halliburton holds exclusive military contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Halliburton released its fiscal results for 2005, showing profits rose up from a loss of $1.1 billion in 2004 to net profit of $2.4 billion in 2005. Halliburton’s KBR revenue for fourth quarter of 2005 decreased 3 percent o $3 billion. </p>
<p>They lost money because of asbestos, and now the rules have been changed to protect halliburton from having to pay for asbestos problems</p>
<p>taking care of their own</p>
<p>please, what about the other companies that are so unwisely spending your tax dollars on this war </p>
<p>and not to mention the missing 8,000,000,000 dollars</p>
<p>Isn’t this the way “trickle-down” is supposed to work?</p>
<p>CGM, there is difference between reading something and understanding it. </p>
<p>If I am not mistaken, this must be the fourth of fifth time you start spewing the same garbage about the financial performance of Halliburton’s KBR unit. Revenues and profit are far from being the same. The contracts in Iraq are fixed cost plus a profit that is well BELOW the profits of its oil service divisions. Please tell us how much money KBR MADE and what percentage of the profits it contributed? If KBR was such a cash cow, why do you think it has been put up for sale. </p>
<p>You are either too dumb to understand the nature of their business or too lazy to go beyond the blatant sensationalism of your “discoveries.” Either way it is embarrassing, even for a cut and paste artist. </p>
<p>And since you love to ask questions, I’ve one for you: How much would Halliburton have to pay you or your husband to work in Iraq?</p>
<p>Xiggi - you are correct, but, as previously noted, not complete in your analysis. Profitability is one small overall measure of business performance, and only a small reason why one would choose to enter into a particular contract. When I ran a business, I would enter into low-profit, or even losing contracts all the time if I thought they would provide me with other business advantages. These could range from increasing efficiency in other areas of distribution (“profit” would go up there, even as the particular contract was a loser), to “goodwill” (ability to snag other contracts, or to influence policies that impacted my bottom line), to public image (makes me look “larger” and more powerful), to staff development, to cash cow for a subsidiary division- the list could go on. Companies do this all the time - with the additional note that public companies may position themselves or their units to be bought and sold, adding to the bottom line without any clear need for profitability.</p>
<p>All your points are true in a somewhat strict sense but it is also true that H’s profits in Iraq have been far from huge and windfall in nature. They are trying to do a tough job only a few firms in the world can attempt. The possibility of any future new business is uncertain at best.</p>