Cynical Nation

This is perhaps the only meaningful tax reform proposal I've yet to hear from any Democrat of national prominence.

You make a very good point. Oh and dont forget that he was (is) the democratically elected president of the country (of course).

Imagine, we could have had Gore instead of retard Chimpboy.

What is Bush's idea of creative? Tax breaks for the wealthy! Open borders! Corporate welfare!

This is an interesting concept. Of course, businesses would respond to a tax on CO2 emmissions by doing everything they could to eliminate their tax liability, presumably by reducing their CO2 emmissions as close to zero as possible. That's certainly good, but what if they succeed? Zero emmissions would result in $0.00 tax liability, would it not?

Since Gore's plan calls for that tax to replace all payroll taxes, how would Social Security and Medicare be funded? Businesses would certainly work as diligently as they could to reduce their tax liability, so this would, at least, be a continuously declining source of tax revenue. Wouldn't this pit the interests of Social Security recipients against the interests of environmental protection?

Blue Wind: We do not, and never have, "democratically elected" presidents in this country. Presidential electors are, according to the U.S. Constitution, selected by the legislatures of the states, all of whom currently delegate part of the responsibility for selection to the voters of the state. However, once the state legislature is satisfied with the selection of electors, the contest is over. Even now, almost six years after the 2000 election, Gore still lost the contest in the critical state of Florida -- and his home state of Tennessee, which could have given him enough electoral votes to win.

Eliminating ALL payroll taxes by taxing Carbon Dioxide emmissions?

Apparently Gore expects a huge tax revenue windfall from corporate taxes via this emmissions tax.

The problem there is there's NO SUCH THING as a business tax.

Every cost of doing business, from rising wage rates, to increased costs for materials to taxes are and must be passed onto the consumer in the form of price increases.

Gore's a dolt and his supporters are naive, to say the least.

Poor Blue thinks the Constitution - a document designed to (1) to limit the powers and actions of government and (2) save us from the tyranny that is pure democracy (a "tyranny of the majority" as Jefferson called it) - is an inadequate document.

The Constitution took direct election OUT of the hands of the populace and placed it in the hands of a trusted Electoral College. America's Founders thwarted pure democracy at every possible turn.

We dodged a hollow point when Gore lost in 2000.

not to be mean, but WHY are we still arguing about the 2000 elections? I haven't read Scientific American lately, but I don't think we can go back in time and find out who "won".
Bush won 2000 (get over it)
Bush won 2004 (get over it)
Bush will not win 2008 (his term will be over)

Also, Gore's idea is good.

Bush stole the 2000 election when he failed to live up to his "compassionate conservatism" shtick and went on a spending rampage to enrich Halliburton, lied, started a needless war in Iraq, and just generally implemented his plan to steal from the middle class and give to the rich.

Remember when he said he wasn't into "nation building", that it had been tried, and just didn't work? He said that in the debates before the 2000 election.

The man is a criminal and a pathological liar.

Then again, he was re-elected in 2004, so he is apparently what the majority of Americans want in a leader.

Rachel, you're right that we can't go back in time, but some people aren't looking to "get over it," evidenced by Blue's unfounded and unevidenced assertion that Gore won the 2000 election.

As to Gore's idea about taxing carbon dioxide emmissions, in order to eliminate the payroll tax; (1) without a lot more facts/information, we can't tell whether the idea is at all "good," or even feasable, or not and (2) the tax burden always falls on the people (individuals) no matter what form taxation takes.

ALL taxes on business, from a corporate tax to such an "emmissions tax" MUST be passed onto the consumer, because business can't survive by selling products for less than those cost odd doing business.

The most basic question concerning such a plan is, "Would the costs passed onto the people (as consumers) with such a plan outstrip the savings realized in payroll tax deductions?

It is very possible, given our current technologies, that they would.

And what if, down the road, business is successful in reducing carbon dioxide emmissions to a level where tax revenues fall below current levels?

A return to the payroll tax?

Higher income taxes?

Higher corporate taxes?

No, I don't like the idea at first blush because it fails to address the culpability that government has had in blocking new technologies and the escalating costs of energy - for instance, gasoline taxes from both the federal and State & Local levels account for as much as thirty-five percent of the price of gas at the pumps.

Did the government recently lower gas taxes? I've noticed it just dropping and dropping as the election grows near, and "analysts" predict it will keep dropping until December. My, my, imagine that!

What a break for Republicans that "market forces" just happen to follow the election cycle!

Nope! Gas taxes UNFORTUNATELY have remained the same (too high), but oil prices are plummeting in response to all the GOOD NEWS - a very mild winter of 2005, a mild Hurricane season of 2006 (with no damage to America's refinery capacity) and sky-high oil inventories.

In anticipation of the election, I'm figuring on a major October announcement by the Iraqi government that they'll be taking full military and police responsibilities in that country, asking only that some American troops as "advisors" be left there.

A booming economy, the conflict in Iraq off the table and Iran coming around to negotiation could spell the trifecta that the GOP has been hoping for.

I can't believe that ANYONE would view such things in so cynical a light as to believe that they'd be manipulated for mere partisan political gain.

No, you are wrong. Bush does not plan on leaving Iraq. Halliburton is making record profits, and "somebody" needs to profit on all that oil in the ground. He doesn't give a damn about other Republicans, only enriching his friends.

They will make some bullshit gesture, and the carnage will continue.

Iran could probably be bribed into making a deal though. Halliburton has been supplying our enemies with nuclear technology for a long, long time, so maybe they will just slip them a couple of nukes. It's a win-win. Iran gets nukes, and the Republicans have something to scare Americans with.

You've got to put down those conspiracy theory manuals BH - you're going to hurt yourself (they're way too heavy for you).

Anyway, earlier this month Iraq's government said it was ready to take on more of the military and police responsibilities in that country.

I fully expect them to make an even grander announcement this October!

And I NEVER said those silly words, "we're getting out," merely that America's military presence would be reduced to an "advisor role."

We're going to NEED bases in Iraq from which to confront Iran and Syria, if need be.

Halliburton's creating tens of thousands of good jobs for AMERICANS dope!

So how dare you slam such an altruistic company.

Halliburton glommed (and righfully so) the very same percentage of the Balkan war contracts under Clinton, as they're getting now in Iraq & Afghanistan under Bush and got from GHW Bush Sr, back in 1991.

A friend of mine drives a truck over there for FIVE GRAND (American) per week!!!

That's $5K/week for driving a truck (minus personal security costs, of course). There are all kinds of similar jobs over there that pay great money in U.S. currency.

Some of the positions are tax free, if you stay over there for more than six months!!!

I have two beloved nephews, aged four and seven....I fully expect us to still be militarily engaged by the time both of them are eighteen.

(1) We are literally fighting for our lives in this.

AND

(2) This war ain't close to over....in fact, the worst is almost certainly still to come, for all of us.

Rachel wrote:

Bush won 2000 (get over it)

No he did NOT. He lost the popular vote (everyone agrees on that) and he was selected as president by a right-wing supreme court.

From 2000 to 2004 Bush was president but he was not democratically elected.

In 2004 he was really elected, but only after installing fear to the electorate. Interestingly, many people who voted for him then have regretted their votes (including Barry of course).

There's NEVER been a President elected by the popular vote BW.

That's a historical FACT.

The U.S. Constitution was written and passed exclusively to limit government power and action and to protect the people from the perils of pure democracy.
It was not until the election of 1824 that the results of popular votes began to be kept. The election of 1824 between Andrew Jackson and John Quincy Adams had to be resolved by the House of Representatives under the provisions of the 12th Amendment. Because the 12th Amendment only allows the three top candidates to be considered, Henry Clay (who was 4th) was forced to withdraw. Clay threw his support to Adams, and Adams was elected by the House of Representatives. Jackson returned in 1828 and defeated Adams in both the popular and the electoral votes.

Here is the list:

1848: Zachary Taylor received 47.3% of the popular vote, and secured 163 electoral votes to win. There were four candidates in this race.

1856: James Buchanan received 45.3% of the popular vote, and secured 174 electoral votes to defeat John Fremont and Millard Fillmore.

1860: Abraham Lincoln secured only 39.9% of the popular vote, but he received 180 Electoral Votes. Lincoln defeated Stephen Douglas, John Breckenridge and John Bell.

1876: In one of our most fascinating elections, Rutherford B. Hayes, who received only 48% of the popular vote, defeated Samuel Tilden, who had received 51%. Colorado played an especially pivotal role in that election. There were several other candidates on the ballot, but none of them secured a single electoral vote. Neither Hayes nor Tilden secured the necessary 185 electoral votes needed to win. Each secured 184. The election was decided by a special Electoral Commission established by Congress for this express purpose.

1880: James Garfield received 48.3% of the popular vote to the 48.2% secured by Winfield Hancock. Garfield had 214 electoral votes to Hancock's 155.

1888: Benjamin Harrison received 47.8% of the popular vote to Cleveland's 48.6% but secured 223 electoral votes to defeat President Grover Cleveland.

1892: Benjamin Harrison again received fewer popular votes than did Grover Cleveland (43% to 46.1%), but this time he lost to Cleveland in the electoral votes when Cleveland secured 277 to Harrison's 145.

1912: Woodrow Wilson received 41.8% of the popular vote in the election that involved Theodore Roosevelt and William Taft. Wilson secured an overwhelming vote in the electoral college.

1960: John Kennedy received 49.7% of the popular vote and 303 electoral votes. Richard Nixon received 49.5% and 219 electoral votes. Harry Byrd got 15 electoral votes. Nixon conceded the election when it was clear that Kennedy had won Illinois and its electoral votes.

1968: Richard Nixon received 43.4% of the popular vote and 301 electoral votes. Hubert Humphrey received 42.3% and 191 electoral votes. Alabama Governor George Wallace got 12.9% of the popular vote and 46 electoral votes.

1992: Bill Clinton received 43.% of the popular vote and 370 electoral votes. George Bush received 37.4% of the popular vote and 168 electoral votes. Ross Perot received 18.9% of the popular vote, but failed to secure a single electoral vote.

1996: Bill Clinton receive 49.2% of the popular vote and 380 electoral votes. Bob Dole received 40.7% of the vote and 159 electoral votes. Ross Perot got 8.4% of the popular vote, but no electoral votes.

In fact, it wasn't until 1913 that Senators were directly elected by the people...thanks to the 17th Amendment.

Until then, U.S. Senators were elected by their respective state legislatures.

Thomas Jefferson was right, in that PURE DEMOCRACY is a terrible and monstrous thing.

The above list;

Have We Elected Presidents Who Lost The Popular Vote?

http://www.jimdyer.com/pdfversions/amendment36minoritypresidents.pdf#search='Presidents%20who%20lost%20the%20popular%20vote'

was by Senator Jim Dwyer.

I did not say that Gore should had been elected because he won the the popular vote. I simply said that Bush was SELECTED by a right-wing supreme court.

The fact that Gore won the popular vote (and Florida) is simply a reminder that most Americans wanted him to be the president. Bush was NOT democratically elected. He was installed in an antidemocratic way by right-wing activist justices.

Well, then that is a patently false assertion.

The SC merely followed the letter of the Florida Law that did not allow hand recounts of machine counted ballots.

The fact that the Florida State SC did not follow Florida law to the letter is most troubling.

Bush won Florida.

Even the tainted NY Times conceded that.

He probably won it on a fluke because many adle-brained seniors, meaning to vote for Gore on their butterfly ballots, voted for Buchanan instead.

Sorry!

But just because a person's an idiot, isn't reason enough to let'em vote twice.

In fact, people that dumb probably shouldn't be voting at all.

We were given a miracle in November of 2000! Gore was both mentally and emotionally unequipped to deal with the current state of world affairs.

The nicest possible thing I could say about AlGore is that "He's one sorry son-of-a-bitch."

Serious, that's the nicest possible thing I could say about that absolute waste of life.

"dolts", "addle-brained" "son of a bitch" "absolute waste of life" Christ, enough with the invective and name-calling...on top of the capital-lettering self-righetousness, it's a bit MUCH

JMK is in love with war profiteering, and he tries to Rove the issue by saying Halliburton raped America when Clinton was in office. Unfortunately, he is wrong again (actually he is lying).

Halliburton always profits from war, but in Iraq they have obscenely raped the American taxpayer with overcharges, false billing, and massive theft of tax dollars. With Republican protection and CEO Cheney in the White House, they have made J.P. Morgan and the other Robber Barons look like pikers.

$2,000 for a quart of cooking oil, WITH full military escort and protection.

We are fighting for our lives? Someone get the giant butterfly net and catch JMK, he needs his meds.

BUSH has killed as many Americans as 9/11 with the War for Profit he lied us into. There is no war. The enemy does not threaten the existence of our country, they can only do the occasional subhuman act.

Timothy McViegh and plenty of other native sons have done the same. There are crazy people in the world, always will be.

Seriously, this cowardly overreaction to 9/11 has become completely ridiculous. We didn't get nuked. No army invaded. It was a spectacularly criminal act, and Afganistan was punishment to those involved along with the never-ended (oops, except when Bush stopped looking) hunt for the criminals.

Have we really become a Nanny State safety nation that can't tolerate the reality that the world is not totally safe? We will all die anyway. Why not live in freedom until then instead of handing over our freedoms, cash, and assets to Bush for generations to come.

We are not fighting for our lives....we are not at war.

As Bill Maher said the other night, if the President has to keep reminding us that we're at war, then we're not.

Otherwise, he wouldn't have urged us to return to normal after 9/11; he wouldn't have told us to fly the airlines and go shopping; there wouldn't have been big tax cuts; there wouldn't be a complete lack of sacrifice for the common effort.

Where are the victory gardens? The war bond sales? The rationing? The sacrifices on the home front? A way to pay for this stuff? A plan to move away from reliance on oil or at least Mid-East oil?

This war affects about 1% of the American populace: those people with family members on duty in Iraq and Afghanistan.

As for the rest of, life rock and rolls on...

Fred said it better than I could have.

INVECTIVE ALERT:

Bill Maher is an idiot.

I can't be plainer and more straightfoward than that.

We're dealing with an global ideology far more dangerous than Nazism, because it is more globalized, and more insidious than Communism because its adherants are far more fanatical.

It is a well organized, well trained and well financed enemy and according to the ONI (Office of Naval Intelligence), U.S. Army Intelligence (USAI) they most probably have access to a number of suitcase nukes at this time.

84 Soviet suitcase nukes remain unaccounted for.

Conventional wisdom (that is nearly everyone in the U.S. mainstream media ) says that, (1) few if any of these suitaces nukes is at all likely to work at this point, and (2) even if they did work, they'd have throw weights far less than their original capabilities.

Almost no one in either ONI or the USAI believe that to be true.

After the collapse of the USSR, brought on by the failure of the Command economy, the West, led by America, took in as many as 80% of those former Soviet scientists, but a sizable number (8% to 16%) probably went rogue.

Therefor, both ONI & USAI believe that (1) at least a few of these unaccounted for suitcase nukes have fallen into terrorist hands, (2) with the number of former Soviet scientists that've gone rogue, it's more than likely that they'd be able to get those units up and operational and (3) given the way these units were designed, it's unlikely that the throw weights of these units today would be appreciably less than the ones initially assigned them.

It is believed and has been portended by the likes of Orianna Falacci that unless Europe begins to expel its Muslim population within the next decade, they will almost certainly be outbred and fall to Muslim rule from inside, replete with Sharia Law - Eurabia.

Right up to her recent passing, Falacci believed that today's Europe lacks the ability to recognize an enemy, as well as the will to fight.

I hold out more hope than she had and look toward a Far Right resurgence on that continent, one that hopefully will be ended once the expulsion of the Muslim invaders is complete.

Could the forces of globalist jihad win this struggle between Islam and the West?

Absolutely and without question, especially if Europe falls.
They are a global, well-financed, weell-organized and determined enemy and too many in the West refuse to see this struggle for what it is.

I'm convinced that that's due almost entirely to a deep and abiding moral cowardice on those folk's part.

Barely, there are NO/ZERO $2000 hammers or $1000 quarts of cooking oil.

There are, however, $5000/week truck drivers, cooks, carpenters, electricians, etc - U.S. civilian employees hired by Haliburton for those exorbitant, but market wages, must be factored into the cost of all the goods and services delivered by that company.

Haliburton is often the ONLY company that can deliver the services its contracted to do - it bought out Red Adair's oil well fire company (the world's best) and that's why they glom the bulk of the contracts in every military intervention America engages in.

Given all that you said, JMK, about the vicious and dangerous foe we face, Bush should then be impeached for his lousy and half-assed approach to this threat, which you believe, and there are certainly FACTS to back you up, is greater than Nazism.

Off the top of my head, requiring no sacrifices from Americans in this effort. Stretching our armed forces to the limit (god forbid we need to fight somewhere else; well, we could go into Iran with a troop of Boy Scouts, I suppose). Our A.D.D.-liberation of Afghanistan (new president installed, that's good enough, let's move on to something else); our criminally foolhardy approach to Iraq; our hand-wringing and hoping for the best while Iran and North Korea proceed with their nukes programs.

If this is how we're facing a foe greater than Nazism, then who's winning?

"Given all that you said, JMK, about the vicious and dangerous foe we face, Bush should then be impeached for his lousy and half-assed approach to this threat..." (Fred)...Now, that's an argument you could definitely make!

It's certainly easier to make that argument than the one that we've "over-reacted to a non-threat."

The war with Saddam's Iraq was a model of efficiency, in that it ended in three weeks with minor losses on our side - "Mission accomplished."

The subsequent occupation/rebuilding is a different issue altogether.

The initial war was well prosecuted, the follow-up has been terrible.

I had always supported removing Hussein and allowing Iraq to re-partition - the Kurds in the north would reform Kurdistan, the Sunni center would probably have to merge with Syria and the Shi'a south would probably merge back into old Persia (Iran).

The problem that some have with that is they feel it would greatly increase Iran's scope of influence and create an untenable situation with Turkey, which is adamant about there not being a free and independent Kurdistan - as the Turkish Kurds in the south would almost certainly seek to break away to join that free Kurdistan.

Me, I'd have still rolled the dice.

After all, Bush rightly acknowledged that we're in at least a twenty years war and that the "real struggle" hasn't even begun in earnest yet.

We are probably going to have to confront Iran and Syria and others, so I didn't and don't see the downside of letting Iraq re-partition, though that horse is out of the gate already...we went a different way, at a tremendous cost.

As to "Who's winning?"

Much of the West doesn't even recognize the threat, so even though America's done a lot to cripple al Qaeda and Israel has recently slammed Hezbollah hard, at this point, Europe is still in danger of being taken from within and America's will to fight seems tenuous at best.

Militarily we're winning, but ideologically, even politically, we're probably not...because we just aren't serious enough about the problem. Many don't even believe there is a problem.

Perhaps we should check in with the Islamic Republic of France in a few years to get her take on how this is all going down.

"Barely, there are NO/ZERO $2000 hammers or $1000 quarts of cooking oil." -- JMK, The Liar

KBR charged DoD $27 million to ship $82,000 of cooking oil [Houston Chronicle]

But there is MUCH MUCH more! Go here and read!
http://www.outragedmoderates.org/OpenandHonestGovernment.html

... and even more if you care to look!

On “Meet the Press” on Sept. 14, Cheney said: “I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven’t had, now, for over three years.” Cheney, however, continues to receive a large deferred salary of more than $160,000 a year from Halliburton. Cheney also holds 433,333 in unexercised Halliburton stock options.

Cheney bought an insurance policy for $15,000 before he was sworn in as vice president to protect this income if Halliburton were to go out of business, according to CNN. In 2001, Cheney received $205,298, and in 2002, another $162,393, in deferred salary payments from Halliburton.

Sens. Thomas Daschle (D-S.D.) and Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) say the revelations of Cheney’s financial interest in Halliburton and the no-bid contracts Halliburton has received from the Bush administration should be investigated.

“In 2001 and 2002, Cheney was paid almost as much in salary from Halliburton as he made as vice president,” Lautenberg said.

“The vice president needs to explain how he reconciles the claim that he has ‘no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind,’ with the hundreds of thousands of dollars in deferred salary payments he receives from Halliburton,” Daschle said in a statement.

Read my post!

I said that most of Haliburton's high costs are due to the astronomical salaries that civilian contractors are getting over there.

That $18 hammer comes to $2000 when brought to you buy a bunch of $5000/week civilian employees.

Any company that must bear the cost of those huge salaries must also be able to pass them on...to the government...which of course, is each of us via our taxes.

Truckers over in Iraq are getting $5000/week because the supply of people willing to do that task is very limited relative to the demand.

"Perhaps we should check in with the Islamic Republic of France in a few years to get her take on how this is all going down." (Fred)

Yes, that would be correct, probably in a very few years if things continue along their current course.

In fact, the cure for France, in particular, may be even more unpalatable, for many, than the disease.

I do believe that only a LePen or some other extreme Right-wing despot would have the will to do what must be done - to "expel the invaders," by force if necessary.

I'm rooting for a Euro-trash extremist in France, at this point, but I don't hold out much hope for France, nor for Belgium or Denmark either.

So JMK, now that you have admitted that you lied, and that they really did charge the amount I quoted for a quart of cooking oil, your last ridiculous stab at saving face is to say it was OVERPAID LABOR that swindled America! LOL!

Didn't you read the whole page, you know, the part about the Halliburton CEO getting a $29,000,000 bonus? Ah, what a BILLION or so in execute bonuses and perks compared to a worker allegedly making $5,000 a week.

Oops, wait, is JMK lying AGAIN???

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/05/23/high_contract_pay_luring_us_poor/
Many of the KBR recruits, like Petty, are working poor. They are willing to dare the hardship of 12- to 14-hour days seven days a week, and the risk of kidnapping or worse, to bring back $80,000 or $100,000 in a year.

Now wait a minute JMK, you said they make $260,000 a year? I guess you really are a lying sack of shit.

"(Halliburton)'s contracts in Iraq are expected to have generated more than $13 billion in sales by the time they start to expire in 2006, but most offer low margins — less than 2% on average in 2003 and just 1.4% this year for the logistics work making these contracts less profitable than Halliburton's core energy business. The contracts in Iraq will be more profitable after the US Army reimburses them for costs that were originally investigated as potentially inflated.

Concerns have been raised regarding the possible conflict of interest resulting from Cheney's deferred compensation and stock options from Halliburton. However, before entering office in 2001, Cheney bought an insurance policy that guaranteed a fixed amount of deferred payments from Halliburton each year for five years so that the payments would not depend on the company's fortunes. He is legally bound by an agreement he signed which turns over power of attorney to a trust administrator to sell the options at some future time and to give the after-tax profits to three charities. The agreement specifies that 40% will go to the University of Wyoming (Cheney's home state), 40% will go to George Washington University's medical faculty to be used for tax-exempt charitable purposes, and 20% will go to Capital Partners for Education.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halliburton

Halliburton Profits Skyrocket On Iraq Deals

Thu Jul 31, Financial Times

By Sheila McNulty in Houston

Halliburton, the second biggest oilfield service company in the world, on Thursday said work in Iraq had boosted revenue as it swung from a loss to record second-quarter net income of $26m , or 6 cents a share, compared with the year-earlier period.

The Houston-based company credited the quarter's 11 per cent rise in revenue, to $3.6bn largely to increased activity in its Engineering and Construction Group (ECG) projects, including government services work in the Middle East.

The second quarter of 2002, to which this past quarter's results were compared, included charges for asbestos liabilities, losses at its Barracuda-Caratinga project in Brazil and restructuring and sales charges.

Halliburton is in the process of finalising a $4bn settlement of asbestos claims. The Barracuda-Caratinga project continues to weigh on its results, with a $173m pre-tax loss on the project in the second quarter of 2003.

Nonetheless, the results this past quarter included a foreign exchange gain of $19m because of a significant strengthening of the British pound against the US dollar during the period.

"We expect earnings per share from continuing operations for the third quarter to be at least 32 cents per share, excluding any impact of the proposed asbestos settlement," David Lesar, Halliburton chairman, president and chief executive, said.

The company's ECG revenues increased 23 per cent, with government services more than doubling, mainly because of activity in Iraq.

Nonetheless, ECG recorded an operating loss of $148m, narrower than the loss of $450m in the year-earlier quarter.

That was because Halliburton had taken a $330m asbestos charge in 2002 and this year had recorded heightened activity in Iraq.

Halliburton ended the second quarter with cash and equivalents of $1.9bn, up from $1.1bn at the end of 2002.

War profiteer Halliburton murders people with asbestos.

"(Halliburton)'s contracts in Iraq are expected to have generated more than $13 billion in sales by the time they start to expire in 2006, but most offer low margins — less than 2% on average in 2003 and just 1.4% this year for the logistics work making these contracts less profitable than Halliburton's core energy business. The contracts in Iraq will be more profitable after the US Army reimburses them for costs that were originally investigated as potentially inflated.
"The contracts in Iraq will be more profitable after the US Army reimburses them for costs that were originally investigated as potentially inflated.

The U.S. government DID indeed reimburse for those payments initially investigated as "potentially inflated."

Halliburton was reimbursed because the investigation showed those charges were NOT inflated.

Low margins don't add up to huge profits, stupid.

Once again, the "low margins" they're talking about are "low profit margins," and low profit margins DON'T "add up to huge profits."

Emotion clouds reason/logic, BH. That's why I try and correct your emotional rants with logic, in the hope that it helps you out a little.

But they showed huge profits, dummy.

OK, I know you don't understand such things very easily, so I'll go through it once more as straightfoward as possible.

"(Halliburton)'s contracts in Iraq are expected to have generated more than $13 billion in sales by the time they start to expire in 2006 (a relatively small amount, for that business), but most offer low margins — less than 2% on average in 2003 and just 1.4% this year for the logistics work making these contracts less profitable than Halliburton's core energy business.

See?

Those LOW profit margins make those contracts "LESS profitable than Halliburton's core energy business."

Low profit margins = less/lower profits.

Higher profit margins = more/higher profits.

It's a sort of "Turn left, go left," sort of thing.

It shouldn't really be all that difficult for you to follow, if you think about it.

Liar.

Halliburton announces 284 percent increase in war profits

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/news/earnings072205.html