Jadegold, (Why do I bother ). I just gave you a quote on the Raytheon contract. Surely you can research that yourself (check Gov Exec.).

And you are unequivocally 100% wrong to say defence contractors can’t and don’t lose money from time to time on certain contracts. I know from persoonal experience, but just Google. ( “The Lockheed Martin Corp. announced last week that it will take a $110 million charge against fourth-quarter earnings after losing a lawsuit filed to recoup money it lost with the cancellation of a nuclear waste cleanup contract.”)

And I gave you a $100 offer before and you ran away? Want it again? Hm?

Dugger

What does keep me up at night? People who are so complacent that they think government having free reign to do whatever they what at the expense of the people they are supposed to be serving.

Google the phrases “record profits” or “largest profits ever” and you’ll get plenty of sources that state the oil companies made more money in one year (2005) than any other companies U.S. History. This isn’t just my opinion or speculation. It’s fact.

“This is something that Americans regard as their birth right,” he said. “If gasoline prices are still north of $2.25 (a gallon) when we reach the midterm election, there’s going to be an awful lot of outrage.” (my comment — let’s see)

Even as their overall profits have soared, major oil companies are earning a relatively modest 8.7 percent profit margin — the portion of the sale of each barrel that hits the bottom line. (my comment — by the end of the story, “record profits” have become “relatively modest.”)

Quaker: Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Contracts
http://www1.va.gov/accessible/proc508/IDIQ-K-05081.htm

No Quaker, you don t seem to understand.

Apparently I understand just fine.

Your tedious explication notwithstanding, my summation stands: a corporation that enriches it’s shareholders at the expense of the Department of Defense and the taxpayers is just practicing free enterprise.

However, someone who tosses out a few unkind words about the military isn’t practicing freedom of speech, he’s putting lives at risk.

Up is down.

Cite a contract of a major DoD contractor that has lost money. I’ll even let you call a ‘major DoD contractor’ be a company that has just $10M in annual revenues.

Since I’m a bit more than passingly familiar with the P-3 program, I’m going to call your bluff. Cite the contract. I’m aware that the P-3 was undergoing SLEP and the costs were rising; the Govt. merely mod’d rthe contract and the contractors came out just fine.

And in reality, that what always happens. Contractors tend to low-ball cost props in order to get their foot in the door. Once they’re in, they realize the Govt. isn’t going to cut them off (unless there’s criminal activity involved) because the Govt. realizes it would take several years to terminate and recompete a contract. By then, the costs would have skyrocketed.

Perhaps you could explain the significance of the term “IDIQ.” Maybe that would clear things up for me.

You have yet to challenge me successfully and you fail again. Once you challenged me on my service. I offered to send a third party money if you would, and then I would send my AF retirement papers. We strangely didn’t hear from you for a long time. Guess what. You are wrong again. I worked on major programs and I saw contractors lose money, especially on FFP contracts. Contractors also often lose money on R & D contracts - hoping they will get a subsequent production order and don’t. Talk to an adult in the Pentagon next time you are dropping off a pizza and they will tell you more.

However, from Gov. Exec.:

On just one contract - to refurbish the Navy’s P-3 Orion surveillance aircraft used primarily to hunt submarines - Raytheon’s Aircraft Integrated Systems unit reportedly lost as much as $70 million last year because it found the job much more difficult than anticipated

Dugger

Exxon Mobil Corp. yesterday reported the highest profit in US history: … In 2005, Exxon Mobil Corp. posted the largest profit ever for a US company. …

I believe largest ever is another way of saying record. So that’s what record profits are.

Quit using the anti - capitalist buzz words, and look at Cavuoto’s very small point: The minute gas and heating oil prices go up, the oil companies are gougers.

This happens with things like milk, fruit, and other commodities. But that term is never used.
When the price of gasoline and heating oil comes down — silence.

Why?

It might interest you to know that most major DOD contracting firms shun such contracts because they typically lose money (they can only charge a negotiated fixed rate and if their costs rise dramatically - they are usually SOL).

This is laughably false. I’d ask Dugger to cite one contract where a major DoD Contractor has lost money–but I know he can’t because it doesn’t exist.

The Halliburton contract is an ID/IQ contract which is impossible to lose money on unless you lose the checks on the way to the bank.

A company that uses a no-bid, indefinite quantity contract to enrich itself at public expense is just practicing free enterprise.

But a person who says naughty words about soldiers is  hurting the war effort ?”

No Quaker, you don’t seem to understand. First of all we were not talking about a contract as you describe. Secondly, possibly you are talkng about a Halliburton type contract. Such contracts are typically established on a time and material basis and can run for several option years and have large ceiling amounts. But the base contracts are competed and then orders, sometimes large orders (which looks to the unitiated look like sole source awards), can be placed against the prenegotiated time and material rates - which also reflect a predetermined profit level % But the base contract was bid and any competent entity could vie for the work.

It might interest you to know that most major DOD contracting firms shun such contracts because they typically lose money (they can only charge a negotiated fixed rate and if their costs rise dramatically - they are usually SOL).

And absolutely, a, say powerful senator, who criticizes soldiers doing their duty fighting a war, and uses a major platform to do so, could easily be hurting the war effort and the soldiers. Now if the criticism were accurate and true and not inflammatory, said criticisms might (MIGHT) be just and necessary (though still harming soldiers). But if they are exaggerated, conjure negative emotional images about our troops (like using Nazi metaphors) and same said powerful senator uses the prestige of his position to make these harmful and unjust criticisms, then he is a first class SOB in my book - an SOB who has helped hurt our soldiers - risking their lives for us.

Dugger