Would you support a law preventing corporations making profits off of wars?

[AnArmyVeteran]

Poll question: Would you support a law preventing corporations making profits off of wars?

In every war we've had private corporations make fortunes off of the blood and deaths of our soldiers who fight in battle. The latest biggest wars in Vietnam, Iraq & Afghanistan have enabled private corporations to make fortunes. The executives of the companies which make the weapons and the other military hardware sit in their air conditioned, lavish offices counting their money, while the poorest in our country are putting their lives on the line every day in combat while enduring 120 degree temperatures.

Why should corporations be allowed to make a dime of profit off of war? And why aren't there any laws to force any company that wants to do business with the government to give up all profits for their involvement in the war? They could still operate at a break even point, but be prevented by law to make a dime in profit. And to ensure such a law can be enforced we could put corporate leaders in prison for 20 years if they deliberately fabricated financial records in an attempt to hide their corporation's profits.

Isn't it about time the rich and corporations were forced to shoulder at least SOME of the burdens of war? Currently, poor people die, while rich people get richer off of the blood spilled in war. I don't understand why not one person in government has even thought of this idea, let alone try to pass a bill to make it the law of the land.

Everything in our county is stacked against the middle class and the poor, while the rich make trillions by exploiting them. While corporate balance sheets are in the black, those who sacrifice the most are shedding their red blood in the sands of foreign lands.

One other huge benefit from such a law: If the rich were prevented from amassing huge profits off of war it's almost a certainty that we could reduce the number of wars we have by at least ninety-fine percent. Isn't this something almost all people could support, no matter what their political affiliation?

I would love to hear any ideas relating to this proposal from all of my fellow DUers. How could we force the government to get this law enacted and enforced?

Poll result (147 votes)
YES, I want laws to prevent corporations from making profits that are involved with war.	(134 votes, 91%)	Vote
NO, I like corporations getting rich while the poor die in wars.	(13 votes, 9%)	Vote

[RandomThoughts]

1. Every day of war should have a tax on anyone involved in making that decision.

So that they lose from war also.

Although that could be said about many things. Hard to just make it a money tax though, has to be a punative tax.

[eShirl]

2. maybe put a max % profit limit they can make off taxpayer money

[Jamastiene]

3. My answer: Yes.

That was a no-brainer. I didn't even have to think. Of course, I would like to see an end to the for-profit use of our military. Our military should be for our defense and protection, not for profit for some multinational corporation.

[AnArmyVeteran]

11. Our military is used as a low paid mercenary force to protect financial interests of corporations.

[catzies]

69. Thank you for your service and I'm sorry you had to do what you had to do

[dtotire]

4. I Believe That during WWII Factories were paid

Cost Plus a Fee

[Nuclear Unicorn]

8. That's interesting.

Share more if/when you have it.

[crazyjoe]

20. duh, that's called profit.

[Fla_Democrat]

38. Shhhhh

[Abq_Sarah]

21. The government used to use the low bid

Contract method but in the early 1940's, switched to negotiated contracts. Cost plus fixed fee (CPFF) is still in use today with certain types of contracts. https://www.acquisition.gov/far/html/Subpart%2016_3.htm...

[whatchamacallit]

5. Once at war, every lawmaker should either immediately divest or step the fuck down! (nt)

[catzies]

68. YES! This would be very important to me as a voter - and why I'm mad at DiFi

The esteemed senior Senator from California and her husband make money off wars. Thumbs down!

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

6. Against citizens or countries?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

7. What about the companies that were doing rush orders on body armor and stuff?

Being able to attract investors probably contributed to their having the people and equipment to rush orders.

I think the best solution is to not get into wars in the first place. Maybe some aren't avoidable but most are and that alone would do much to curb any sense of profit-motive.

[AnArmyVeteran]

12. This law wouldn't affect your situation.

The company could still provide the body armor but at cost, no profit. I agree about not starting wars in the first place is the best solution, but that will never happen the way our system is designed. But taking profit out of war would be the biggest deterent to starting future wars.

[Abq_Sarah]

15. At cost with no profit

Is running in place.

I wouldn't run a company dependent on DOD purchases and I sure wouldn't devote my companies time and resources into breaking even because that doesn't provide money for expansion, upgrades, pay raises for employees, etc...

[AnArmyVeteran]

Pay raises? LOL...

Do you believe corporations and their employees should be rewarded with huge stock options, pay raises and the like while our soldiers are fighting and dying?

Cost is just that, 'cost'.

Let me ask you a question. Just how much profit do you believe corporations should be allowed to make off of our soldiers dying in battle? 5%, 10%, 50%, 500%, no limit??? When people are shedding blood on a battlefield the least a corporation should do is provide the necessary goods at cost.

[Abq_Sarah]

40. At cost

Isn't as easy as you seem to think it is.

At cost means you're making zero money. It means if you utilize your production capabilities for products purchased by the DOD whether that is weapons, uniform items or food, you are aging your equipment without any reserve to pay for new equipment. Would you be willing to work for room and board only for years? That's what you're demanding of companies that take DOD contracts.

[AnArmyVeteran]

59. You keep missing the point. I said 'COST'.

Cost is what it costs a company to produce a product. And that includes the things you listed (people, equipment, materials...)

I'm talking about profit, the figure you get after you subtract costs.

What profits do you believe defense contractors should be allowed to take? 10% 50% 100%??? Or do you even believe there should be any limits on profit? Do you believe our country's defense should be left in the hands of corrupt thugs like at Halliburton? It's no coincidence that outsourcing of functions the military used to do cost the taxpayers many times more now because corporations are artists at stealing government money. (think Blackwater, Halliburton, etc, etc, etc...)

[AnArmyVeteran]

39. Pay raises? LOL...

Do you believe corporations and their employees should be rewarded with huge stock options, pay raises and the like while our soldiers are fighting and dying?

Cost is just that, 'cost'.

Let me ask you a question. Just how much profit do you believe corporations should be allowed to make off of our soldiers dying in battle? 5%, 10%, 50%, 500%, no limit??? When people are shedding blood on a battlefield the least a corporation should do is provide the necessary goods at cost.

[Abq_Sarah]

41. In answer to your first question

YES. I do believe employees should be rewarded for their hard work with pay raises. I do believe companies should be allowed to earn a profit.

Start your own company and get back with me once you fully understand what's involved.

[AnArmyVeteran]

56. That's not very patriotic.

The soldiers dying in battle aren't getting rich and neither should you. If you wanted to get DOD contracts when the country is not at war your company would be allowed to make a reasonable profit. But during wartime why should you profit while others were putting their lives on the line for a meager salary?

As far as upgrades, etc... who do you think is giving you that money in the first place? If you were a defense contractor you get all of your money from the government, unless you were selling weapons to third party countries you know are destined for delivery to a foreign enemy, as US companies have done for years.

Do you really believe you should be giving 'pay raises' to your employees while our soldiers are losing their limbs, eyes and lives? To be concerned with giving pay raises to people making military widgets while our soldiers are risking their lives for paltry 'combat pay' is truly offensive.

[Abq_Sarah]

57. First let me address

The "giving" part. If I sign a contract with a client, they aren't giving me anything. I am earning the agreed upon price just as my employees earn their negotiated salaries.

And yes, I do believe my employees should receive pay raises. Since you don't seem to believe that, do you believe you should be eating out, cruising the internet, watching movies, listening to music, etc.. while soldiers are risking their lives?

[AnArmyVeteran]

58. If you are selling pizzas give your employees raises, but not if you're getting govt money for war.

First off, I'm a veteran. I served my country. And I'm still serving it in many other ways. And you must have missed my other posts in this thread where I talked about how all Americans should sacrifice during war. Read what I wrote about a 'war tax'.

My posts throughout this thread have dealt with corporate profits. You seem to believe it's okay for corporations to make huge profits off of war and oursoldiers. If that's your belief, so be it. I don't agree with you and according to 95% of the people polled in my OP they don't agree with you either.

I'm not going to ask what you do for a living, but it seems apparent you are in some sort of business, and if some of your business profited off of the war and our soldiers then I find that objectionable. And if you believe it's moral to give your employees raises while our soldiers are ones who are really sacrificing then I suppose we have two different values systems. I know I would never choose to profit off of war and other peoples' misery. And I certainly could not and would not profit off of those who sacrifice the most during war, our soldiers.

There is an almost complete lack of values in corporations and corporate 'leadership'. And defense contractors are not capable of having any values. And no, true 'values' have nothing to do with money or monetary success.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

17. Well, from what we discuss here

Wars are for profit.

The lawmakers are also the profit-makers as the defense contractors get paid by lawmakers.

But the lawmakers also green light the wars.

If we can't get lawmakers to stop green lighting wars why should we trust them to write laws that take money out of their own pockets?

[MrModerate]

9. The two polling choices are not exactly equal . . .

Do you compose questions for Rasmussen in your day job?

Military adventures are generally wrong-headed and badly executed. It's a sad fact of history. However, we don't live in a world where it's prudent or safe to demilitarize oneself. If you wanted to turn all arms manufacture over to a department of government, that would eliminate the profit motive, but would be very, very difficult to sustain from a taxpayer point of view. (And there are other problems with that approach as well.)

In the absence of a nationalized approach, I don't think you can realistically expect the private sector to do *anything* for no profit at all.

[AnArmyVeteran]

13. Then why should they make a profit if corporations have zero loyalty to our country?

[MrModerate]

16. I'm looking up in my copy of "The Big Book of Capitalism" . . .

where it says a corporation is required to be loyal to the country of its customers. I'm not finding it.

If that's unacceptable to you, then nationalize US arms manufacture, and wrestle with all the problems/challenges that would entail.

[w8liftinglady]

10. I'd invite anyone who may be unsure to read these...about war profiteers

I am all for healthy profit...unfortunately,this profit has not trickled down...it has been shipped overseas,offshore accounts,et al.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Military-ind...

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Private_Mili...

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

[asdjrocky]

14. At one time, when we were sane, it was called profiteering.

Now it's just good business.

I wonder what Harry Truman would think.

Truman gained fame and respect when his preparedness committee (popularly known as the "Truman Committee") investigated the scandal of military wastefulness by exposing fraud and mismanagement. The Roosevelt administration had initially feared the Committee would hurt war morale, and Undersecretary of War Robert P. Patterson wrote to the president declaring it was "in the public interest" to suspend the committee. Truman wrote a letter to the president saying that the committee was "100 percent behind the administration" and that it had no intention of criticizing the military conduct of the war. The committee was considered a success by investigators and historians and is reported to have saved at least $15 billion and thousands of lives. Truman's advocacy of common-sense cost-saving measures for the military attracted much attention. In 1943, his work as chairman earned Truman his first appearance on the cover of Time. He would eventually appear on nine Time covers and be named the magazine's Man of the Year for 1945 and 1948. After years as a marginal figure in the Senate, Truman was cast into the national spotlight after the success of the Truman Committee

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_S._Truman

[backwoodsbob]

18. that's an almost impossible thing to do

how broadly are you going to make this?

[crazyjoe]

19. so you want corportations to built tanks and hum vee's and

weapons for free? that would put them out of business and send the employees to the unemployment line.
some of these "feel good" ideas are really stupid, and this is one of them.

[AnArmyVeteran]

23. Perhaps you didn't even read my post.

I said they should be forced to do it at COST. I suppose from your answer you or your company profits off of wars and the deaths of our soldiers. The question I posed is a no brainer. But it has to be read first.

[backwoodsbob]

24. the question you posed is NOT a no brainer

answer the question I posed...how far are you willing to impose this?

[AnArmyVeteran]

37. For those corporations producing materials that go to our military effort.

It's easy to mandate that anyone who wants a contract with the government during war must and should do it at cost, and not make obscene, immoral profits. It is a no brainer, unless you believe everyone in the country should be forced to sacrifice except for godly corporations.

[backwoodsbob]

45. so you are willing

to tell a shoe maker he must sell at cost.

You will tell the button maker he must sell at cost

you will tell the MRE maker he must sell at cost.

When they tell you to go fuck yourself how will you get supplies to your troops?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

25. What cost?

How big a house are the plant managers, the board of directors and owners allowed to have?

Can their spouses have their own car?

Can they pay a little more for better child care across town or do they have to use the nearest daycare center?

Do they get to eat out once a year/month/week?

Can they eat at McDonald's or can they go upscale to Olive Garden?

Is cable TV included?

Vacation?

Christmas gifts for the kids?

College funds for the kids?



That's just too much control on someone else's life.

Let's just not have wars to begin with.

[backwoodsbob]

26. you have avoided the question twice now

HOW FAR are you willing to take this?

[Cid_B]

86. Hmmm...

What do they call it when you force someone to work for you but you don't trade them any money except for what they need to continue producing what you want... Gosh.. what's the word?

Oh yeah.. Slavery...

This doesn't even fall in the rainbows and unicorns category...

This is just evil.

[Johnny2X2X]

22. NO

Sorry, but without the American Capitalist System driving our War efforts we would have lost World War II.

I do think the corporate influence over the decision to go to War needs to be eliminated all together though.

[AnArmyVeteran]

36. Just how can you explain how capitalism won WWII?

I can't wait to hear this one. Corporations can still produce the needed weapons and materials needed for war at cost. Are you saying corporations should be allowed to hold our country hostage and refuse to do what is patriotic for the good of our country? If that is the case, those corporations have no business even doing business in the United States.

And during WWII, every citizen sacrificed, except the war profiteers. Why do you believe every American citizen should skimp and save to help the war effort when corporations can be reckless and take as much as they can during war?

We would NOT have lost the war if corporations were forced to produce goods at cost. I didn't say NO COST. I said 'cost'. Or in other words, break even. That is the very least they could do to be a member of our country. If they can't do that for the country in which they operate they have no business even being in the United States and should have their corporate charters dissolved by the government.

[Johnny2X2X]

42. Hmmm

But, that's not what motivates Corporations or even most people. Because our profit driven Companies pursued profit so vigorously, we were able to produce more planes, bombs, and guns than the Axis. Like it or not, but these companies and these people would not have produced so much without the profit motive.

Now today it's quite a different scenario. We do not need to outproduce anyone today, we've already outproduced them 1,000,000 to 1. But we do need to out innovate them and profit motivation, historically, leads to more innovation than simple Patriotism.

Now, as I have said before, the system needs to be changed so that Corporations have no input on whether or not we go to War or how we choose to fight that War. It's not the making a profit selling our armies weapons i have a problem with, it's the influencing of policy to ensure that sales are brisk that is not even close to acceptable or moral.

[Gaedel]

61. Just think

We could get military vehicles even cheaper if we drafted all of the union workers in the factory and paid them the same as PFCs. That way we could push the "costs" down even more. Why should the union workers (as in WWII) live high on the hog while vets like you are doing it on the cheap?

If I made pistols, should I sell them to the Army at cost or should I sell them to gang bangers at a profit?

[GReedDiamond]

84. It was our INDUSTRIAL BASE...

...the ability of the American Workforce, both male and female, to crank out cars, washing machines, electronics, etc, which retooled for the war effort, cranking out bombs, bullets, airplanes and battleships, all subsidized by Federal Govt spending.

"Capitalism" was not what was going on, it was a form of "corporate socialism" -- the literal creation of the present Military Industrial (Prison) Complex.

[Touchdown]

27. Yes... and I think corp taxes should skyrocket when a war is being waged.

They're usually the ones who benefit the most. Freedom for Afghani's? No. A pipeline? Yes!

[backwoodsbob]

28. so EVERY corp involved should b forced to work at cost?

this is the third time I've asked?SOMEONE answer please

[Touchdown]

29. Sounds good to me.

Corporations are supposed to work for mankind. Not the other way around.

If they work for cost then they are doing their part.

That includes a substantial corporate tax increase to pay for the war, and is a burden that should be solely on the backs of corporations and the rich, as the poor and middle class pay for wars with their lives, bodies, mental healthiness and family tragedy.

[backwoodsbob]

30. ok thank you

so the mom and pop corp making bootlaces must work at cost

the corp making buttons that supplies them must work at cost?

The comp making boots must supply at cost?

the corp making MRE's must work at cost?

The corp making medicine and bandages must work at cost?

There's the hole in this dreamer idea.

are you willing to force EVERY corp to work at cost?Including places like fabric shops and underwear manufacturers?

If so you just shut down the pentagon just like Gibbs said because NO Corp will do that and thus we shut down the military....or...you just want to force those evil bomb makers and plane builders and such to do this...therein losing a constitutional challenge.

It's an impossible goal

[Touchdown]

52. Mom and Pops don't have corps. hey have partnerships

They have Sole Proprietorships, They can have limited liability, and they can have private investors, but they do not have a listing on the New York Stock Exchange or Nasdaq. Angie's Flangies Sewing Shop is not what I'm talking about. She is a far cry from Goldman Sachs.

No Mom and Pop can supply the Army with anything.

Your little "Look at the commie" trap isn't working.

[AnArmyVeteran]

35. No one said at NO COST. I said in my OP they should operate AT COST.

In other words, they should be prevented from making a profit. They can still produce what is needed for war, but they can only make what it cost them to produce those goods, weapons, etc... I am sick of deadbeat corporations profiting off of war and our dead soldiers.

If they aren't patriotic enough to work at cost then they have NO business getting contracts from the government. It's sad how soldiers are supposed to be patriotic, when corporations have zero allegiance to any country. It's obscene how they make billions while soldiers give their lives. It is immoral and even evil.

[backwoodsbob]

43. so you are going to tell that mre producer they cant make money?

they will tell you to go to hell and will quit making mre's.

What are you going to do then...conscript the workers and force them into labor on pain of death?

See how these in dream world ideas fall apart when you apply them to the real world?

[Touchdown]

53. If they tell us to go to hell in a war economy, we can

revoke their corporate charter, liquidate their assets, throw the owners in jail for undermining the war effort, or nationalise the MRE production.

Yeah... Call me a commie again.

[backwoodsbob]

44. in my post I never said no cost

quit lying about what I said..I said AT COST.

You going to tell the clothes makers they must work at cost?

You going to tell the MRE makers they must produce at cost?

I'd tell you to go to hell if I owned one of those places

[Touchdown]

54. I'd throw your ass in jail for the duration of the war if you told me to go to Hell.

You are either an American and support the war, or you do not support the war and consider yourself a good American as well. What you should not be is a war profiteering capitalist who is gung ho for killing of the poor people while you rake in the cash. That is treason and you should be thrown in jail until we decide whether or not you are worth keeping alive!

Maybe with this kind of draconian policy towards American corporations, then maybe GE, Raytheon, Goldman Sachs and Exxon will stop and think about whether or not war is the right thing to do. War is too easy an option right now. It needs to be a VERY hard decision. So ask yourself, Mr. MRE maker. Is it worth going to war if it means you just get by for the next 5-10 years while we're fighting in some God forsaken country, the risk of you getting uppity with the Government, the possibility of jail time, perhaps execution for treason and quite possibly your nephew coming back from this war with 3 limbs and PTSD. Is war really worth it to your bottom line?

[Rage for Order]

73. "You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists." Is that you, George?

Do you support the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, unconditionally? If not, I'm afraid we'll need to "throw your ass in jail for the duration of the wars" unless you do exactly as the government says.

[backwoodsbob]

88. so some small shop making boots shouldn't make ONE PENNY

and you would throw them in jail if they did for treason?

Glad you don't run anything

[backwoodsbob]

46. you know what..I tire of this crap

show me ONE POST where I said they should give at NO COST!

I never said it so why did you bring it up?

[backwoodsbob]

49. show one post where I said NO COST!

produce it

[backwoodsbob]

50. cmon vet

at the cost of getting banned hammering this..SHOW US ONE POST WHERE I SAID NO COST

I am sick of these games by the paid suckups

[spoony]

48. If it's serious enough to go to war, then surely we must all be in it together.

And since corporations are legally persons, for some reason, they need to do their share too.

[RainDog]

31. Gen. Smedley Butler thought it was a good idea

and said so when he noted that he made the Philippines safe for chaquita banana to exploit.

I think that our nation should institute a policy in which a CEO may not be compensated more than, say, a 40:1 ratio of the lowest paid worker.

That would bring jobs back here b/c what's the use of employing slave labor overseas if the CEO has to earn only 40x more than someone paid a dollar a day?

Of course, I don't expect our govt to propose or enact anything like this because fascism in the new model for America, unless we change our campaign finance laws, our views about health care as a human right, or our irrational belief that capital still maintains the same divine right we once accorded to kings in the dark ages.

[burnsei sensei]

32. I think that where it's evident that

corporations have profitted excessively, regardless of the business, they should be taxed punitively.
I think our government has considered that from time to time.
I also think that tariffs should not changed on imported goods, but on multinationals that import the goods in the first place.
Don't punish consumers for the foolishness of the corporate aristocracy.

[damntexdem]

33. No answer category appropriate for me (and unrec).

As long as we're going to have a capitalist system, corporations should make profits over their activities. If profits are not appropriate (as in health insurance), for profit corporations should be preventing from competing in them. Or, if the U.S. were ever to do away with capitalism, then corporations shouldn't be making profits on any areas, much less war industry. But don't hold your breath on the last one.

[AnArmyVeteran]

34. My poll was only talking about war profiteers.

NO ONE should profit off of war or our dead soldiers. It doesn't matter what system of government we have. It's irrelevant.

I didn't say do away with capitalism, but we need to have restrictions on what corporations make when the government is paying them billions/trillions of our taxes. Otherwise we will continue to have the Halliburtons screwing the government, the people and even our soldiers. To date, Halliburton still hasn't been held accountable for killing many soldiers with their deathtrap showers they forced our soldiers to use. And while those soldiers are dead, the leaders of Halliburton are still making millions off of their ill gotten gains, with zero accountability. I don't know about you, but I don't believe a 'capitalistic' company should be able to kill our soldiers and get away with it, and they shouldn't be allowed to make massive, even unlimited amounts of profit when the poor and middle classes are dying in wars.

[Fla_Democrat]

47. How about politicans?

One other huge benefit from such a law: If the rich were prevented from amassing huge profits off of war it's almost a certainty that we could reduce the number of wars we have by at least ninety-fine percent. Isn't this something almost all people could support, no matter what their political affiliation?


If that would reduce war, imagine what cutting the salary of people who oh, I don't know, actually send people to war, would do? Can I get an amen to cutting the Senate and the House member's (as well as the President and Vice President) pay to ZERO for the duration of any war, or 'police action' that puts our service members under fire? If a company, or, evil corporation shouldn't profit off war, why should the people who actually have the power to start and stop wars make some jack?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

51. Yet another garbage poll

While the author's intent is clear, they clearly have not thought through the implications of what they are advocating. There are a lot of government suppliers who are small family businesses. Most suppliers are not massive Daddy Warbucks owned enterprises.

Unrec with a raspberry as well.

[AnArmyVeteran]

55. I'm against war profiteers and healthcare profiteers.

I find it strange how DUers are almost unanimous against insurance companies making money off of the sick and dying, yet several people in this thread seem to be unable to grasp the simple argument I made against war profiteers. Yes, I DID think through what I wrote, and what I proposed isn't complex, nor is it beyond reason or feasibility. 

While some small businesses may be affected, I don't see any corner Mom & Pop stores being affected at all. I don't know how many Mom & Pop businesses are providing military supplies for war. Oh yeah, I forgot 'Granny's Grenade Shop' down the street from me. 

I find it hard to understand how some people in this thread don't seem to understand the concept of 'cost'. Cost includes the materials to make products and salaries for the workers who make them. I never said people should work for free. This poll is simply directed at profit, specifically 'profiting off of war'. While I find it repulsive for some to profit off of the sacrifices of others, it seems some people in this thread believe corporations should be allowed to make as much profit as they want by gouging the government and the American people. 

Some of the reactions in this thread are very similar to responses I have encountered on right wing sites from people who believe corporations should be allowed to name the profit they want and then get every dollar they ask for. Right wingers don't believe corporate profits should have any limits, but I thought people in a progressive forum would think differently. 

It's sad how anyone would find it acceptable for corporations (or 'Granny's Grenade Shop') to profit off of war while others are sacrificing their lives, body parts and spirits. It might not be popular, but I believe if our country is at war everyone should chip in and sacrifice at least something, and that includes massive corporate profits. That's the least we should do for those who are shedding their blood in foreign lands. 

In the 1990s Ross Perot suggested taxing every American when our country was at war. He proposed such a tax because most Americans don't even think about wars as they go about their lives totally oblivious to the great sacrifices being made by those who are fighting and losing their lives in battle. Perot believed if all Americans had to pay even a small tax it would raise public awareness, and awareness would rapidly lead to opposition to the war regardless of peoples' political affiliations. 

I would rather have a country where everyone worked for the common good and where everyone contributed, even if it was just forgoing profits and doing something unselfishly for their country 'at cost'. That's the very least we should expect from our fellow citizens or any businesses. 

[ProgressiveProfessor]

62. The problem is your ignorance of current government acquisition rules

No one is for excessive profits for any company, war related or not, doing business with the Federal Government. I assume you have looked in the FAR & DFAR, and decided those are unreasonable. If you have not, when you do, the numbers will surprise you and would not have posted this crap.

Does your profit include G&A, handling, pass through, and award fees? What about amortization of capital investment, cost of capital, IR&D, and sub contracting?. Does your profit limit apply to subcontractors as well.

In a nut shell, I do not think you have a clue about what you are talking about when you use the word "profit" or understand how it is already managed.

[AnArmyVeteran]

74. I could have written a book but few if any would read it.

You are taking a very simple concept and trying to lose it in zillions of financial details. You said no one is for excessive profits by corporations but you are wrong. I haven't heard one conservative extremist who wants to curtail the profits of their godly corporations through any type of government action. In 2000, Bush said "Businesses MUST be allowed to regulate themselves!" This is what conservatives believe and they are against anything that would limit corporate profits.

Any group of crooked MBAs can cook books to make a company's ledger look like just about anything they want it to look like. You didn't answer my question about Halliburton. Billions of dollars just vanished and not one person is in jail. Corporations can also use offshore addresses to further swindle the taxpayers.

Thank you for finally admitting you are against excessive corporate profits. I'll take that as a vote in the 'yes' column. I hope someday you will be able to also understand that during war times ALL should sacrifice and no one should be allowed to profit off of war. If we took the profit out if war we would have very few wars. Of course, you have a right to believe corporations should be exempt from sacrificing for their country, while the poorest in our country put their lives on the line and often lose them.

I believe our soldiers should not be cannon fodder so that corporate executives can make huge salaries and bonuses while sitting in their air conditioned luxury offices. And I'm tired of seeing our soldiers being used as nothing more than a low paid mercenary force, only in combat to protect the financial interests of greedy, soulless corporations like Halliburton, Blackwater and hundreds of other corporations just as corrupt as they are. But you have a right to defend them and their 'creative' accounting methods. Chefs cook food, while bean counters cook books. Yeah, it's a generalization, but generally it's true.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

81. Those details matter and are in fact the reason your position is bogus. Profits on ALL Federal

contracts are already limited. That includes those involved in DoD and the war efforts. Its in the FAR and DFAR. I suggest you read it before you embarrass yourself further with more unsupported hyperbole.

Off shore addresses have nothing to do with any of this. The same contracting requirements are imposed on all companies, foreign or domestic.

The accounting rules are cast in concrete. The MBAs and CPAs can not cook the books for very long and if they do its fraud, not profit. There is an entire agency in the DoD just to monitor that kind of thing. I suggest you look them up.

Haliburton sure looks to have committed fraud, and that in theory is being looked at by the current administration and therefore is not germane here.

You have a hyperbole based strawman here, read up on the matter, you will be surprised. If you did write a book, based on this thread, it would be in the fiction section

[Nye Bevan]

60. Let's think this through.

If this law was passed, Northrop Grumman (for example) would immediately get out of the military shipbuilding business. They would owe it to their shareholders not to be potentially exposed to price controls that would force them to sell their ships at "cost". I imagine they would switch over to building commercial ships. And so would every other company. So nobody would be building ships for the navy anymore. So what do you do? Seize their military shipbuilding operations? Because of the Takings clause you would need to provide compensation to the shareholders; this law effectively mandates nationalization of every industry connected in any way with the military. And where would you raise the money to do this? It would cost untold billions in shareholder compensation. And the takeover would undoubtedly trigger huge "Golden Parachute" packages for the affected corporate executives (who the Government would then need to hire back to run their newly-acquired operations).

There's a reason that no country anywhere in the world has a law like this.

[bemildred]

63. Nationalize them. It's the right thing to do. nt

[Nye Bevan]

64. Where do you get the trillions of dollars to compensate the existing owners?

This is not Venezuela; there is a Takings clause in our Constitution.

[bemildred]

65. We are already giving them trillions of dollars. nt

[Nye Bevan]

66. Where do you get the trillions of dollars *more*?

And do you really think the Government would be better at building ships for the military than companies like Northrop Grumman?

[bemildred]

67. From what we would be giving them if we kept them private.

I thought that was obvious.

[Nye Bevan]

70. What we are "giving them" while they are private

is money to pay for ships. Assuming that our military is still buying ships, this money will still need to be spent. Your theory is that the nationalized version of Northrop Grumman will charge lower prices for ships and these savings will enable the existing shareholders to be compensated for the Government seizing the company. However, your savings (if they exist) will be amortized over many, many years, whereas the shareholder compensation will need to be paid up front. Your math doesn't work.

[bemildred]

71. I can tell you hate the idea.

I worked for Northrop-Grumman, they are a very expensive way to procure defense needs (which was good for me at the time.) I could give a shit less about whether their shareholders are happy with the compensation they get, about as much as they care about how much I pay for the crap their company produces.

[Nye Bevan]

72. Ah, now there's the problem.

It's not you who gets to decide the appropriate compensation. It's the courts. Which you may not like in this case, but think about this: what would your reaction be if the Government seized something of yours and paid you only a fraction of its fair value?

[Forkboy]

85. If it stopped me from killing people I doubt I'd mind.

How do you feel about killing people for profit?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

83. Truly amusing since many are small businesses

[Whisp]

75. yes

and all the wars that are Not started, should be making the profits.

[Nye Bevan]

76. OK. Of course they won't be able to afford to pay the workers who build the missiles

but I guess you're OK with that.

[Whisp]

78. blood diamonds, blood money, blood everything.

lots of cash in blood

[AnArmyVeteran]

79. Why do you think that? Where in my OP did it say that?

I was talking about PROFITING off of war. You can run a corporation and produce goods at profit and pay everyone's salaries and buy the materials you need. Those things are called 'costs'. You subtract costs from gross revenue and you get profit. Corporations like Halliburton are making billions off of war. Their leaders are getting massively rich while our soldiers are dying. Most of the people in this thread 'get it'. Nine billion dollars vanished in Iraq under Halliburton and not one executive in that corrupt company is in jail. That nine billion didn't go to pay people to make missiles. It was stolen.

Do you believe corporations should be able and allowed to make as much profit as they want and not sacrifice at all, even though our soldiers are sacrificing their lives? I am amazed at how some people on this site are supporting corporate greed. I'm not saying you are, but there have been a lot of trolls here lately.

[Nye Bevan]

90. I wasn't replying to the OP. I was replying to Post 75, which was edited after I replied

to say something totally different.

[Cid_B]

96. WTF does this even mean..?

So at which point does an employee stop getting paid? The shift worker? The shift supervisor? The vice pres for marketing? The CEO?

Slavery... sounds good to you? What part of the Army core values covers forced servitude exactly. I must have missed that one at basic.

[hack89]

77. This has to be one of the dumber ideas posted here. nt

[AnArmyVeteran]

80. It's easy to dump & run without discussing the merits or lack thereof...

[ProgressiveProfessor]

82. It lacks merit since it is not based on facts. Profits on all Federal contracts are limited

Its in the FAR and DFAR. Were you to read them you would understand your points are hyperbole and not facts.

[Greyhound]

94. Right. No-bid and cost-plus contracts are so very limiting.

Get real.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

95. What you mean are sole source contracts, and yes they too are limited by the FAR/DFAR

Straight cost plus is getting to be an endangered species. Cost plus award fee and cost plus fixed fee are now the norm.

[Greyhound]

99. Uh huh, and XE is so much better than Blackwater, too.

No defense contractor would even try to think of the possibility that there might be some way around the Federal Regs.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

100. Shame you think so litle of the civil servants who do their best to make the system work as intended

Actually the legalities are taken very seriously by the PCOs and those that go around the regs, be they Gov or Contractor get in serious trouble. Just ask Darleen Druyun

[Greyhound]

101. In general, I think very highly of civil servants, but as you say, they are only as good as

the politically appointed person(s) in charge and procurement has long been the plum plunder position. In any case, the procurement process is small potatoes compared to the contractors are where the real loot goes, and since they were the parties mentioned, your introduction of civil servants is merely a diversion from the point.

[SKKY]

87. No, of course not.

[blindpig]

89. Why don't we just get rid of the corporations?

Problem solved.

[Greyhound]

91. Hell yes, outlawing the war profiteer would ensure no more wars.

[hack89]

92. Because we know that war didn't exist until the invention of capitalism. nt

[Greyhound]

93. Because we know war profiteering didn't exist until the invention of capitalism.

The thread is not about capitalism, although it has become the media through which the profits are maximized and the wars extended. Now go away...

[hack89]

98. Shall we look at exactly what you said?

"...outlawing the war profiteer would ensure no more wars."

Looks like we are talking about the causes of war. Trust me on this one - man has found plenty of reasons to slaughter each other besides fattening their wallets.

[TheKentuckian]

97. Other: I'm a progressive war tax guy. I don't know how you do a zero profit and leave such things in

private hands but I'm clear on how to make war less beneficial to the greedy individual.

I'd grant an exemption to soldiers. In fact, I don't think they should pay taxes on their military wages at all. I feel they are contributing well over their fair share.

I figure is you have a draft and a ass biting war tax, it'll be pretty damn serious before anyone gets whipped up into the stupid macho bluster mode that allowed our last couple of adventures at least.

[w8liftinglady]

102. referring to a post I made today...lobbying expenditures these corps have made

and to whom...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...



i would love to see them pay their fair share.Figure the odds.

[AnArmyVeteran]

103. Corporations which have PROFITTED from WARS in Iraq & Afghanistan...

Corporations which have profitted from Wars in Iraq,Afghanistan..(.and maybe Iran)


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...