Obama doesn't want you to succeed

[m1ldslide1]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Why do you all hate the free market, capitalistic society so much?

If you actually would have taken the time to click the link and read after your knee hit the desk and before you typed your responses (OP) you have have read:

Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama renewed his push for legislation that would require corporations to offer a nonbinding shareholder vote on executive compensation on Friday, days after Republican candidate Sen. John McCain lashed out against rising CEO pay.

So he proposes that instead of company boards being able to rubber stamp their own compensation packages that the investors actually get a say in where their money is going and you think that that is communist?

And just why should shareholders be on the line for paying out tens or hundreds of millions to a guy that has cost the company billions under their "leadership"?

Edit: Genx edited his response while I was typing so I will correct my calling him out. I agree that on the surface this looks like it is nothing more than pandering, but shareholders have a lot of influence when it comes to matters that go before the board. If there is enough shareholder push against some wildly undeserved golden parachute and the board goes through with it anyway, they are going to lose a lot of shareholders and that might make them think about it a little when reaching for that rubber stamp.

All compensation is public information for board members and officers. It's also included in the annual report. Shareholders do vote on said compensation. What I have a problem with is legislating it and obama using class envy to garner support.

If you're willing to concede that 95% of the wealth of this nation is controlled by 5% of the population, then you'll understand where this 'class envy' comes from. I think it's reasonable to understand that this isn't about everybody wanting a marble fireplace and a swimming pool - it's about everybody wanting equal representation and a democratic society. That just isn't the case with economic disparity like you see in this country. This is a very serious problem that isn't broached because of people being envious, it's because this country serves at the pleasure of the corporations and CEO's funding it.

People will erect a straw man by calling me a socialist, but I believe that I'm a democratist (if you like that word you can use it).

 

[LegendKiller]

I wouldn't be against such a measure.

To those who say stockholders have a vote, do you miss the fact that about 66% of all common stock is held by institutional investors, the same people who are buddies with the CEOs?

Proxy votes aren't always voted on in the best interest of shareholders.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: halik
Isn't executive compensation voted on anyway?

It's voted on by the board of directors, not the shareholders. The shareholders elect the members of the board tho, so there's some level of accountability. If a board approves what shareholders feel is a ridiculous sum, their recourse is to vote in new members who will not approve such levels of compensation.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: piasabird
The owner of the stock has no rights.

um, wrong?

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Phokus
So CEO's who tank their companies into the water and receive golden parachutes and large compensation = capitalism?

The OP is retarded. I think shareholders who have the power to punish executives for poor performance is the very definition of capitalism. If anything, Obama is not going far enough by making it non-binding.

Well shareholders can typically vote out the board that gave the CEO the golden parachute.
The disconnect comes from people owning such a small % of the company their vote ends up being dwarfed by mutual fund managers or people who own a majority stake. But as a shareholder these are the risks you need to weigh before investing.

Then that's a broken system. There's something wrong when these CEO's basically sit on each other's board of directors and have that buddy buddy system where they give each other raises. IBM's CEO, Sam Palmisano (used to work there myself) is on Exxon's board. Now why would he be there other than the fact that it's just a networking opportunity for him? Look up "interlocking directorates"

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Phokus
So CEO's who tank their companies into the water and receive golden parachutes and large compensation = capitalism?

The OP is retarded. I think shareholders who have the power to punish executives for poor performance is the very definition of capitalism. If anything, Obama is not going far enough by making it non-binding.

Well shareholders can typically vote out the board that gave the CEO the golden parachute.
The disconnect comes from people owning such a small % of the company their vote ends up being dwarfed by mutual fund managers or people who own a majority stake. But as a shareholder these are the risks you need to weigh before investing.

Then that's a broken system. There's something wrong when these CEO's basically sit on each other's board of directors and have that buddy buddy system where they give each other raises. IBM's CEO, Sam Palmisano (used to work there myself) is on Exxon's board. Now why would he be there other than the fact that it's just a networking opportunity for him? Look up "interlocking directorates"

It definately wreaks of cronism. But we as shareholders could put a stop to it if we sold all of our stock. In a way we are in on it as well. We enjoy the returns and dont take a stand by not buying into the market.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Phokus
So CEO's who tank their companies into the water and receive golden parachutes and large compensation = capitalism?

The OP is retarded. I think shareholders who have the power to punish executives for poor performance is the very definition of capitalism. If anything, Obama is not going far enough by making it non-binding.

Well shareholders can typically vote out the board that gave the CEO the golden parachute.
The disconnect comes from people owning such a small % of the company their vote ends up being dwarfed by mutual fund managers or people who own a majority stake. But as a shareholder these are the risks you need to weigh before investing.

Then that's a broken system. There's something wrong when these CEO's basically sit on each other's board of directors and have that buddy buddy system where they give each other raises. IBM's CEO, Sam Palmisano (used to work there myself) is on Exxon's board. Now why would he be there other than the fact that it's just a networking opportunity for him? Look up "interlocking directorates"

It definately wreaks of cronism. But we as shareholders could put a stop to it if we sold all of our stock. In a way we are in on it as well. We enjoy the returns and dont take a stand by not buying into the market.

What do you propose i put my investments in then? The problem is, this happens everywhere. I dunno about you, but i want a nice nest egg when I retire. I was thinking of doing real estate rentals, but then I read that some economists think that over the long term (not just this real estate crisis), real estate will be a bad investment because all the empty nester baby boomers will retire and downsize their houses.

So the options are either: don't invest out of protest and have your savings eaten by inflation or invest, get some gains in the long term, and be angry that the CEO's in the company you invest in might be giving you even better returns if they worked for the company's long term interest rather than their personal short-term gains.

 

[maddogchen]

interesting...I just sent in my vote for limiting executive compensation to within a certain percentage in a recent shareholder ballot. Still waiting on the results.

 

[StageLeft]

If I were a CEO your statement would apply.

I think the measure is silly, btw.

In regard to CEOs doing crappy and getting big rewards, boards are doing it out of contractul obligation, I'm sure. I bet old boys club kicks in in many cases, but a company doesn't throw money at an underperformer just for fun. There is more to it than we generally here, but then facts are just not interesting, are they?

Something has happened in recent years in that the middle class is not increasing wages on par with inflation and thus is making less now than years earlier, but the top dogs are making tons more, so in this sense we are beholden to our capitalist masters, aren't we? You need money to make it, and they have it so can make more at a rate exceeding ours, so in the end the finite wealth pool trends toward them.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: spidey07
More signs of the communist Mr. Obama really is. "oh, you're making too much money - let's limit that". This is very dangerous thinking from this guy. More gubment interference, more regulation, more we need to limit how one can succeed in America. Does the young senator not know that you can already vote at shareholder meetings and most compensation adjustments are given a vote as well? Or will he continue to use class envy as a means to drum up the masses for hope and change.

?If you?re successful, you should be rewarded. But if you?re a Wall Street CEO today, it doesn?t seem to matter whether you?re doing a good job or a bad job for your shareholders and workers: You?ll be rewarded either way,? Obama said in prepared remarks. He lauded McCain?s recent show of disgust with executive pay, but criticized him for not supporting the Shareholder Vote on Executive Compensation Act, which would give shareholders the chance to signal their displeasure with executive pay with a nonbinding vote. ?When he?s had the chance to do something about this problem, he?s opted for continuing the do-nothing approach of the Bush years,? Obama said."

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/...des-mccain-on-ceo-pay/

All this hysteria about a "nonbinding" shareholder vote? Make it a binding vote and I will Applaud Obama growing a pair. Otherwise it is just blowing hot air. Personally I would go with Huey Long's "Share The Wealth Plan".

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: maddogchen
interesting...I just sent in my vote for limiting executive compensation to within a certain percentage in a recent shareholder ballot. Still waiting on the results.

Out of curiosity, what company and what amount? Chances are, your vote will not pass

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
I don't think he's communist. I think he's uninformed.

No, you're misinformed. You and the OP are supporting a corrupt anti-capitalist system where CEO's of corporations that are losing money and losing shareholder value are pocketing hundreds of millions in compensation.
Ask yourself. If you owned a business that lost money, do you think you would be due excess compensation? Of course not. Because that's capitalism and free markets. Now contrast that with what's happening in corporate America today, and ask yourself: is it capitalism for a CEO (or other corporate executive) to receive huge compensation while under his watch the company is losing money? Of course not.

So how is Obama a "communist," doesn't want you to succeed, or anti-capitalist?

Yeah... turn off the talk radio propaganda and come back to reality :roll:

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Phokus
So CEO's who tank their companies into the water and receive golden parachutes and large compensation = capitalism?

The OP is retarded. I think shareholders who have the power to punish executives for poor performance is the very definition of capitalism. If anything, Obama is not going far enough by making it non-binding.

Well shareholders can typically vote out the board that gave the CEO the golden parachute.
The disconnect comes from people owning such a small % of the company their vote ends up being dwarfed by mutual fund managers or people who own a majority stake. But as a shareholder these are the risks you need to weigh before investing.

Then that's a broken system. There's something wrong when these CEO's basically sit on each other's board of directors and have that buddy buddy system where they give each other raises. IBM's CEO, Sam Palmisano (used to work there myself) is on Exxon's board. Now why would he be there other than the fact that it's just a networking opportunity for him? Look up "interlocking directorates"

It definately wreaks of cronism. But we as shareholders could put a stop to it if we sold all of our stock. In a way we are in on it as well. We enjoy the returns and dont take a stand by not buying into the market.

That might be true, if 2/3 of all common stock were held by individual shareholders.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Legislating this problem isn't the right way to go about it, but it is absolutely ridiculous that guys can come into a company, run it into the ground, then be given a $40 million dollar compensation package by the board for their good work.

You're correct, except that the issue is that the problem was legislated into existence in the first place, and through multiple legislation over the course of decades.
Does it look like capitalism and free markets to you that a CEO and the board can rip-off the shareholders like you describe?

 

[Delita]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: spidey07
Topic Title: Obama doesn't want you to succeed
Topic Summary: Tries bill to limit capitalism/CEO pay


More signs of the communist Mr. Obama really is. "oh, you're making too much money - let's limit that". This is very dangerous thinking from this guy. More gubment interference, more regulation, more we need to limit how one can succeed in America. Does the young senator not know that you can already vote at shareholder meetings and most compensation adjustments are given a vote as well? Or will he continue to use class envy as a means to drum up the masses for hope and change.

?If you?re successful, you should be rewarded. But if you?re a Wall Street CEO today, it doesn?t seem to matter whether you?re doing a good job or a bad job for your shareholders and workers: You?ll be rewarded either way,? Obama said in prepared remarks. He lauded McCain?s recent show of disgust with executive pay, but criticized him for not supporting the Shareholder Vote on Executive Compensation Act, which would give shareholders the chance to signal their displeasure with executive pay with a nonbinding vote. ?When he?s had the chance to do something about this problem, he?s opted for continuing the do-nothing approach of the Bush years,? Obama said."

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/...des-mccain-on-ceo-pay/

Please show who this "You" is

This is for people who work hard and take risks to get to their positions. Don't worry, it doesn't include you Dave.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Legislating this problem isn't the right way to go about it, but it is absolutely ridiculous that guys can come into a company, run it into the ground, then be given a $40 million dollar compensation package by the board for their good work.

Your correct, except that the issue is that the problem was legislated into existence in the first place, and through multiple legislation over the course of decades.
Does it look like capitalism and free markets to you that a CEO and the board can rip-off the shareholders like you describe?

Look at Nardelli.

If this were true capitalism, that guy would have been punted to the curb already, not running Chrysler into the ground.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: piasabird
The owner of the stock has no rights.

Nonsense. The owner of ANY property has rights. That is THE most basic premise of capitalism.

Originally posted by: spidey07
All compensation is public information for board members and officers. It's also included in the annual report. Shareholders do vote on said compensation. What I have a problem with is legislating it and obama using class envy to garner support.

Pardon me, spidey, but bullshit. Corporate America's accountability to its shareholders right now is essentially non-existent. You're living in a fantasy world. This compensation is rarely voted on, and when it is, the votes are little more than shams with the outcomes already decided on beforehand by the institutional investors and the board.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Legislating this problem isn't the right way to go about it, but it is absolutely ridiculous that guys can come into a company, run it into the ground, then be given a $40 million dollar compensation package by the board for their good work.

EEEAA! You must mean $400 million, that's more the average.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Delita

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: spidey07
Topic Title: Obama doesn't want you to succeed
Topic Summary: Tries bill to limit capitalism/CEO pay


More signs of the communist Mr. Obama really is. "oh, you're making too much money - let's limit that". This is very dangerous thinking from this guy. More gubment interference, more regulation, more we need to limit how one can succeed in America. Does the young senator not know that you can already vote at shareholder meetings and most compensation adjustments are given a vote as well? Or will he continue to use class envy as a means to drum up the masses for hope and change.

?If you?re successful, you should be rewarded. But if you?re a Wall Street CEO today, it doesn?t seem to matter whether you?re doing a good job or a bad job for your shareholders and workers: You?ll be rewarded either way,? Obama said in prepared remarks. He lauded McCain?s recent show of disgust with executive pay, but criticized him for not supporting the Shareholder Vote on Executive Compensation Act, which would give shareholders the chance to signal their displeasure with executive pay with a nonbinding vote. ?When he?s had the chance to do something about this problem, he?s opted for continuing the do-nothing approach of the Bush years,? Obama said."

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/...des-mccain-on-ceo-pay/

Please show who this "You" is

This is for people who work hard and take risks to get to their positions. Don't worry, it doesn't include you Dave.

Who are you to say I don't work hard?

If you were paying attention you would see I tooks risks (tried investing in a local Pub and got stiffed by the local Bank Vice President and Deputy Sheriff).

But of course the local P&N establishment call that risk as foolish.

Of course they can have it both ways because they are financial gods.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Phokus
So CEO's who tank their companies into the water and receive golden parachutes and large compensation = capitalism?

The OP is retarded. I think shareholders who have the power to punish executives for poor performance is the very definition of capitalism. If anything, Obama is not going far enough by making it non-binding.

Well shareholders can typically vote out the board that gave the CEO the golden parachute.
The disconnect comes from people owning such a small % of the company their vote ends up being dwarfed by mutual fund managers or people who own a majority stake. But as a shareholder these are the risks you need to weigh before investing.

Then that's a broken system. There's something wrong when these CEO's basically sit on each other's board of directors and have that buddy buddy system where they give each other raises. IBM's CEO, Sam Palmisano (used to work there myself) is on Exxon's board. Now why would he be there other than the fact that it's just a networking opportunity for him? Look up "interlocking directorates"

It definately wreaks of cronism. But we as shareholders could put a stop to it if we sold all of our stock. In a way we are in on it as well. We enjoy the returns and dont take a stand by not buying into the market.

That might be true, if 2/3 of all common stock were held by individual shareholders.

In my response prior I clearly said individual stock holders are drowned out by mutual fund managers and people who have a majority stake in the company.

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: spidey07
More signs of the communist Mr. Obama really is. "oh, you're making too much money - let's limit that". This is very dangerous thinking from this guy. More gubment interference, more regulation, more we need to limit how one can succeed in America. Does the young senator not know that you can already vote at shareholder meetings and most compensation adjustments are given a vote as well? Or will he continue to use class envy as a means to drum up the masses for hope and change.

?If you?re successful, you should be rewarded. But if you?re a Wall Street CEO today, it doesn?t seem to matter whether you?re doing a good job or a bad job for your shareholders and workers: You?ll be rewarded either way,? Obama said in prepared remarks. He lauded McCain?s recent show of disgust with executive pay, but criticized him for not supporting the Shareholder Vote on Executive Compensation Act, which would give shareholders the chance to signal their displeasure with executive pay with a nonbinding vote. ?When he?s had the chance to do something about this problem, he?s opted for continuing the do-nothing approach of the Bush years,? Obama said."

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/...des-mccain-on-ceo-pay/

Did you read your own pasted quote, Mr Poopyhands?

 

[jonks]

Thread should have been titled:

If you are an underperforming over-compensated CEO, Obama doesn't want you to succeed

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Legislating this problem isn't the right way to go about it, but it is absolutely ridiculous that guys can come into a company, run it into the ground, then be given a $40 million dollar compensation package by the board for their good work.

Your correct, except that the issue is that the problem was legislated into existence in the first place, and through multiple legislation over the course of decades.
Does it look like capitalism and free markets to you that a CEO and the board can rip-off the shareholders like you describe?

Look at Nardelli.

If this were true capitalism, that guy would have been punted to the curb already, not running Chrysler into the ground.

Yaknow, this is what bugs me about the talk radio right of recent years. They point to obvious in-your-face examples of corruption and cronyism, call them capitalism, and then label any efforts to rein those in (and restore actual capitalism) as "socialism" or "communism." It's bullshit.

CEO compensation is an excellent example.
Another great one, that happens to apply to my profession, is wealth disparity in housing. Spidey, I am sure, looks at affluent white suburbs and poor black inner city neighborhoods, and probably thinks that came about naturally and through capitalism/free markets. NO. What happened is that post-WWII, the government housing agency FHA gave cheap mortgages to whites to move out to the suburbs, and at the same time denied almost all loan applications from blacks, usually for no other reason that because they were black. Was that capitalism?

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Phokus
So CEO's who tank their companies into the water and receive golden parachutes and large compensation = capitalism?

The OP is retarded. I think shareholders who have the power to punish executives for poor performance is the very definition of capitalism. If anything, Obama is not going far enough by making it non-binding.

Well shareholders can typically vote out the board that gave the CEO the golden parachute.
The disconnect comes from people owning such a small % of the company their vote ends up being dwarfed by mutual fund managers or people who own a majority stake. But as a shareholder these are the risks you need to weigh before investing.

Then that's a broken system. There's something wrong when these CEO's basically sit on each other's board of directors and have that buddy buddy system where they give each other raises. IBM's CEO, Sam Palmisano (used to work there myself) is on Exxon's board. Now why would he be there other than the fact that it's just a networking opportunity for him? Look up "interlocking directorates"

It definately wreaks of cronism. But we as shareholders could put a stop to it if we sold all of our stock. In a way we are in on it as well. We enjoy the returns and dont take a stand by not buying into the market.

That might be true, if 2/3 of all common stock were held by individual shareholders.

In my response prior I clearly said individual stock holders are drowned out by mutual fund managers and people who have a majority stake in the company.

Sorry, missed it.

 

[maddogchen]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: maddogchen
interesting...I just sent in my vote for limiting executive compensation to within a certain percentage in a recent shareholder ballot. Still waiting on the results.

Out of curiosity, what company and what amount? Chances are, your vote will not pass

thats weird...my original reply errored out.

So i had forgotten the details but I'm pretty sure its something likethis one for US Bancorp.
Maybe enough retirement pension funds will be pissed off at compensations cutting into their dividend returns to sway the vote but I doubt it.

edited: although i think every year it fails haha.