"And I just racked it, and they ran."

[greydog111]

There hasn't been a mention of a gun in the last 55 posts give or take. How is this thread still living if there are no politics allowed?

Hmmm. History lesson due here. Marxist/Leninist governments lead to the confiscation on weapons from citizens. There. Fixed the complaint for ya?

 

[locobob]

Name change needed. Bob/Marx?

Name change needed.... greysheep111... see I can play the discredit by labeling game too

There is a huge difference between a properly regulated market based economy and communism. If you can't understand the difference I suggest you do some reading and/or take some economics/business classes.

 

[Grunwald]

Name change needed.... greysheep111... see I can play the discredit by labeling game too

There is a huge difference between a properly regulated market based economy and communism. If you can't understand the difference I suggest you do some reading and/or take some economics/business classes.

So true. Once the regulations hit a certain point you're in fascism and not communism land.
None of that matter though. It is only terminology. What matters is that those will power will wield that power to their own benefit unless there are controls put on them. With people voting like blind sheep for the D or R after the name, those in power are free to rein as they see fit.

 

[greydog111]

Name change needed.... greysheep111... see I can play the discredit by labeling game too

There is a huge difference between a properly regulated market based economy and communism. If you can't understand the difference I suggest you do some reading and/or take some economics/business classes.

Please read my profile before you label me a sheeple. "hard men stand watch on the walls at night so that you can sleep safely in your bed"

 

[greydog111]

Hey mods. Shut this one down. It seems the Trolls have hijacked the topic.

 

[Grunwald]

Hey mods. Shut this one down. It seems the Trolls have hijacked the topic.

So let me get this straight - you are upset because someone has done to you what you have done to him first?

 

[Riot]

So let me get this straight - you are upset because someone has done to you what you have done to him first?

Hypocrisy

 

[greydog111]

So let me get this straight - you are upset because someone has done to you what you have done to him first?

????? I think this is called "A cognitive disconnect with reality". Socialism is good? Look to Greece, Italy, England. How's that workin for ya? Gun rights are gone, crime is rampant, the populace is distraught. Dont want that for my kids or grandson. I love this forum, but my constitution can't take any more. I'm out of it. (no, you can't take any credit for this)

 

[Riot]

????? I think this is called "A cognitive disconnect with reality". Socialism is good? Look to Greece, Italy, England. How's that workin for ya? Gun rights are gone, crime is rampant, the populace is distraught. Dont want that for my kids or grandson. I love this forum, but my constitution can't take any more. I'm out of it. (no, you can't take any credit for this)

I think you are the one disconnected...this is what Grunwald is talking about...

Name change needed. Bob/Marx?

Name change needed.... greysheep111... see I can play the discredit by labeling game too

Hey mods. Shut this one down. It seems the Trolls have hijacked the topic.

You sir, are a hypocrite.

 

[Grunwald]

I think you are the one disconnected...this is what Grunwald is talking about...

You sir, are a hypocrite.

Funny thing is, that I agree with him politically and on viewpoints that he made previously.
However, when you dish it out, you have to be able to take it.

 

[Riot]

Funny thing is, that I agree with him politically and on viewpoints that he made previously.
However, when you dish it out, you have to be able to take it.

Agreed! I disagree with loco on this very thread, but I can't stand hypocrites!

 

[Riot]

Meanwhile, back on the original thread...

 

[Kevatc]

You are abso-freekin-lootly right about this...except I'd be pissed too (and still kinda am) that we (the US tax payer) was forced to bail out these huge companies...then the CEO gets a huge bonus off of my money. Mostly I'm pissed at our dumb@ss government for bailing out these companies...stating that they were "too big to fail". Seriously, wtf does that even mean? I mean, these CEOs ran to congress on their personal jets to beg for more money. I say let them fail! Maybe breaking down the unions and restarting over wouldn't be a bad thing. It's called CAPITALISM, not SOCIALISM. Bah, I know I'm preaching to the choir....just a sad state of affairs, really.

You might be right about the bolded and I agree with the remainder of your post but I guess I get my dander up when unions are singled out as being a problem (even though you did mention the CEO pay issue). Your post got me to doing a quick bit of Google research.

1. In 2/2010 GM CEO Ed Whitacre was reported to have been on the books for a $9 million compensation package. He was reported to have received $300,000 for serving on the GM board for an "extra" 4 months.

2. Former GM CEO Fritz Henderson was rehired as a consultant for 20 hours/month at the rate of $59090 per month. He had a $5.5 million compensation package while he was the head honcho.

3. In September 2010 Daniel Ackerson was hired as the GM CEO and was to receive a $9 million compensation package.

4. I just picked 4 banks that received bailout money from the TARP program. The 2010 CEO pay for Wells Farg was a $21.3 million package, the B of A CEO made $9 million in 2008 and retired with a $83 million package in 2009, The JP Morgan Chase CEO had a 16 million compensation package, and the Goldman Sachs CEO made $9 million.

The point to this is that one CEO compensation package could represent a significant percentage of worker payroll. I know that CEO's can be "here today, gone tomorrow" folks so they negotiate big time packages so maybe my angst should be directed at the BOD's that say OK to the pay level. I don't know. All I know is that is the average worker who is feeling the financial squeeze rather than the powers that be that run these corporations. There is a disconnect between big business and the folks who make that same business go and there is a disconnect between government and the people.

 

[Riot]

You might be right about the bolded and I agree with the remainder of your post but I guess I get my dander up when unions are singled out as being a problem (even though you did mention the CEO pay issue). Your post got me to doing a quick bit of Google research.

1. In 2/2010 GM CEO Ed Whitacre was reported to have been on the books for a $9 million compensation package. He was reported to have received $300,000 for serving on the GM board for an "extra" 4 months.

2. Former GM CEO Fritz Henderson was rehired as a consultant for 20 hours/month at the rate of $59090 per month. He had a $5.5 million compensation package while he was the head honcho.

3. In September 2010 Daniel Ackerson was hired as the GM CEO and was to receive a $9 million compensation package.

4. I just picked 4 banks that received bailout money from the TARP program. The 2010 CEO pay for Wells Farg was a $21.3 million package, the B of A CEO made $9 million in 2008 and retired with a $83 million package in 2009, The JP Morgan Chase CEO had a 16 million compensation package, and the Goldman Sachs CEO made $9 million.

The point to this is that one CEO compensation package could represent a significant percentage of worker payroll. I know that CEO's can be "here today, gone tomorrow" folks so they negotiate big time packages so maybe my angst should be directed at the BOD's that say OK to the pay level. I don't know. All I know is that is the average worker who is feeling the financial squeeze rather than the powers that be that run these corporations. There is a disconnect between big business and the folks who make that same business go and there is a disconnect between government and the people.

I'm a Union, paying card holder. Do I think the Unions are bad? No, not necessarily. I don't think racial equality is bad either- but I think affirmative action (forcing people to hire a percentage of minorities) has good intentions but bad consequences. Sometimes, unions are just that; good intentions with bad consequences.

Now, on the subject of CEO pay. If I was in charge of WalMart and paid my CEOs billions of dollars that is my choice, it is my money and my company (as JG Wentworth states, "It's your money, use it when you need it.") Any talk of redistributing the wealth from the rich to the poor is anything short of Socialism. On the reverse, redistribution of my money to bail out the rich is anything short of corruption.

The only way to fix the broken system is to re-write the system...not by shuffling the money and the blame around.

 

[Kevatc]

I'm a Union, paying card holder. Do I think the Unions are bad? No, not necessarily. I don't think racial equality is bad either- but I think affirmative action (forcing people to hire a percentage of minorities) has good intentions but bad consequences. Sometimes, unions are just that; good intentions with bad consequences.

Now, on the subject of CEO pay. If I was in charge of WalMart and paid my CEOs billions of dollars that is my choice, it is my money and my company (as JG Wentworth states, "It's your money, use it when you need it.") Any talk of redistributing the wealth from the rich to the poor is anything short of Socialism. On the reverse, redistribution of my money to bail out the rich is anything short of corruption.

The only way to fix the broken system is to re-write the system...not by shuffling the money and the blame around.

I didn't say anything about shuffling money around or re-distributing wealth. As I said, it is my feeling that unions are sometimes unfairly targeted. Given the few examples I provided I find it absurd that anyone could take issue with the fact that when a CEO can earn $59 grand per 20 hour work month there isn't a signficant degree of lack of fairness between worker and suit.

 

[Riot]

I didn't say anything about shuffling money around or re-distributing wealth. As I said, it is my feeling that unions are sometimes unfairly targeted. Given the few examples I provided I find it absurd that anyone could take issue with the fact that when a CEO can earn $59 grand per 20 hour work month there isn't a signficant degree of lack of fairness between worker and suit.

I know 30-year retired military vets that make more than I do and doesn't work a day. I guess a portion of his paycheck should come to me too.

 

[locobob]

I'm a Union, paying card holder. Do I think the Unions are bad? No, not necessarily. I don't think racial equality is bad either- but I think affirmative action (forcing people to hire a percentage of minorities) has good intentions but bad consequences. Sometimes, unions are just that; good intentions with bad consequences.

Now, on the subject of CEO pay. If I was in charge of WalMart and paid my CEOs billions of dollars that is my choice, it is my money and my company (as JG Wentworth states, "It's your money, use it when you need it.") Any talk of redistributing the wealth from the rich to the poor is anything short of Socialism. On the reverse, redistribution of my money to bail out the rich is anything short of corruption.

The only way to fix the broken system is to re-write the system...not by shuffling the money and the blame around.

Wal-mart is a publicly traded company, it belongs to its stockholders. Now one of the first things you learn in business school is that the primary mission of a corporation is to enhance shareholder value. A few, mostly smaller, corporations are closely held, i.e. a majority of the stock is owned by one person or a small group of people. Usually these majority owners make up the board thus their interests and those of the corporation are closely aligned. In most cases however, the stock of large corporations is held by all manner of mutual funds, IRA's, pension funds, investment firms, day traders, etc. etc. With this diffusion of ownership often comes a loss of any real direct accountability on the part of the board and management. Lacking a united overseeing force the only real mechanism keeping the company on track is its stock price - which as we have seen is subject to all kinds of manipulation. Making changes to the board of directors (who exercise control over senior management) is near impossible unless you are a big time player - in which case you are probably on the board already. Now as someone already mentioned the relationship between senior management and boards of directors tends to be highly incestuous. It is very common for CEO's and CFO's to sit on boards of other corporations. The end result is an extensive "old boys network" that puts self interest ahead of the interests of the shareholders (the owners).

As far as "its your money" I don't even know where to begin with such a can of worms. How do we objectively determine how much of "your money" is actually your money? How many people helped you make "your money". Who rightfully decides who gets what piece of the pie? Would you have the same amount of money under a different political system? No political system? What costs of your industry did you not pay directly (externalities)? What portion of "your money" was made possible by public infrastructure? What portion of the military was employed in protecting you so you could make your money? What is your "just" share of the tax burden?
Do you see how this is not a simple thing?
While capitalism is based upon selfish interest you cannot reduce it to the level of natural law, it cannot exist in a Hobbesian "state of nature". Once you throw out the rules (political structure) it quickly becomes every man for himself and thus no real conglomeration of wealth is possible.

 

[Grunwald]

I'd like to add to locobob's post that there is no reason to intertwine the issue of CEO pay and the Unions into one topic. They are in fact two distinct issues and need to be looked at as such.
I know that Karl Ican has been pushing something called "shareholder bill of rights" for years now. I have not read his proposal, but from what I heard from Ican himself say about it during the interviews, implementing it would be at least a very good start at correcting the problems with CEOs and boards.
My only concern is that people like Ican like to buy into companies, take control and then sell them piece by piece. In many cases the company is destroyed and people lose their jobs just so some "raider" can make a quick buck". I am against that.
I do think that shareholder voting needs to be altered so that money managers cannot vote with the shares they control for other people. Most mutual fund managers always vote with the board, effectively locking out individual shareholders and giving the board complete control without any fear of personal consequences for their actions (or lack there of) .

Finally, since the Supreme Court recently decided that corporations have the same right under the 1st amendment as individuals, I would like to see that members of the boards of directors face the same criminal prosecution as an private individual would for crimes committed by the corporation. Now that would be fun to watch.

 

[Riot]

Wal-mart is a publicly traded company, it belongs to its stockholders. Now one of the first things you learn in business school is that the primary mission of a corporation is to enhance shareholder value. A few, mostly smaller, corporations are closely held, i.e. a majority of the stock is owned by one person or a small group of people. Usually these majority owners make up the board thus their interests and those of the corporation are closely aligned. In most cases however, the stock of large corporations is held by all manner of mutual funds, IRA's, pension funds, investment firms, day traders, etc. etc. With this diffusion of ownership often comes a loss of any real direct accountability on the part of the board and management. Lacking a united overseeing force the only real mechanism keeping the company on track is its stock price - which as we have seen is subject to all kinds of manipulation. Making changes to the board of directors (who exercise control over senior management) is near impossible unless you are a big time player - in which case you are probably on the board already. Now as someone already mentioned the relationship between senior management and boards of directors tends to be highly incestuous. It is very common for CEO's and CFO's to sit on boards of other corporations. The end result is an extensive "old boys network" that puts self interest ahead of the interests of the shareholders (the owners).

As far as "its your money" I don't even know where to begin with such a can of worms. How do we objectively determine how much of "your money" is actually your money? How many people helped you make "your money". Who rightfully decides who gets what piece of the pie? Would you have the same amount of money under a different political system? No political system? What costs of your industry did you not pay directly (externalities)? What portion of "your money" was made possible by public infrastructure? What portion of the military was employed in protecting you so you could make your money? What is your "just" share of the tax burden?
Do you see how this is not a simple thing?
While capitalism is based upon selfish interest you cannot reduce it to the level of natural law, it cannot exist in a Hobbesian "state of nature". Once you throw out the rules (political structure) it quickly becomes every man for himself and thus no real conglomeration of wealth is possible.

So what is your suggestion? More government regulation? Caps on CEO salaries? Tax raises? You don't think that a corporation would just move their "headquarters" overseas and keep doing what they're doing?

I don't see anyone jumping to a picket line to protest how corrupt the Native Americans divvy out funds from Casino earnings, yet when big companies make big money and give their CEOs big salaries, it's somehow wrong? These companies aren't sweatshops, mind you.

 

[Kevatc]

Finally, since the Supreme Court recently decided that corporations have the same right under the 1st amendment as individuals, I would like to see that members of the boards of directors face the same criminal prosecution as an private individual would for crimes committed by the corporation. Now that would be fun to watch.

One of the most mind boggling SCOTUS decisions EVER. As to the remainder of the post: AMEN!!!!!!!