Print

[ducksoup]

All this flailing around and trying to distract does nothing to support your assertion that shareholders can vote down CEO pay.  I have shown that a vote is non binding and they HAVE ignored the vote.  Yeah, I am sure that some listened even if they were not forced to, but still at least one has ignored it, which proves that the vote means nothing.

I don't know, or care if board members can be voted out in a very binding vote, but that doesn't address your claim.

[LetsGoWings]

Yes, it is non-binding, do you not understand what that means? It means they are not bound by the vote.

Shareholders determine the CEO pay by the election of the Board, you have done absolutely nothing to refute that.

[ducksoup]

Those articles do not say a majority of shareholders have called for Murdoch being fired.

Shareholders do determine CEO pay through the election of the board. It is obvious you have no idea on corporate structure you just spout off ideas and hope you are right.

I have no idea where you are going with the Verlander-Inge comment, can you elaborate more on it?

It is simple, if the shareholders do not like the pay that the Board authorizes, then next election cycle you vote the Board out. How do you not understand this? Also show me where I said the shareholders determine pay? I said "It should be the shareholders of the corporation that determine that. If GE wants to pay Immelt and insane amount of money, and a majority of the shareholders agree, why should a non-shareholder care so much and why should they even have a say in it?"

Looks like you are the one with reading comprehension problems.

Look, if all ya got is saying I am too stupid to understand, then you have nothing.  Grow up and act like a man and stop acting like a metadata little kid.  I said they voted "no confidence" which is what I think that the articles said.  Not "fired" as you say.

So, your assertion is that a vote about pay means nothing and all that they can do is vote for a board that MIGHT do what they want, or not.  See, you already can't defend what you claimed, that shareholders can vote on pay.  Now you have to go further steps. 


Ohhhhhhhh, so it SHOULD be... you argue for pages and pages and get to "it should be" and that means clearly IT IS NOT.

Well, that certainly was an incredibly boring and non informative descent into meaningless meta...  Did you have fun with your topic diversion?

[ducksoup]

Yes, it is non-binding, do you not understand what that means? It means they are not bound by the vote.

Shareholders determine the CEO pay by the election of the Board, you have done absolutely nothing to refute that.

No I can't even guess what non binding could mean since you fought that for many posts and switched to the board instead.  I guess you win LGW, you proved that no one but you can know anything and no matter how far you slide or how many diversions you take, you are always right and NO ONE EVER  can comprehend anything.  You should declare yourself a genius and become a CEO so you can ignore all the stupid people in the world, ALL of the rest of the people.

[LetsGoWings]

Look, if all ya got is saying I am too stupid to understand, then you have nothing.  Grow up and act like a man and stop acting like a metadata little kid.  I said they voted "no confidence" which is what I think that the articles said.  Not "fired" as you say.

So, your assertion is that a vote about pay means nothing and all that they can do is vote for a board that MIGHT do what they want, or not.  See, you already can't defend what you claimed, that shareholders can vote on pay.  Now you have to go further steps. 


Ohhhhhhhh, so it SHOULD be... you argue for pages and pages and get to "it should be" and that means clearly IT IS NOT.

Well, that certainly was an incredibly boring and non informative descent into meaningless meta...  Did you have fun with your topic diversion?

No because you have failed to answer the basic question I posed, why should CEOs not be paid their fair value?

Yeah voting for that Board seems to be a lot like voting for politicians doesn't it? Except in this case the Shareholders will go out and vote for people who will restrict CEO pay by simply voting in the largest shareholders who are against an increase in pay. Again, show me where I said shareholders directly vote on pay? Again, since you are too dense to understand it, the shareholders elect the Board who determine the pay. If the shareholders believe CEO pay is too high, then they vote in a Board who will restrict the CEO pay.

I have argued that they determine the vote through the Board, I have never once said they directly vote CEO pay, as you have been claiming I have, again you seem to be the one with reading comprehension.

Just admit you are wrong DS, and possible admit you have reading comprehension problems..

[LetsGoWings]

No I can't even guess what non binding could mean since you fought that for many posts and switched to the board instead.  I guess you win LGW, you proved that no one but you can know anything and no matter how far you slide or how many diversions you take, you are always right and NO ONE EVER  can comprehend anything.  You should declare yourself a genius and become a CEO so you can ignore all the stupid people in the world, ALL of the rest of the people.

Shareholders vote for the Board. a non-binding vote for a corporation would be similar as having all Americans vote on healthcare, it is nice to know, but the administration doesn't have to listen to it. However, if they don't listen to it then they run the risk of being voted out if a majority believe it is an important issue.

Shareholders, whether you will admit it or not, indirectly determine CEO pay through the election of the Board. You have done absolutely nothing to disprove this.

Again show me where I said shareholders directly vote on CEO pay?

You continue to dodge this question: Why should CEOs not be paid their fair value?

[LetsGoWings]

Here you go DS, I am helping you out:

http://www.literacy.uconn.edu/compre.htm
http://www.readingcomprehensionconnection.com/
http://www.execuread.com/

Check some of those out.

[ducksoup]

Here you go DS, I am helping you out:

http://www.literacy.uconn.edu/compre.htm
http://www.readingcomprehensionconnection.com/
http://www.execuread.com/

Check some of those out.

Yeah, I get it, well maybe I don't since I can't comprehend anything.  You win, whatever that is.  I am stupid and cannot understand and you are genius of everything.

[LetsGoWings]

Yeah, I get it, well maybe I don't since I can't comprehend anything.  You win, whatever that is.  I am stupid and cannot understand and you are genius of everything.

Sorry but, whether you want to admit, it the shareholders still do get a say, last time I checked they still vote the Board in. Why should someone like Immelt not be paid their full value?

Shareholders elect the Board who is able to appoint the CEO, is the shareholders do not like what is going on in a company, then elect a new Board.

I know how corporate structure and votes work, and you are acting like I do not understand that by saying I am wrong and argued that I said they directly determine CEO pay, but I only said should. Again, please show me where I even hinted at that the Shareholders directly determine the CEO pay. Also, please show me where I have been arguing that they directly determine CEO pay. Why can't you just seriously admit you misread what I wrote. I started off posting that they SHOULD in case you don't know the definition here it is:

Should-Indicating a desirable or expected state.

Also, why have you not answered the question: Why should CEOs not be paid their fair value?

[LetsGoWings]

Ok no BS, DS can you please show me where I said Shareholders directly determine CEO pay and then we can figure out what each other was thinking? Lets discuss the actual topic instead of being rude to each other.

[Frenchfry]

Down and out on Wall Street
by Jim Hightower

Have you heard about the earthquake that has shaken Wall Street to its very core? Well, brace yourself, for this really is a shocker: bonus payments are down.

Yes, the exorbitant bonus checks pocketed each year by the Goldman Sachers, Citigroupers, and other financial tinkerers have been cut by about 25 percent this year, and – oh! – you should hear the Wall Streeters moaning the hard-times, down-and-out banker blues. "It's a disaster," sobbed one, "The entire construct of compensation has changed."

Cynics, of course, will say… "Good – about time." And it is difficult in these times of middle-class collapse and rising poverty to get teary-eyed over a few financial swells getting a trim – but, come on, open your hearts to their pain. A hedge-fund manager, for example, says it'll now be a strain for him to keep his $7,500 annual membership dues in the Trump National Golf Club. Plus, he worries about food, health care, and boarding. Not for him, but for his two dogs – he's been laying out $17,000 a year for upkeep of his labradoodle and bichon frise, including around $5,000 to hire a daily dog-walker for them.

The crunch is so bad for these one-percenters that one says he now has to shop for discounted salmon for dinner and has had to give up his annual ski trip to Aspen. And a high-dollar accountant who does financial planning for the wealthy practically weeps for clients who're having to cut back. Empathizing with the stress of it all, he asks: "Could you imagine what it's like to say, 'I got three kids in private school, I have to think about pulling them out?' How do you do that?" Dabbing his eyes with tissues, he adds that these people have been raking in around $500,000 a year, and they never dreamed "that they'd be broke."

Broke? Get a grip. We should all be as "broke" as they are.

"Bonus Withdrawal Puts Bankers in "Malaise," www.yahoo.com, February 29, 2012.
http://www.jimhightower.com/node/7730

[Frenchfry]

Down and out on Wall Street
by Jim Hightower

Maybe you thought the lowest possible point of Republican miserliness was reached when Ronald Reagan's Secretary of Agriculture proposed that ketchup be counted as a vegetable in the school lunch program. If so, you've not taken a peek at the GOP's astoundingly-penurious budget proposal recently pasted together in a fit of ideological extremism by their budget guru, Rep. Paul Ryan.

Of all things, The Repubs whacked $8 billion from next year's food stamp funds – a well-run, widely-popular, and effective program that helps millions of hard-hit American families stave off some of the pain of poverty. Maybe so, concede Ryan & Company, but the program is out of control, having added some 13 million people in the last three years. Well, gosh, Paul, welcome to the real America – where joblessness is rampant, wages are down, and the middle class is tumbling into poverty. Food stamp use is supposed to go up in such times! It means the program is working.

Still, retorts a Ryan henchman, everyone must sacrifice to lower the deficit, so these cuts are merely "reflecting the budgetary times we're in." Really? Then why does your budget give an average of $265,000 a year in more tax benefits to millionaires? And why, in your demand for severe austerity in government, do you not cut a dime from the Pentagon's bloated budget – even handing it an increase?

Finally, Ryan asserts that his food stamp cuts are for poor people's own good. Citing his Catholic religion's doctrine of "social magisterium," Paul the Pious says he's preventing poor families from the moral horror of being "dependent on government."

Imagine their gratitude! And imagine Ryan's embarrassment that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops dared to contradict his divine rationalization, bluntly calling the cuts "unjustified and wrong."

"Editorial: Plan to cut food stamps for poor and taxes for the rich is unfair," www.nj.com, April 20, 2012.

"Food Stamps, federal pensions face GOP cuts," www.yahoo.com, April 18, 2012.

"Catholic bishops criticize Ryan budget cuts to food stamps," www.thehill.com, April 17, 2012.
http://www.jimhightower.com/node/7726

[Frenchfry]

To the barricades, people!
by Jim Hightower

The corporate money coup over America's electoral democracy has rampaged through the Republican presidential primaries, and is now surging with even greater fierceness into this fall's general election.

A handful of millionaires and billionaires, pooling their corporate cash into secretive political arsenals called SuperPACs, which technically are independent from the candidates' campaigns. They dominated the GOP race. The one backing Mitt Romney, called Restore Our Future, was by far the richest, and it has made him the nominee. In this Brave New World of millionaire-and-up politics, size matters – not the size of the candidate's heart or ideas, but the size of the SuperPAC, which is now far richer than the candidates themselves. Against president Obama, not only will Restore Our Future be flush with special-interest cash, but the super-rich are also rolling out an even bigger, supersized-SuperPAC to back Romney. Created by political attack-miester Karl Rove and called American Crossroads, it intends to pound Obama relentlessly with a staggering $200 million in bloody-ugly negative campaign ads.

Just three Texas billionaires – Bob Perry, Harold Simmons, and Robert Rowling – have already primed Restore Our Future with $4.4 million, while also putting $16.5 million into American Crossroads. Just three men, $20 million, with much more to come – all three intent on spending whatever it takes to buy a presidency that will serve corporate power generally, and do governmental favors for their corporations specifically.

To the barricades, people! Not only must this year's crass corporate coup attempt be exposed and defeated, but the Supreme Court's disastrous Citizens United decision, which allowed such a plutocratic threat to arise, must be repealed. For information and action, go to
www.DemocracyIsForPeople.org.

"The Citizens United Gang," www.creators.com, April 16, 2012.

"The Ties That Bind: Romney and the Super PACs," www.opensectets.org, April 6, 2012.

"Super PAC financial reports reveal February's big donors," www.cbsnews.com, March 21, 2012.
http://www.jimhightower.com/node/7724

[ussoccer26]

[Frenchfry]

Cops Beat Occupy NATO Protesters With Clubs In Chicago

Cops Beat Corralled Protesters In Chicago