A romantic notion that honors the value of hard work, no doubt. But the vast majority of CEO’s are not cartoon villians. By virtue of their business and hiring skills, millions of people keep their jobs and contribute the tax dollars that the left wants to spend. Sure, there are some bad apples…but capitalism is the backbone of our society and CEO’s and thier corporations are on the front lines.
Are you talking about crime now? What does that have to do with anything?
Dude, if this is droll sarcasm, I am really impressed…
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/11/opinion/main679588.shtml
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/11/opinion/meyer/main679667.shtml
I am presently thinking about finding another job because I work part-time for CEO Shithead. Last year the douchebag gave himself a six figure bonus while cutting wages for ordinary workers including myself.
Dumb-dumb didn’t even do a good job. The company is presently being sued for incompetence and we lost a major contract to a competitor.
The notion that this pathetic putz is one of the most “deserving” or “productive” members of our society entitled to a big fat tax cut is a sick Republican joke.
lavenderlemon, casualty of the present class war
lavenderlemon, do the owners of the company agree with your assessment that the CEO did a bad job?
Would this be the Left that is currently running the Executive branch of the federal government, or the left that is currently the majority in the Legislative branch?
Sorry to say, but the myth of the Right/Republicans being the party of fiscal restraint is dead.
I was referring about the liberal notion of soaking the evil rich and redistributing the money to the “more deserving”. You know…socialism. The reason that the left is in political retreat is that fewer and fewer people are still buying into this philosophy.
Without giving away the name of the company, the problem is that the company straddles the line between public and private functions.
The private part of the company does not appear to be accountable to anyone. The public part of the company should be investigated (because it is need of serious reform) but despite numerous calls by public watchdogs, as nearly as I can find out no regulatory action has been taken.
Many employees including myself only found about the bonus because of an article in the New York Times. When I forwarded the article to my local Republican congressperson I was greeted with massive indifference.
I cannot imagine a scernario where you can take a look at the facts and believe the CEO did anything other than a very poor job last year. I am not lying when I write that this very large company is being sued for incompetence on a major project nor am I lying when I write that we lost a major contract. Given those conditions I was not entirely shocked when the pay cuts were doled out. I was shocked at the sheer nerve of the CEO to hand himself (and a few selected cronies) a six figure bonus. It was particularly ironic when the article quoted the CEO boasting that he’d done a good job and gave the bonuses out to attract and keep qualified people.
Appparently that particular rationale only applies to a handful of not especially competent people at the top.
It doesn’t seem I’ll be able to help you here, luci, but politeness dictates that I make the attempt.
While I understand that the image of mustache-twirling CEO’s evilly cackling over grand conspiracies in more ideologically comfortable for you, that’s not quite how it works.
Almost half the population has a direct or indirect investment in the stock market. Where do you think all the cash that goes into mutual funds goes?
I am a member of a group of workers who will get a pension at retirement. The money that is taken from my paycheck to pay for that goes straight into the stock market. The better the CEO’s are at their jobs, the more the company stock is worth…and the more money I have in 30 years when it’s time to retire. Literally millions of people are in the same boat to one degree or another.
For every Enron, there are thousands of companies that go quietly about their day as the underpinnings of the most powerful economy on the planet.
Look… that’s the point. The Govt. won’t be able to afford to finance what amounts to a defined benefit plan at some point in the future. In other words, people expect a certain payout based on what they paid in. Problem is, it’s not like a savings account- the people paying in right now pay for the people paying out right now. If there’s some kind of shortfall, then the Govt. has to make it up somehow.
By moving the money to private accounts, the government is basically insulating them from these kinds of changes- if YOU fuck up and invest in Enron, then YOU suffer the consequences. If you put all YOUR SS money in T-Bills to avoid risk and you make zilch in interest, then that’s YOUR problem.
This isn’t something new- companies of all sizes have been fleeing defined-benefit pension plans like rats out of a sinking ship for a long time now. What do you think a 401K is? Something not all that far off from what the Govt. is proposing.
Ultimately it’s every person’s responsibility to plan for their retirement, not the Government’s. Giving people more control over the money that they’re required to pay in seems awfully sound to me, especially when you consider the looming bankruptcy of the existing SS system.
Wow, the author of corporate America’s 1950s propaganda films has risen from the dead.
Looks like the company structure is too complex to analyze through a message board post, so we can dispense with that idea.
Interesting that you consider this a failing of the CEO. I agree that these things are his responsibility, but some here seem to think that CEOs do nothing but pull in big checks. Not true, they are responsible for making sure that problems like this do not happen. If this CEO gets the boot, would hiring a good CEO be of value to this company? A good CEO can divert resources where they need to go, can make sure that people get the training they need, that sales don’t slip, that the company remain competitive.
He is WAY more important than the janitor because when he screws up (as you have mentioned) contracts are lost, suits are filed, and thousands of employees get pay cuts. If the janitor screws up, the toilets are dirty. The reverse is true when they do well, a good CEO creates jobs and increases the value of the company, a good janitor creates a clean toilet.
I don’t mind paying a lot for a CEO, but I also expect a lot.
How am I wrong in the statement you are attempting to mock?
Dude, give it up. You’re never going to get any of these idiots to recognize that businesspeople ever do a lick of work. No, they’re simply remoras paid vast amounts of money ( which is generated by forcibly selling the organs of the children of the poor, abused working class saints in their company ) to sit around and whack off to Paris Hilton videos while smoking cigars and chuckling evilly about their latest plot to steal bread from the mouths of orphans. The liberal morons on this board don’t have a clue about real life or about how things have to be, you know, produced and shit to create an economy. They believe that people get rich independent of the real world and because this is so, the solution is to tax, tax, tax these rich people to generate income for the rest of us so we can sit on our asses and do nothing while living off of the sweat of others.
That’s true.
And I can’t reveal the company’s name because I don’t want to get in trouble at work. But believe me you would just as irritated as I am if you knew especially as I’m sure you’re virtually forced to do business with my employer at least once in life.
If the company’s in trouble don’t you think the last thing that should happen is CEO gets a bonus? They lowered salaries by a significant percentage per hour for the dozen of us who work on one project periodically. The savings from paying us less won’t even cover a tenth of the CEO’s bonus. It’s obscene.
Perhaps. It would certainly improve morale to find someone who doesn’t feel entitled to hand himself lots of money when the company isn’t doing well.
Important somewhat. Hundreds of times more important, hell no.
Weirddave,
http://www.businessweek.com/2000/00_42/b3703102.htm
http://www.indystar.com/articles/2/149042-7612-031.html
http://www.aflcio.org/corporateamerica/paywatch/
http://accounting.smartpros.com/x47071.xml
lavenderlemon who works hard, invests in the market, and actually lives in the real world
My boss should be taxed. The SOB didn’t earn a single fucking penny of his six figure bonus.
What the fuck are you talking about, Dave?
#1. I’m liberal as fuck
#2. I’m a mortgage banker. I’ve had lunch with corporate CEOs of huge companies. I understand very well what they do.
#3. I don’t believe the solution to anything is tax tax tax, especially not so that someone can “sit on [their] asses and do nothing.”
#4. This is a stupid paragraph that does nothing for your argument. What’s with you lately?
#5. This is a strawman.
Whacking off to Paris Hilton: no one who puts an image like that in my head should be allowed to go another day without being severely tortured.
Clueless liberals: must be talking about folks like Robert Rubin and Bill Clinton, who took a 300 billion dollar deficit and turned it into a surplus. Contrast this with Bush and his Snowman, who took the surplus and turned it into a 400 billion dollar deficit, thereby proving the superior fiscal and business acumen of the right.
Yep. Got that down. Absolutely right. Mmhmm.
just so I know what side of the war im on, where is the line drawn between lower, middle, and upper class?
[quote=Dead Badger}
That’s as may be, although punitive damages are still unlimited, remember. My point is that I have no idea how this constitutes class warfare, since I see no language in the bill saying “except for rich people - they can have more if they want.” Do poor ball-less people suffer more than rich ones?[/quote]
C’mon. The bill obviously benefits one class of people – wealthy doctors, wealthy insurers – and harms another class of people, doctors’ patients, who, on the average, are much more likely to be poor or middle class than wealthy (because wealthy people comprise such a small percentage of the population). You must measure effect, not just declared intent, when considering laws of this nature. Otherwise all those censorship bills labelled as “Citizens’ Freedom Acts” would pass muster.
I agree, but I don’t know that they’ll be willing to admit that it’s their good buddies the Republicans that did this to them. If the Pubbies can put together halfway decent scenario where this is the fault of the Democrats, they’ll buy it, because they’ll WANT to. I don’t know HOW such a scenario could come up, but the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth worked, the "Saddam caused 911 meme worked, so apparently an ridiculous lie they’d care to come up with will work.