RunInRed 16,528 Posted April 11, 2008 Share Posted April 11, 2008 Apr 11 09:16 AM US/Eastern By JIM KUHNHENN Associated Press Writer INDIANAPOLIS (AP) - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is demanding that company shareholders have a say in how much executives get paid as he pushes his populist message. Obama, in remarks he planned to make to reporters Friday morning, wants Congress to pass legislation he has sponsored that would require corporations to have a nonbinding vote by shareholders on executive compensation packages. Under Obama's legislation, shareholders could not veto a compensation package offered to an executive and would not place limits on pay. Rather, they would have a means to publicly express their position. A similar bill passed the House last year. The Illinois senator's comments come as he embarks on the third day of a four day-swing through Indiana, which holds its primary May 6. Obama and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton are running even in the state and have both been making economic pitches to voters. "This isn't just about expressing outrage," Obama says in prepared remarks. "It's about changing a system where bad behavior is rewarded so that we can hold CEOs accountable, and make sure they're acting in a way that's good for their company, good for our economy, and good for America, not just good for themselves." Income inequality is a hot button issue with audiences, particularly the blue collar workers that Obama is trying to peel away from Clinton in the more economically distressed regions of Indiana and Pennsylvania, which holds its primary April 22. The high cost of chief executive pay has drawn criticism in recent years as salaries rose, stock options paid off like lottery jackpots, and perks like chauffeured cars and private jets spread. USA Today reported this week that the median compensation for chief executives at the 50 largest companies in the United States was $15.7 million last year, even though some of the companies were not performing well. Investor advocates, union pension funds and shareholder groups have supported the legislation. Republican critics worry it would give activist investors an inroad to change a company's policies. Even President Bush last year questioned the extravagant pay of some company managers and directors, but said it was not a matter for government involvement. http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8...;show_article=1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,542 Posted April 11, 2008 Share Posted April 11, 2008 Except Obama's proposed plan would be non-binding and wouldn't actually do anything to fix what he proposes to fix. It sounds nice but in reality doesn't accomplish anything of substance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RunInRed 16,528 Posted April 11, 2008 Author Share Posted April 11, 2008 Except Obama's proposed plan would be non-binding and wouldn't actually do anything to fix what he proposes to fix. It sounds nice but in reality doesn't accomplish anything of substance. Well, as the article says, it would allow shareholds to publicly express their opinion and indirectly, hold executives accountable. Some times a little bit of spotlight on the problem is all it takes... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,542 Posted April 11, 2008 Share Posted April 11, 2008 Except Obama's proposed plan would be non-binding and wouldn't actually do anything to fix what he proposes to fix. It sounds nice but in reality doesn't accomplish anything of substance. Well, as the article says, it would allow shareholds to publicly express their opinion and indirectly, hold executives accountable. Some times a little bit of spotlight on the problem is all it takes... What prevents shareholders from publicly expressing their opinions and holding them accountable now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RunInRed 16,528 Posted April 11, 2008 Author Share Posted April 11, 2008 Except Obama's proposed plan would be non-binding and wouldn't actually do anything to fix what he proposes to fix. It sounds nice but in reality doesn't accomplish anything of substance. Well, as the article says, it would allow shareholders to publicly express their opinion and indirectly, hold executives accountable. Some times a little bit of spotlight on the problem is all it takes... What prevents shareholders from publicly expressing their opinions and holding them accountable now? Individually? nothing. But this provides a formal procedure for the collaborative group. This seems to me as a much more effective way than having random joes and janes write letters to governing boards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,542 Posted April 11, 2008 Share Posted April 11, 2008 Except Obama's proposed plan would be non-binding and wouldn't actually do anything to fix what he proposes to fix. It sounds nice but in reality doesn't accomplish anything of substance. Well, as the article says, it would allow shareholders to publicly express their opinion and indirectly, hold executives accountable. Some times a little bit of spotlight on the problem is all it takes... What prevents shareholders from publicly expressing their opinions and holding them accountable now? Individually? nothing. But this provides a formal procedure for the collaborative group. This seems to me as a much more effective way than having random joes and janes write letters to governing boards. Ok...I guess. But then again, it's non-binding so it amounts to little more than a suggestion. I guess I don't see it as all that earth-shaking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RunInRed 16,528 Posted April 11, 2008 Author Share Posted April 11, 2008 Except Obama's proposed plan would be non-binding and wouldn't actually do anything to fix what he proposes to fix. It sounds nice but in reality doesn't accomplish anything of substance. Well, as the article says, it would allow shareholders to publicly express their opinion and indirectly, hold executives accountable. Some times a little bit of spotlight on the problem is all it takes... What prevents shareholders from publicly expressing their opinions and holding them accountable now? Individually? nothing. But this provides a formal procedure for the collaborative group. This seems to me as a much more effective way than having random joes and janes write letters to governing boards. Ok...I guess. But then again, it's non-binding so it amounts to little more than a suggestion. I guess I don't see it as all that earth-shaking. Egh, it's start in the right direction. Of course, if he had called for something binding, everyone on this board would be griping about over regulation, government intervention, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDM4AU 336 Posted April 12, 2008 Share Posted April 12, 2008 Except Obama's proposed plan would be non-binding and wouldn't actually do anything to fix what he proposes to fix. It sounds nice but in reality doesn't accomplish anything of substance. Well, as the article says, it would allow shareholders to publicly express their opinion and indirectly, hold executives accountable. Some times a little bit of spotlight on the problem is all it takes... What prevents shareholders from publicly expressing their opinions and holding them accountable now? Individually? nothing. But this provides a formal procedure for the collaborative group. This seems to me as a much more effective way than having random joes and janes write letters to governing boards. Ok...I guess. But then again, it's non-binding so it amounts to little more than a suggestion. I guess I don't see it as all that earth-shaking. Egh, it's start in the right direction. Of course, if he had called for something binding, everyone on this board would be griping about over regulation, government intervention, etc. Are you saying you would disagree with "everyone on this board?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AFTiger 282 Posted April 13, 2008 Share Posted April 13, 2008 Would the Obama gerbels give us the same right to govern the pay of Hollywood stars and professional athletes? You know, tickets just cost too much these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auburn85 434 Posted April 13, 2008 Share Posted April 13, 2008 here, i'll play too how bout several superintendents making double, triple of what a teacher makes? you know the ones that are actually in the trenches with the students. or what about university college presidents and their enormous salaries compared to some professors? and yet, they still get huge raises and salaries despite tuition all but doubling in the last 10 years?! so what about the struggling college kid trying to better him/herself, but only able to get in the classroom if he/she going in deep debt to pay for it?! federal funding for education has increased, not decreased over the last 10 years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiger88 934 Posted April 14, 2008 Share Posted April 14, 2008 The ratio of pay between supt.'s and teachers and professors and presidents is tiny compared to that of executive pay and lower down employees. Even if you consider the lowest paid employee on a campus, there is still no comparison. I have said before that the pay differential for some CEO's and such is disturbing, but I'm certainly not ready to see the gov't get involved in it. I think they deserve to be richly rewarded for their efforts, but sometimes it is way over the top. jmo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,542 Posted April 14, 2008 Share Posted April 14, 2008 I think while he's at it he should bring forward a resolution calling for more hugs and kisses from parents to their children. And a puppy for every child. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiger88 934 Posted April 14, 2008 Share Posted April 14, 2008 He's saving his boldest idea's for his acceptance speech at the convention. Assuming Hillary doesn't pull off a miracle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RunInRed 16,528 Posted April 14, 2008 Author Share Posted April 14, 2008 I think while he's at it he should bring forward a resolution calling for more hugs and kisses from parents to their children. And a puppy for every child. Typical response from a person supporting a candidate who has offered no ideas other than stay the same course of the last 8 years. We are now in a political climate where some one can not even begin a conversation without an attempt by those who disagree with them on certain issues wanting to tear them down for having an idea. Pathetic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,542 Posted April 14, 2008 Share Posted April 14, 2008 I think while he's at it he should bring forward a resolution calling for more hugs and kisses from parents to their children. And a puppy for every child. Typical response from a person supporting a candidate who has offered no ideas other than stay the same course of the last 8 years. We are now in a political climate where some one can not even begin a conversation without an attempt by those who disagree with them on certain issues wanting to tear them down for having an idea. Pathetic. Typical response from one with no sense of humor. I swear, you get so uptight anytime someone says something about your boyfriend Obama, if we stuck a hunk of coal up your butt we'd pull out a diamond 10 minutes later. And let's get something straight: I'm not "supporting" McCain. If I vote for one of the two major party candidates it will be for him simply because he has managed not to express the determination to preserve the right of a "doctor" to jab scissors into baby's brains or to allow babies that survive abortion attempts to die rather than life-saving measures be taken over some fear that the sacrament of abortion might somehow be hindered in some manner by giving the lump of tissue "personhood." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RunInRed 16,528 Posted April 14, 2008 Author Share Posted April 14, 2008 You are voting based on one litmus test issue? Well in that case, Jerry Falwell for President. The constant ribbing and attacking is uncalled for and speaks to a much broader issue: Most on the right are supporting a candidate with nothing to offer so the only thing you guys are left with doing is to try to tear down the opposition. Speaks volume. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arnaldoabru 11 Posted April 14, 2008 Share Posted April 14, 2008 I think while he's at it he should bring forward a resolution calling for more hugs and kisses from parents to their children. And a puppy for every child. Maybe he should call for a resolution to bring our troops home from this idiotic war that your "W" put us in.60 Minutes had a good piece on the Iraqi who ran the anti corruption wing of the government.He was ran out of the country, and his inspectors were murdered.Our President Maliki issued a memo that said he nor his ministers could be investigated.Condi said she didn't know anything about any of this,but would look into it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auburn85 434 Posted April 14, 2008 Share Posted April 14, 2008 The ratio of pay between supt.'s and teachers and professors and presidents is tiny compared to that of executive pay and lower down employees. Even if you consider the lowest paid employee on a campus, there is still no comparison. I have said before that the pay differential for some CEO's and such is disturbing, but I'm certainly not ready to see the gov't get involved in it. I think they deserve to be richly rewarded for their efforts, but sometimes it is way over the top. jmo. i see where you're coming from. i'm trying to show the hypocrisy of how it's ok for some (in this case obama) to call out the higher ups of companies who make millions despite poor showings of companies that is a result of bad business and no accountability. to me, it's the principle of the thing. we have all of these superintendents (some elected; some not), make all of this money and a school system doesn't improve. again, education can never have enough money. despite increases in federal funding for education, still the whole government education system hasn't really shown much improvement. this quote is from the article at the beginning of this thread: This isn't just about expressing outrage," Obama says in prepared remarks. "It's about changing a system where bad behavior is rewarded so that we can hold CEOs accountable, and make sure they're acting in a way that's good for their company, good for our economy, and good for America, not just good for themselves." why can't he call out government education the same way he's calling out CEOs? Is it only because of the grossly distant salaries compared to the working people? http://www.barackobama.com/issues/educatio...igher-education rather than exclusively focus on accountability in education, he seems to show emphasis on more funding and expansion rather than first, improving what we have. then, we have college presidents who will always get their raises, despite tuition going up 100% in the last decade. Tuition has increased at a higher rate than inflation. This is probably an understood fact, but Ed Richardson as an interim president got a 23% raise... http://legacy.decaturdaily.com/decaturdail...1119/hike.shtml I'm not saying he deserved it or not. I'm pretty sure everyone would like to get a raise every time gas, groceries, health insurance premiums increase, but not everyone has that luxery. But see government is special. It has the utopian magic dust hovering around it at all times. When government can't work within it's means, it rarely these days cuts it's expenses. Instead, taxes, fees, etc are raised to fulfull all of it's so called needs. People have always been let go of their jobs because of the bottom line. Yet, some (not all) high school and college teachers, especially those that are tenured and have a bad teaching rep. can always avoid the ax when it comes to possible budget cuts. In some instances tenured teachers are given all, but a dome of protection. Yet people can work a job with a company in the private sector for 10 plus years and be let go at a drop of a hat due to the same irresponsible decision making that we see every day in what is better known as government education. tuition at Auburn has been raised 101.5% since the 1999-2000 school year. based on 30 credit hours a year Auburn tuition and fees 99-00: $2895 Auburn tuition and fees 00-01: $3154 Auburn tuition and fees 01-02: $3380 Auburn tuition and fees 02-03: $3784 Auburn tuition and fees 03-04: $4426 Auburn tuition and fees 04-05: $5068 Auburn tuition and fees 05-06: $5278 Auburn tuition and fees 06-07: $5496 Auburn tuition and fees Fall-07: $5834 Source: Alabama Commission on Higher Education Survey & auburn.edu Auburn University System Funding for 1999-2000 Ed. Trust Fund- $196,659,613 Earmarked Funds- $283,112,183 Total- $479,771,796 Funding for 2000-2001 Ed. Trust Fund- $194.620,279 Earmarked Funds- $298,922,285 Total- $493,592,564 (after 6.2% proration) Funding for 2001-2002 Ed. Trust Fund- $200,782,602 Earmarked Funds- $301,620,845 Total- $502,403,447 Funding for 2002-2003 Ed. Trust Fund- $206,337,817 Earmarked Funds- $324,351,357 Total- $530,689,174 Funding for 2003-2004 Ed. Trust Fund- $207,783,992 Earmarked Funds- $361,898,913 Total- $569,682,905 Funding for 2004-2005 Ed. Trust Fund- $215,593,341 Earmarked Funds- $388,369,450 Total- $604,232,791 Funding for 2005-2006 Ed. Trust Fund- $245,510,178 Earmarked Funds- $411,617,543 Total- $657,127,721 Funding for 2006-2007 Ed. Trust Fund- $288,020,332 Earmarked Funds- $435,627,324 Total- $723,647,656 Funding for 2007-2008 Ed. Trust Fund- $334,380,516 Earmarked Funding- $478,476,806 Total- $812,857,322 Source: State records here is auburn enrollment over the same time period Auburn total enrollment Fall 1999: 19,327 Auburn total enrollment Fall 2000: 19,050 Auburn total enrollment Fall 2001: 19,650 Auburn total enrollment Fall 2002: 20,346 Auburn total enrollment Fall 2003: 23,152 Auburn total enrollment Fall 2004: 22,928 Auburn total enrollment Fall 2005: 23,333 Auburn total enrollment Fall 2006: 23,547 Auburn total enrollment Fall 2007: 24,137 Source: oira.auburn.edu that is a 24.9% increase in overall enrollment from fall 99 to fall 07 and i am aware that the Auburn University system includes AUM. Although they are obviously no better. AUM has increased tuition 92.8% over the same time period... AUM tuition and fees 1999-00: $2577 AUM tuition and fees 2000-01: $3000 AUM tuition and fees 2001-02: $3440 AUM tuition and fees 2002-03: $3620 AUM tuition and fees 2003-04: $4130 AUM tuition and fees 2004-05: $4460 AUM tuition and fees 2005-06: $4640 AUM tuition and fees 2006-07: $4760 AUM tuition and fees 2007-08: $4965 Source: Alabama Commission on Higher Education Survey & aum.edu AUM enrollment from 99-07 AUM enrollment Fall 1999: 5354 AUM enrollment Fall 2000: 4900 AUM enrollment Fall 2001: 4982 AUM enrollment Fall 2002: 5104 AUM enrollment Fall 2003: 5298 AUM enrollment Fall 2004: 5123 AUM enrollment Fall 2005: 5128 AUM enrollment Fall 2006: 5079 AUM enrollment Fall 2007: 5124 Source: AUM Office of Institutional Studies But hey, will just overlook this education "crisis" by giving out tax exemptions and so forth for college rather than making education more affordable and more accountable. i know you're not tooting obama's horn, so this is not an attack on you. i'm just trying to explain myself better. hell, then again, maybe i've one upped arnaldo by hijacking this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigermike 3,078 Posted April 14, 2008 Share Posted April 14, 2008 You are voting based on one litmus test issue? Well in that case, Jerry Falwell for President. The constant ribbing and attacking is uncalled for and speaks to a much broader issue: Most on the right are supporting a candidate with nothing to offer so the only thing you guys are left with doing is to try to tear down the opposition. Speaks volume. No most on the right have taken the time to take a look at Obama and want nothing to do with him. It was easy with Hillary most already knew she was a power hungry liar of epic proportions. It has been funny watching the leftist dims learn that fact and tear her to shreds. As for the issues that conservatives have disagreed with John McCain on in the past, they can and will be over looked to keep from voting for the only nominee the left could get who is even more radical than Hillary. I commend you guys, I didn't think you could do it. The constant ribbing and attacking is uncalled for and speaks to a much broader issue: Yes it does. It speaks volumes to what Obama and the dims have been hiding. You call it constant ribbing and attacking, when it is in fact vetting a candidate. When in fact it is taking a good, long, hard look at the candidate. Stop, Look and Listen. Good words to live by and good words to keep in mind during election season. An election season BTW that Obama got into four long years ago. So in short you stick to Obama's fluff pieces, campaign talking points and propaganda. We will continue to listen and look at him and what he says. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,542 Posted April 14, 2008 Share Posted April 14, 2008 You are voting based on one litmus test issue? Well in that case, Jerry Falwell for President. The constant ribbing and attacking is uncalled for and speaks to a much broader issue: Most on the right are supporting a candidate with nothing to offer so the only thing you guys are left with doing is to try to tear down the opposition. Speaks volume. I find it hilarious that the supporter of a party that hasn't put up a candidate that sees the unborn as people since the 60s has the temerity to sling the "litmus test" accusation at me. That "litmus test" cuts both ways. I call them like I see them and I see two things here: 1) a groupie that trumpets every time his candidate exhales because it provides carbon dioxide for photosynthesis showing his commitment to the environment and 2) a rather meaningless gesture being touted as something bigger than it really is. I've praised Obama when I think he does or says something worthwhile and I've pointed out when I think he's wrong or done something dumb. Get used to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RunInRed 16,528 Posted April 14, 2008 Author Share Posted April 14, 2008 TM - My point proven - you guys are stuck with voting for something you are against while Democrats get to vote for some one they are for. Also, has JM been vetted to the degree the Democrats have? I think not. Double standards abound. Give me 1 of JM's bold ideas? What does he stand for but more of the same? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RunInRed 16,528 Posted April 14, 2008 Author Share Posted April 14, 2008 You are voting based on one litmus test issue? Well in that case, Jerry Falwell for President. The constant ribbing and attacking is uncalled for and speaks to a much broader issue: Most on the right are supporting a candidate with nothing to offer so the only thing you guys are left with doing is to try to tear down the opposition. Speaks volume. I find it hilarious that the supporter of a party that hasn't put up a candidate that sees the unborn as people since the 60s has the temerity to sling the "litmus test" accusation at me. That "litmus test" cuts both ways. I call them like I see them and I see two things here: 1) a groupie that trumpets every time his candidate exhales because it provides carbon dioxide for photosynthesis showing his commitment to the environment and 2) a rather meaningless gesture being touted as something bigger than it really is. I've praised Obama when I think he does or says something worthwhile and I've pointed out when I think he's wrong or done something dumb. Get used to it. You are not what I originally thought you were. Talk about being vetted. You have a litmus test, and yet can not even admit it because you know it marginalizes your scope and objectivity. I disagree with Obama on some issues but I also realize the opportunity he presents and the unique talents he has. It's refreshing, brilliant, and much needed - get used to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigermike 3,078 Posted April 14, 2008 Share Posted April 14, 2008 TM - My point proven - you guys are stuck with voting for something you are against while Democrats get to vote for some one they are for. Also, has JM been vetted to the degree the Democrats have? I think not. Double standards abound. First off you have not proven anything. I'm not sure you could have posted anything more stupid. You see I get to vote for someone I am for (McCain) and someone I am against, (Obama). The best of both worlds. As to your last asinine statement, "Also, has JM been vetted to the degree the Democrats have? I think not." Well lets take a look at the facts. McCain was elected to congress in 1983 and was elected to the senate in 1986 to the present and you dumb ass statement like that? McCain hasn't been vetted like Obama? Hillary? Who else? Titan was absolutely correct in his assessment of you. "I see two things here: 1) a groupie that trumpets every time his candidate exhales because it provides carbon dioxide for photosynthesis showing his commitment to the environment and 2) a rather meaningless gesture being touted as something bigger than it really is." Your implication is that if we don't agree with McCain on every point then we are "stuck" with him. That is the difference in you far left dims and the rest of the world. We know and realize there can and will be disagreements. You expect us to be like you and swallow. I disagree with Obama on some issues but I also realize the opportunity he presents and the unique talents he has. It's refreshing, brilliant, and much needed - get used to it. By your logic, Logic is not your strong suit is it? ",,,you are stuck with voting for something you are against rather than for some one they are for." BTW - Neither is honesty. Which would be a good indicator of your love affair for Obama. ,,,,, I also realize the opportunity he presents and the unique talents he has. It's refreshing, brilliant, and much needed - get used to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RunInRed 16,528 Posted April 14, 2008 Author Share Posted April 14, 2008 TM - What does McCain stand for except more of the same? Give me one new idea he has put forth that you are excited about....just one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigermike 3,078 Posted April 14, 2008 Share Posted April 14, 2008 TM - What does McCain stand for except more of the same? Give me one new idea he has put forth that you are excited about....just one. You want to limit it to just a new idea? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.