Where is the US economy headed?

@cicerone imposter,

Cicerone Imposter is a moron. The money that was formerly given to the CEO's as a golden parachute would not be given to the workers. It would stay in the company's stock enhancing the company's value and then, perhaps, raising the worker's salaries--unless, of course the worker were like the idiots from GM who make $77.00 an hour and then the company would either go into backruptcy. ask for help from the taxpayer or close down.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Hey, Dingbat- Most of the golden parachutes came from Wall Street, Wake up!!~!

1 Reply

@genoves,

Since when? Just because you claim it? Show me proof?

0 Replies

@genoves,

You "really" don't know what you are talking about. Get lost, kiddy.

0 Replies

@genoves,

GM workers do not earn $77/hour. You are so stupid, you are now on my "Ignore" list.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

we agree about CEO pay, but maybe not about its significance. For me it is a symptom of a problem, the problem being that Boards of Directors have not done their jobs. It is the boards job to look after the best interests of the firm, all of the firm to include the employees, not only the interests of the current investors and top management. It is not just the CEO's who are paid too much, most of upper management is, and the Board is responsible for this. Boards have for the most part failed, and without good boards of directors corporations don't work over the long haul. Corporations become targets of opportunity for both investors and managers who want a quick payday with little or no work involved, and they work together to get these payouts for both. Boards need to be able to be more like supreme court justices, who do need to get appointed but once in place do what they need to do to honor their responsibilities rather than be the stooges for those who appointed them.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

At least you know what you are talking about. Some people's ignorance about business is excruciatingly unbearable.

I also agree that board of directors have failed in their fiduciary responsibility to the company they represent. They know not what they do when they give CEOs million dollar salaries, plus million dollar stock options, plus expense accounts that are obscene while the average worker's salary and benefits remain stagnant, require employees to pay a bigger share of their health insurance premiums, and in some cases the stock market value drops even during good economic times.

I also agree it's not only the CEOs, but that's a good place to start.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

It is a problem easily solved. The President should issue a directive that all board of director actions must be submitted to the White House for approval.
President Obama can get his playbook for this from Joseph Goebbles's papers.

If you were able to read my quote from the Wall Street Journal, Cicerone Imposter, you would find that the article did not concern itself only with Wall street but talked about Harvard, which is a University in Massachusetts.

Since you are an ignorant oaf,you are unable to rebut point by point, the article I cited. sorry!!

1 Reply

@genoves,

Pay Collars won't Hold Back Wall Street's big Dogs.

l. "The limits apply only to the senior executives--"The chief executive, chief financial officer and the like and not to many of the people who can earn THE REALLY BIG BUCKS ON WALL STREET like traders and hedge fund managers".

2. (People can outsource) "In 2002, managers at HArvard's giant endowment came under withering fire from the Ivory Tower for Earning UPWARDS TO 33 million apiece. They soon left to start their own firms which were promptly HIRED BY THE ENDOWMENT AND GOT PAID A PERCENTAGE OF ASSETS UNDER MANAGEMENT INSTEAD OF A CASH SALARY AND BONUS. That new form of payment stopped the criticism cold,kept the managers earning the same as before but did not reduce risk taking. One manager, Jeff Larsen, lost 350 Million dollars>

3. The Senior executives can take their incentive pay in form of preferred stock that can't be cashed in until the taxpayers get their money back. MANAGERS MAY THEN BE TEMPTED TO TAKE BIGGER RISKS IN HOPES OF SPEEDING UP THEIR PREFERRED STOCK PAYOFF. IF THE RISKS ARE BAD, UNCLE SAM WILL EAT THE LOSSES.
end of quotes
Cicerone Imposter apparently does not know this. I urge him to begin to read more. I am sure that he knows nothing about how wall street really works

0 Replies

I hate to say this, but as every week goes by, any hopes I had in Obama in turning out better than I feared is melting away. The guy really is ignorant when it comes to the economy. He has no clue. And I believe he is not as honest as I once hoped, and he is arrogant. Obama truly is in over his head, and as time goes on, this will hopefully become abundantly clear to more and more people. He is claiming only government can shake the country out of the recession. He is partially right, but not in the context that he means. His implication that more government will do the necessary shaking is 180 degrees in the wrong direction. The government should loosen the regulations and spending to free up private enterprise rather than usurping private enterpise and tightening the noose of burdensome hoops for business to jump through. Private enterprise is the engine of a healthy economy, not government. Central planning has never worked, yet this is exactly the solution he is headed in. The guy truly is ignorant of basic economic principles that work.

I heard an interview of Arlen Specter this afternoon, and again, another really disappointing man, dumb, dumb, dumb. Basically his reasoning goes like this, we have an economic crisis and therefore we must do something even if I think it is the wrong thing to do, so I will vote for it. The guy should go home and do something productive for a change, he has shown himself to be a politician that has truly lost his way in Washington D.C.

2 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

I hate to say this, but as every week goes by, any hopes I had in Obama in turning out better than I feared is melting away.

Oooh, yeah, geez. I bet you're really upset with fulfilling your own predictions of doom.

Please. Just stop.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@okie,

Yeah, okie, everybody in Obama's administration is not up to the job - except you! You know best on how to fix this Bush disaster.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Not doom right away, but incrementally we will end up worse off with Obama. Please just stop, yourself. I know that now your people are running things, you would like to shut up the opposition, but I don't intend on staying quiet, cyclops, so get over it.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Yeah, okie, everybody in Obama's administration is not up to the job - except you! You know best on how to fix this Bush disaster.

Yeah, and perhaps you haven't noticed Obama talking down the economy and American economic ability for quite some time. The man doesn't believe in the country, so I guess he believes in Chicago's way of doing things, which I admit would not make one very optimistic. No wonder he has the mindset he does, but I would have preferred he kept his failed politics in Chicago where it started.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

Not doom right away, but incrementally we will end up worse off with Obama. Please just stop, yourself. I know that now your people are running things, you would like to shut up the opposition, but I don't intend on staying quiet, cyclops, so get over it.

I don't want to shut up the opposition. I want the opposition to get a real ******* argument instead of this namby-pamby doom and gloom ****.

It's tiresome.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

Yeah, okie, everybody in Obama's administration is not up to the job - except you! You know best on how to fix this Bush disaster.

Yeah, and perhaps you haven't noticed Obama talking down the economy and American economic ability for quite some time. The man doesn't believe in the country, so I guess he believes in Chicago's way of doing things, which I admit would not make one very optimistic. No wonder he has the mindset he does, but I would have preferred he kept his failed politics in Chicago where it started.

He's just telling the truth about a bad situation, and you're so used to a Republican daddy-figure holding your widdle hand and promising you that everything is going to be great, you misinterpret it.

Obama's the president of the country, how could he not believe in it?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Okay, one real argument is what Senator Graham said. I agree with him. Obama has not presented evidence, cyclops, you claim to want a valid argument, then apply it to your own president. He proposes a pile of pork worth nearly a trillion and expects to ram it down our throats, for one reason, he won. Thats not enough. He flunks the standard. Even the government estimators say it will not stimulate the economy, beyond a few short lived very expensive jobs. So I challenge you to prove Graham wrong, cyclops.

And you are tired of doom and gloom, so am I, so tell your man, Obama that, cyclops. Tell him to quit talking down the economy, and that only government can solve it. I'm tired of it.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/02/05/graham-says-obama-awol-stimulus-debate/

"Republican senators and congressmen have been reluctant to direct any criticism at the president since his inauguration. They mostly have fired shots at Democratic leaders in the House and Senate, saying they have obstructed the bipartisan process Obama sought.

But Graham broke that practice after Obama granted a round of interviews defending his plan Tuesday and wrote an op-ed in The Washington Post Thursday in which he warned of disastrous consequences if Congress does not pass the stimulus bill.

"Scaring people is not leadership. Writing an editorial that if you don't pass this bad bill we're going to have disaster -- we've had enough presidents trying to scare people to make bad decisions," Graham said.

"I like President Obama, but he is not leading. Having lunch is not leading ... and doing TV interviews is not leading." "

4 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Okay, one real argument is what Senator Graham said. I agree with him. Obama has not presented evidence, cyclops, you claim to want a valid argument, then apply it to your own president. He proposes a pile of pork worth nearly a trillion and expects to ram it down our throats, for one reason, he won. Thats not enough. He flunks the standard. Even the government estimators say it will not stimulate the economy, beyond a few short lived very expensive jobs. So I challenge you to prove Graham wrong, cyclops.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/02/05/graham-says-obama-awol-stimulus-debate/

"Republican senators and congressmen have been reluctant to direct any criticism at the president since his inauguration. They mostly have fired shots at Democratic leaders in the House and Senate, saying they have obstructed the bipartisan process Obama sought.

But Graham broke that practice after Obama granted a round of interviews defending his plan Tuesday and wrote an op-ed in The Washington Post Thursday in which he warned of disastrous consequences if Congress does not pass the stimulus bill.

"Scaring people is not leadership. Writing an editorial that if you don't pass this bad bill we're going to have disaster -- we've had enough presidents trying to scare people to make bad decisions," Graham said.

"I like President Obama, but he is not leading. Having lunch is not leading ... and doing TV interviews is not leading." "

Jesus, you're dense today, Okie.

Obama did more outreach towards Republicans than Bush ever did towards Dems on any bill. He just didn't bend to their bullshit, so they are claiming he didn't negotiate.

Negotiation doesn't mean that both sides get half the solution. It means that both sides work together on the solution. Obama said it very clearly earlier tonight: your bunch had your chance to implement your economic theories Okie and that's what got us in the mess we're in. So save it. The other side gets a chance to work their theories now. That's what elections mean. You just can't remember that fact b/c you're too damn old or something.

'Scaring people...' man, you guys are pussies. I swear. Telling the truth isn't 'scaring people.' Now, on the other hand, where were you when Cheney was talking about American cities getting nuked if people voted for Kerry?

Cheering him on, that's where you were.

'Prove Graham wrong?' What does that even mean? You call the bill 'pork,' but you don't have a ******* clue what you are talking about. I don't even know if you know what that term means. 40% of the bill is tax cuts, hell is that pork? C'mon. You're just bitching to bitch, because your party is heavily in the minority, things are going to be ran differently and your panties are in a bunch about that.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Just stating reality. Get over it.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

Just stating reality. Get over it.

Reality?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Where is the US economy headed?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know