Why do democrats hate poor black people and want them permanently on welfare?

[Papageorgio]

The banking system failed, capitalism worked (and works) just fine.

Great Depressions only happen under laissez-fair capitalism, not socialism.

Sorry but you are wrong. Socialism is a failure where ever it has been. Socialism depends on no greed, man is inherently greedy. Socialism always has the elite.

You don't know what socialism is. The US has a mixed-market economy. Socialism is like Palmolive, you are soaking in it.

I do know what socialism is. Why do you think I don't?

Nothing but diversion, because you have such knowledge?

The US has a mixed-market economy. Socialism is like Palmolive, you are soaking in it.

I never said differently, you are obviously unable to comprehend the English language, I hope you one day master it.

 

[Brain357]

Certainly the ceo is taking a big cut of payroll.

The actors are not deciding any of the pay. The CEO of the television station is deciding what to pay the actors and the makeup people. That is the difference and it obviously is a big one. The CEO is deciding his own pay, the actor is dependent on the CEO giving him/her that pay.

Again, that is not at all true with CEO's.
Why CEOs Make So Much Money

Your article became very suspicious to me because it seems like it was an opinion of an anti-CEO writer.

It all boils down to the Board of Directors. the BOD is a group of people elected by the stockholders of a company. They are not "fellow CEO's" as you suggest, but people that work within the company or at times, outside. Either way, they are not a bunch of rich people looking out for each other. The BOD does their job, or lose the interest of their investors. That could cause them to get voted out next election.

As you pointed out, CEO pay is substantial, so it's up to the BOD to prove to their clients that CEO pay is merited. CEO pay can help bring down growth of a company, so they have to be able to justify to their shareholders that CEO pay is an investment and not a player in a companies reduction of growth.

If a CEO is paid twenty millions dollars, but the growth of the company increases by 2% then the CEO did his or her job and the BOD made a wise decision. But if they increase a CEO pay to twenty million dollars, and the company loses growth, then the company risks losing investors, or the members of the BOD that gave that CEO that kind of money risk being voted out.

Board Of Directors - B Of D

No, a BOD really does have lots of CEO's:
2017 Proxy | GE.com

So yes they give the CEO a raise and then get one themselves to keep up with that raise. You really are blind to how things really work. The game is obviously rigged.

If that's what your really believe, then the solution to your problem is to become a CEO yourself.

If the BOD does not do their job effectively, they will lose their power, investors, or both. Nobody is going to stay invested in a company with low growth and high paid CEO's.

Just look at the GE board. You said it is not CEO's, and obviously there are many. CEOs are just giving themselves raises. Why do you choose to be so blind even with all the facts proving me right?

Your claim is not right because you said that CEO's and their salary are out of control and not regulated because the BOD is fixed. The BOD is selected by shareholders who value their investment and would never allow any prolonged loss of their investments.

The BOD does not select the BOD. They just vote on the CEO who wants to be on their board.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Your article became very suspicious to me because it seems like it was an opinion of an anti-CEO writer.

It all boils down to the Board of Directors. the BOD is a group of people elected by the stockholders of a company. They are not "fellow CEO's" as you suggest, but people that work within the company or at times, outside. Either way, they are not a bunch of rich people looking out for each other. The BOD does their job, or lose the interest of their investors. That could cause them to get voted out next election.

As you pointed out, CEO pay is substantial, so it's up to the BOD to prove to their clients that CEO pay is merited. CEO pay can help bring down growth of a company, so they have to be able to justify to their shareholders that CEO pay is an investment and not a player in a companies reduction of growth.

If a CEO is paid twenty millions dollars, but the growth of the company increases by 2% then the CEO did his or her job and the BOD made a wise decision. But if they increase a CEO pay to twenty million dollars, and the company loses growth, then the company risks losing investors, or the members of the BOD that gave that CEO that kind of money risk being voted out.

Board Of Directors - B Of D

No, a BOD really does have lots of CEO's:
2017 Proxy | GE.com

So yes they give the CEO a raise and then get one themselves to keep up with that raise. You really are blind to how things really work. The game is obviously rigged.

If that's what your really believe, then the solution to your problem is to become a CEO yourself.

If the BOD does not do their job effectively, they will lose their power, investors, or both. Nobody is going to stay invested in a company with low growth and high paid CEO's.

Just look at the GE board. You said it is not CEO's, and obviously there are many. CEOs are just giving themselves raises. Why do you choose to be so blind even with all the facts proving me right?

Your claim is not right because you said that CEO's and their salary are out of control and not regulated because the BOD is fixed. The BOD is selected by shareholders who value their investment and would never allow any prolonged loss of their investments.

The BOD does not select the BOD. They just vote on the CEO who wants to be on their board.

What I said was that it's the stockholders who vote on the BOD's.

 

[danielpalos]

Great Depressions only happen under laissez-fair capitalism, not socialism.

Sorry but you are wrong. Socialism is a failure where ever it has been. Socialism depends on no greed, man is inherently greedy. Socialism always has the elite.

You don't know what socialism is. The US has a mixed-market economy. Socialism is like Palmolive, you are soaking in it.

I do know what socialism is. Why do you think I don't?

Nothing but diversion, because you have such knowledge?

The US has a mixed-market economy. Socialism is like Palmolive, you are soaking in it.

I never said differently, you are obviously unable to comprehend the English language, I hope you one day master it.

lol. nothing but diversion? A mixed-market economy is part socialism and part capitalism.

 

[Redfish]

Sorry but you are wrong. Socialism is a failure where ever it has been. Socialism depends on no greed, man is inherently greedy. Socialism always has the elite.

You don't know what socialism is. The US has a mixed-market economy. Socialism is like Palmolive, you are soaking in it.

I do know what socialism is. Why do you think I don't?

Nothing but diversion, because you have such knowledge?

The US has a mixed-market economy. Socialism is like Palmolive, you are soaking in it.

I never said differently, you are obviously unable to comprehend the English language, I hope you one day master it.

lol. nothing but diversion? A mixed-market economy is part socialism and part capitalism.

is the monopoly that is your power company a socialist endeavor?

 

[danielpalos]

You don't know what socialism is. The US has a mixed-market economy. Socialism is like Palmolive, you are soaking in it.

I do know what socialism is. Why do you think I don't?

Nothing but diversion, because you have such knowledge?

The US has a mixed-market economy. Socialism is like Palmolive, you are soaking in it.

I never said differently, you are obviously unable to comprehend the English language, I hope you one day master it.

lol. nothing but diversion? A mixed-market economy is part socialism and part capitalism.

is the monopoly that is your power company a socialist endeavor?

it is if it Only exists due to government fiat. Socialism is supposed to "bailout" capitalism, whenever possible.

 

[Markle]

Why does the right wing complain about the cost of social services, which makes it possible?

WOW! THAT'S what you got from Dr. Williams essay?

Our situation is worse than I thought.

 

[danielpalos]

Why does the right wing complain about the cost of social services, which makes it possible?

WOW! THAT'S what you got from Dr. Williams essay?

Our situation is worse than I thought.

I do not disagree with Dr. Williams assessment; I merely believe it is more about equal protection of the law for the poor, since the rich can afford the finest privileges and immunities money can buy, under our form of capitalism. It is more about, "free riding" on privileges and immunities established by Persons of wealth in our Republic.

 

[Brain357]

No, a BOD really does have lots of CEO's:
2017 Proxy | GE.com

So yes they give the CEO a raise and then get one themselves to keep up with that raise. You really are blind to how things really work. The game is obviously rigged.

If that's what your really believe, then the solution to your problem is to become a CEO yourself.

If the BOD does not do their job effectively, they will lose their power, investors, or both. Nobody is going to stay invested in a company with low growth and high paid CEO's.

Just look at the GE board. You said it is not CEO's, and obviously there are many. CEOs are just giving themselves raises. Why do you choose to be so blind even with all the facts proving me right?

Your claim is not right because you said that CEO's and their salary are out of control and not regulated because the BOD is fixed. The BOD is selected by shareholders who value their investment and would never allow any prolonged loss of their investments.

The BOD does not select the BOD. They just vote on the CEO who wants to be on their board.

What I said was that it's the stockholders who vote on the BOD's.

I'm aware, but it's not like a democratic process. The holders don't pick who they are voting for. It's just one big racket. You can't see the problem with having CEO's in the board? And the board picks who's up for vote in the board? You don't question CEO pay at all even though it can't be explained by any economic indicators? The system is rigged. To believe otherwise is just foolish.

Outrageous Executive Compensation: Corporate Boards, Not the Market, Are to Blame

The standard justification for the high pay of CEOs and other top executives is that the market demands it. It is argued that if you do not pay CEOs at or above the market, they will leave and go to a competitor. There are a number of problems with this argument. Perhaps the most important one is that numerous studies have shown that CEOs rarely move from one company to another, and when they do, they are usually less successful than internal candidates. In short, at least at the CEO level, there is little evidence that an efficient market for talent exists that is based on compensation levels.

Some members of corporate boards have an even greater self-interest in making sure that the compensation of the CEO continues to go up, up, and up. They are the CEOs of other companies. You don’t have to be a compensation expert to realize that if you vote for one of your peers to have a higher salary, you are in effect voting for your own salary to go up, because it is based on what will be a higher market.

For boards to change their stripes when it comes to executive compensation, major changes need to take place in who is on corporate boards and on their compensation committees. It would mean fewer CEOs on corporate boards. It would require more board members who understand talent management and are concerned about the societal impact of corporations. Another effective change would be to have a board membership that is dominated by strong, independent directors.

 

[Markle]

Some reports claim compensation is only nominally tied to performance, but no actual tie to performance.

This means what?

As for the first part of that "sentence", kindly show us those reports showing that compensation is not tied to performance.

 

[Redfish]

I do know what socialism is. Why do you think I don't?

Nothing but diversion, because you have such knowledge?

The US has a mixed-market economy. Socialism is like Palmolive, you are soaking in it.

I never said differently, you are obviously unable to comprehend the English language, I hope you one day master it.

lol. nothing but diversion? A mixed-market economy is part socialism and part capitalism.

is the monopoly that is your power company a socialist endeavor?

it is if it Only exists due to government fiat. Socialism is supposed to "bailout" capitalism, whenever possible.

the power company has a monopoly, it has zero competition. It is regulated by the government. But, it is still a profit motivated organization. If it was a socialist organization, it would just break even on cost vs income, and your power would suck.

The profit motive is what gives us good products and good services.

I do agree with you that the govt should not bail out failing businesses, like GM. But you do realize that the GM bailout was to save the UAW, not GM don't you?

 

[Redfish]

If that's what your really believe, then the solution to your problem is to become a CEO yourself.

If the BOD does not do their job effectively, they will lose their power, investors, or both. Nobody is going to stay invested in a company with low growth and high paid CEO's.

Just look at the GE board. You said it is not CEO's, and obviously there are many. CEOs are just giving themselves raises. Why do you choose to be so blind even with all the facts proving me right?

Your claim is not right because you said that CEO's and their salary are out of control and not regulated because the BOD is fixed. The BOD is selected by shareholders who value their investment and would never allow any prolonged loss of their investments.

The BOD does not select the BOD. They just vote on the CEO who wants to be on their board.

What I said was that it's the stockholders who vote on the BOD's.

I'm aware, but it's not like a democratic process. The holders don't pick who they are voting for. It's just one big racket. You can't see the problem with having CEO's in the board? And the board picks who's up for vote in the board? You don't question CEO pay at all even though it can't be explained by any economic indicators? The system is rigged. To believe otherwise is just foolish.

Outrageous Executive Compensation: Corporate Boards, Not the Market, Are to Blame

The standard justification for the high pay of CEOs and other top executives is that the market demands it. It is argued that if you do not pay CEOs at or above the market, they will leave and go to a competitor. There are a number of problems with this argument. Perhaps the most important one is that numerous studies have shown that CEOs rarely move from one company to another, and when they do, they are usually less successful than internal candidates. In short, at least at the CEO level, there is little evidence that an efficient market for talent exists that is based on compensation levels.

Some members of corporate boards have an even greater self-interest in making sure that the compensation of the CEO continues to go up, up, and up. They are the CEOs of other companies. You don’t have to be a compensation expert to realize that if you vote for one of your peers to have a higher salary, you are in effect voting for your own salary to go up, because it is based on what will be a higher market.

For boards to change their stripes when it comes to executive compensation, major changes need to take place in who is on corporate boards and on their compensation committees. It would mean fewer CEOs on corporate boards. It would require more board members who understand talent management and are concerned about the societal impact of corporations. Another effective change would be to have a board membership that is dominated by strong, independent directors.

some CEOs make too much in your opinion, and in mine. So do most athletes and entertainers. The difference is that a CEO is making money for the shareholders and employees whereas the jocks and Hollywood types are only making themselves rich.

 

[Redfish]

Why does the right wing complain about the cost of social services, which makes it possible?

WOW! THAT'S what you got from Dr. Williams essay?

Our situation is worse than I thought.

I do not disagree with Dr. Williams assessment; I merely believe it is more about equal protection of the law for the poor, since the rich can afford the finest privileges and immunities money can buy, under our form of capitalism. It is more about, "free riding" on privileges and immunities established by Persons of wealth in our Republic.

there will always be rich and there will always be poor. Nothing we do, or any government does, will ever change that. Its a fact of life, we do not all get equal results, however, in this country we all have an equal opportunity to succeed.

 

[Brain357]

Just look at the GE board. You said it is not CEO's, and obviously there are many. CEOs are just giving themselves raises. Why do you choose to be so blind even with all the facts proving me right?

Your claim is not right because you said that CEO's and their salary are out of control and not regulated because the BOD is fixed. The BOD is selected by shareholders who value their investment and would never allow any prolonged loss of their investments.

The BOD does not select the BOD. They just vote on the CEO who wants to be on their board.

What I said was that it's the stockholders who vote on the BOD's.

I'm aware, but it's not like a democratic process. The holders don't pick who they are voting for. It's just one big racket. You can't see the problem with having CEO's in the board? And the board picks who's up for vote in the board? You don't question CEO pay at all even though it can't be explained by any economic indicators? The system is rigged. To believe otherwise is just foolish.

Outrageous Executive Compensation: Corporate Boards, Not the Market, Are to Blame

The standard justification for the high pay of CEOs and other top executives is that the market demands it. It is argued that if you do not pay CEOs at or above the market, they will leave and go to a competitor. There are a number of problems with this argument. Perhaps the most important one is that numerous studies have shown that CEOs rarely move from one company to another, and when they do, they are usually less successful than internal candidates. In short, at least at the CEO level, there is little evidence that an efficient market for talent exists that is based on compensation levels.

Some members of corporate boards have an even greater self-interest in making sure that the compensation of the CEO continues to go up, up, and up. They are the CEOs of other companies. You don’t have to be a compensation expert to realize that if you vote for one of your peers to have a higher salary, you are in effect voting for your own salary to go up, because it is based on what will be a higher market.

For boards to change their stripes when it comes to executive compensation, major changes need to take place in who is on corporate boards and on their compensation committees. It would mean fewer CEOs on corporate boards. It would require more board members who understand talent management and are concerned about the societal impact of corporations. Another effective change would be to have a board membership that is dominated by strong, independent directors.

some CEOs make too much in your opinion, and in mine. So do most athletes and entertainers. The difference is that a CEO is making money for the shareholders and employees whereas the jocks and Hollywood types are only making themselves rich.

The difference is the CEO is determining his own pay. Athletes and entertainers pay is determined by the owner of the teams or CEO's of the entertainment industry. But I do agree they are all over paid.

 

[danielpalos]

Some reports claim compensation is only nominally tied to performance, but no actual tie to performance.

This means what?

As for the first part of that "sentence", kindly show us those reports showing that compensation is not tied to performance.

I thought every bailout was a self-evident Truth?

CEOs had to "lie to their stock holders" about performance, and got to keep their multimillion dollar bonuses while on means tested corporate welfare.

Since the 1990s, CEO compensation in the US has outpaced corporate profits, economic growth and the average compensation of all workers. Between 1980 and 2004, Mutual Fund founder John Bogle estimates total CEO compensation grew 8.5%/year, compared to corporate profit growth of 2.9%/year and per capita income growth of 3.1%.[18][19] By 2006 CEOs made 400 times more than average workers—a gap 20 times bigger than it was in 1965.[7] As a general rule, the larger the corporation the larger the CEO compensation package.[20]--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_compensation#Controversy

 

[Kondor3]

Why do democrats hate poor black people and want them permanently on welfare?

Gots ta keep dem Darkies on de innuh city Democrat plantations, wif de help uv de house nigras in de City Council keepin' de fiel' hans in dare place, dont'cha know!

Cain't trust dem Tubob fer nuffin'.. 'specially de Democrat Tubob... but dey gives us mo' stuff, so's we votes fer dem 'stead, an' keeps an eye on dare white asses...

 

[Brain357]

Your claim is not right because you said that CEO's and their salary are out of control and not regulated because the BOD is fixed. The BOD is selected by shareholders who value their investment and would never allow any prolonged loss of their investments.

The BOD does not select the BOD. They just vote on the CEO who wants to be on their board.

What I said was that it's the stockholders who vote on the BOD's.

I'm aware, but it's not like a democratic process. The holders don't pick who they are voting for. It's just one big racket. You can't see the problem with having CEO's in the board? And the board picks who's up for vote in the board? You don't question CEO pay at all even though it can't be explained by any economic indicators? The system is rigged. To believe otherwise is just foolish.

Outrageous Executive Compensation: Corporate Boards, Not the Market, Are to Blame

The standard justification for the high pay of CEOs and other top executives is that the market demands it. It is argued that if you do not pay CEOs at or above the market, they will leave and go to a competitor. There are a number of problems with this argument. Perhaps the most important one is that numerous studies have shown that CEOs rarely move from one company to another, and when they do, they are usually less successful than internal candidates. In short, at least at the CEO level, there is little evidence that an efficient market for talent exists that is based on compensation levels.

Some members of corporate boards have an even greater self-interest in making sure that the compensation of the CEO continues to go up, up, and up. They are the CEOs of other companies. You don’t have to be a compensation expert to realize that if you vote for one of your peers to have a higher salary, you are in effect voting for your own salary to go up, because it is based on what will be a higher market.

For boards to change their stripes when it comes to executive compensation, major changes need to take place in who is on corporate boards and on their compensation committees. It would mean fewer CEOs on corporate boards. It would require more board members who understand talent management and are concerned about the societal impact of corporations. Another effective change would be to have a board membership that is dominated by strong, independent directors.

some CEOs make too much in your opinion, and in mine. So do most athletes and entertainers. The difference is that a CEO is making money for the shareholders and employees whereas the jocks and Hollywood types are only making themselves rich.

The difference is the CEO is determining his own pay. Athletes and entertainers pay is determined by the owner of the teams or CEO's of the entertainment industry. But I do agree they are all over paid.

Oh, and athlete and entertainer pay really is based on performance. The best players make the most money. If their stats go down the pay will with their next contract. Same goes for entertainers. If ratings go down or a movie isn't so good they start making less.

 

[Markle]

I do not disagree with Dr. Williams assessment; I merely believe it is more about equal protection of the law for the poor, since the rich can afford the finest privileges and immunities money can buy, under our form of capitalism. It is more about, "free riding" on privileges and immunities established by Persons of wealth in our Republic.

First, you say you don't disagree with Dr. Williams and then you rant about the "rich" free riding on privileges and immunities. What privileges and immunities? Further, his essay clearly show that the majority of people move up and down through different income brackets and the key components of a successful life.

Not sure either about equal protection of the law. Abide by the law and that is not an issue for anyone.

 

[danielpalos]

Nothing but diversion, because you have such knowledge?

The US has a mixed-market economy. Socialism is like Palmolive, you are soaking in it.

I never said differently, you are obviously unable to comprehend the English language, I hope you one day master it.

lol. nothing but diversion? A mixed-market economy is part socialism and part capitalism.

is the monopoly that is your power company a socialist endeavor?

it is if it Only exists due to government fiat. Socialism is supposed to "bailout" capitalism, whenever possible.

the power company has a monopoly, it has zero competition. It is regulated by the government. But, it is still a profit motivated organization. If it was a socialist organization, it would just break even on cost vs income, and your power would suck.

The profit motive is what gives us good products and good services.

I do agree with you that the govt should not bail out failing businesses, like GM. But you do realize that the GM bailout was to save the UAW, not GM don't you?

You miss the equation. Government should be, not for profit. Thus, it is about cost, not cost plus profit.

 

[danielpalos]

Why does the right wing complain about the cost of social services, which makes it possible?

WOW! THAT'S what you got from Dr. Williams essay?

Our situation is worse than I thought.

I do not disagree with Dr. Williams assessment; I merely believe it is more about equal protection of the law for the poor, since the rich can afford the finest privileges and immunities money can buy, under our form of capitalism. It is more about, "free riding" on privileges and immunities established by Persons of wealth in our Republic.

there will always be rich and there will always be poor. Nothing we do, or any government does, will ever change that. Its a fact of life, we do not all get equal results, however, in this country we all have an equal opportunity to succeed.

It is about first world work ethics; equal protection of the law regarding the legal concept of employment at will, for unemployment compensation purposes, is a first world, civic solution.