Posted on 06/10/2008 5:17:40 AM PDT by BloodOrFreedom
“Why don’t you read the article?”
Ok, Yea, I’ll do that right away.
Um.... ok.
Yup, many states do this, many corporations already have such policies, and as I posted above, any shareholder can enter it as a warrant item at annual meeting.
McCain is proposing Federal action to make this happen across the board, I read the article. If the President says he will change something, he won’t call GE and ask them to change. He’ll support a bill making that change from the fed level downward, or have someone he appointed in SEC write new regulations.
He’s proposing new regulations on corporations, in the area of compensation, by requiring shareholder review. He’d make shareholder review mandatory, instead of voluntary as it is now (with some states, it’s required now).
A VERY misleading headline.
Given the fact that corporations exist only due to legislative action to begin with (in the whole legal sense of the word), this idea of McCain’s may have some merit.
Thoughts?
“Actually I am puzzled as to why there is so much opposition to this idea.”
For the same reason most KOscum and DUmmies hate anything and everything GW does. There are many freepers here who suffer from McCain Derangement Sybdrome. McCain proposed it, ergo it is uncontitutional socialism, further proof he is just like Obama, etc.
agree 100%....
I have issues with this as well. But the headline made it sound like McCain was instituting GOSPLAN.
However, It didn’t bother Huckabee supporters when Huckabee wanted a nation wide outdoor public smoking ban.
Well said, also a former FredHead, agree with you 100% on all points.
In this election, I have three options: voting for a third party candidate, abstaining from voting, or voting for McCain.
Voting for a third party candidate can leave me with a clear conscience even though my vote is ineffectual. There is no way either Bob Barr or Chuck Baldwin will win; they lack the funds, name recognition, and grass roots organization. Bob Barr is personally repugnant, not only for his adultery, but for his activism in the subversive ACLU after leaving Congress. I have no problem with Chuck Baldwin in this regard. He is a patriotic and principled Christian man. In any case, I am closer to the platform of the Constitution Party than to that of the Libertarian Party. My problem with the Constitution Party is its Ron Paul-like position on foreign policy. While I do not agree with all the foreign policy positions of the current Administration or with the prolonged "no-win" war we are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, a sudden withdrawal from overseas commitments will leave a power vacuum that Russia and China, our enemies, will happily fill. Evacuation from Iraq and Afghanistan with any result short of victory will also clear the way for Iranian and Russian domination of the Persian Gulf.
Abstaining from voting is another option, and one that would not involve the hesitation I might have with Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin. There are circumstances where it would be advisable to do so. I do not believe this election is such a case.
Voting for McCain means putting a man into the White House who is to the left of President Bush on a number of issues, including environmental protection and tax policy. He is as bad as the incumbent on issues such as NAFTA, immigration, welfare programs, and Federal involvement in public education. McCain is highly unlikely to appoint conservatives to judicial positions, especially with the probability of a more liberal Congress in 2009 and 2010. At best, we will get mushy moderates like Sandra O'Connor and William Kennedy. There are a lot of reasons to dislike McCain and to dread him in the White House.
The only plausible alternative, barring divine intervention or a coup d'etat, to McCain is Barack Obama. The pattern in American politics, going back 75 years, has been for a liberal Democrat President, when aligned with a Democrat Congress, to pass socialistic legislation that the Republicans, even when they control the White House and Congress, do not repeal. Reagan might have made some progress in this area had he not had to deal with the liberal Tip O'Neil to assure funding for the military buildup that ultimately bankrupted the USSR. Indeed, from 2001 to 2006, the Republicans controlled the White House and one or both Houses of Congress, yet government spending, including entitlements, actually grew more rapidly than under Bill Clinton.
With the dismal track record of the GOP from 1953 to 2008, we cannot rely upon a Republican resurgence to overturn new programs that Obama and Congress might put in place. Additionally, an Obama/Brzezinski foreign policy would be even worse than a Ron Paul policy, insofar as we would let our foreign policy be directed by supranational agencies like NATO and the UN, thus surrendering more of our sovereignty.
This may be something like the Edwin Edwards vs. David Duke contest for Governor of Louisiana. Vote for the crook, not the racist.
The reason a company has a Board of Directors is to monitor and approve.....
Often, the board is comprised of the majority stockholders.....
Effectively, their vote would rule regardless what the other minority stockholders would want.....
This is the way it should be....
The way I read it, this proposal will GIVE shareholders the right to approve/dissaprove executive compensation.
Personally, I think that's a good idea.
How that system would work in practice is another ballgame, that is where I don’t think it would work in practice.
I don't know anything about how this works, but who determines the amount of the "package" now?
I always thought it was the board of directors, who I thought were shareholders that were elected to the board by other shareholders.
Maybe that's just how I thought it shoud be. If it is then government interference isn't needed.
I thought of that right after I clicked post.
That’s the theory. But in actual practice, the management runs the show, irrespective how many shares they own. The directors are part of management.
You see examples of this all the time. Yahoo is a good example. Yang screwed the company, and no one can do anything about it. I own stock in Wachovia. When they bought Golden West in 2006, there was a tremendous outrage by stockholders against management for paying too much at the top of the market. The management was able to push it thru though. It cost the company about $50 billion in market value. They just fired the guy who did it last week. Probably got a nice severance as well. It’s not justice, and it demonstrates that the shareholders who own the company don’t necessarily control the company. They can’t necessarily fire the CEO when he deserves to be fired.
That’s not the way it should be. Capitalism is based on the notion that he who owns the business runs the show. This idea of separating management from the pressures of shareholders is a socialist one.
When you guys are paying 50% of your income in federal tax to provide health care to every lazy scumbag in America, just remember you helped put obama in office.
Frankly, given the polar choices between obama and McCain, anyone that doesn’t vote for McCain has no right to call themselves “conservative” nor “republican”. A better title might be “enabler”.
bookmark
The headline is misleading. Stockholder approval of CEO salaries is not government regulation, and I don't have much problem with it. Basically everything McCain is talking about here sounds reasonable.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.