Posted on 06/10/2008 5:17:40 AM PDT by BloodOrFreedom
More definition of "Wall St." needed.
What does McCain want "regulated" by the government re: "Wall St."?
Many, many segments of "Wall St." have been regulated by the government for over close to a century.....thank God. We don't need criminal oil speculators like George Soros and his ilk freely controlling and manipulating "Wall St."
Leni
It was in one of his debates. If you search the debate threads, you’ll see it. Quite a few of us choked when he said it.
I believe he was. Did you read the article?
"And under my reforms, all aspects of a CEO's pay, including any severance arrangements, must be approved by shareholders"
I can't understand why conservatives would support even one more increment of the already stifling regulations on private business.
Corporations are not private businesses, they are public businesses. No one forced these companies to incorporate and sell their stock on the open market. Once they do that, however, they are subject to regulation by the entity which recognizes their corporate status, i.e., the government.
If these companies can't live under the regulations placed upon them by virtue of the corporate status, then they can always reorganize as some non-corporate entity.
Not all, google, MSFT, Proctor and Gamble, GE, Sherwin-Williams on and on and on. they will not want low rent CEO’s. Many will move. The taxation ramifications are mind boggling. Typical McCain stupid idea.
These are excerps from a speech for today. So we will have the quotes later.
Leni
First, it isn’t a charge if he said it. Second, there’s no way I’m going back in those debate threads to look for it! Those things are massive. Have fun!
Leni
In most corporations the majority of voting stock resides in the hands of the Boards and the CEO. Thus, they can vote for anything they want.
I firmly believe that there should be NO regulation or oversight of non-Government corporations by the Government.
Saying that, I do believe there is a dearth of morality within the upper echelons of most corporate structures as the people there are mostly elitists that look down on everybody else, including all their employees, and believe they can raid the company coffers with impunity.
Couple this with the “quick-buck” mentality of the entire country and this allows for the people at the top to just say that it is all for the stockholders (the majority of stock owned by a few at the top).
While the stockholders have a right to see a good increase in their share prices we must also realize that employees are the ones getting the job done and want to have a decent life too. They are our neighbors and friends.
No. This is NOT a Socialist or Communist rant. I am just saying that some morality injected into the entire system would go a long way toward bettering our system, but the extraction of morality, starting in our public schools and extending throughout the education system, is doing great damage to the US and leads to Socialism or Communism. Teaching morality at home does help but should be reinforced in our educational system.
My two cents.
If these companies can't live under the regulations placed upon them by virtue of the corporate status, then they can always reorganize as some non-corporate entity.
That's true. But as long as they are under the jurisdiction of the United States, and as long as they sell stock in the United States to American Citizens, they have to abide by certain regulations. Corporations exist at the good pleasure of the sovereign power under which they are incorporated.
If CEO compensation packages are so important to a corporation that they are willing to disband their companies and move to a foreign country, then I don't want them here in the first place.
they have to abide by certain regulations
Obviously. That says nothing about the wisdom of these regulation. In my opinion we are regulating corporations to death.
It is actually small businesses that are regulated to death. Large corporations die because of mismanagement. Large corporations by and large favor a lot of regulations because it inhibits the ability of the smaller companies to compete.
There will be a tremendous run on clothes pins in early November, particularly in the "red" states. Wal-Mart and other retailers, please take notice.
I wasn’t attacking you Leni, only pointing out that it is a PR concerning a speech to be given today.
“In most corporations the majority of voting stock resides in the hands of the Boards and the CEO. Thus, they can vote for anything they want.”
I would not say that they typically own a majority, at least not in public corporations, though they do generally own a lot, and that often is enough to get things done that most stockholders would not support. They should be disqualified from voting their stock when they are voting on their own salary. That is a clear conflict of interest, which is the thing that is causing all this to begin with.
“I firmly believe that there should be NO regulation or oversight of non-Government corporations by the Government.”
I agree with the no regulation idea, in general. However, when it comes to corporate governance, you’ve got to remember that the statutes already regulate this, and always have regulated this. Corporations are a creature of statute. There would not even be such a thing as a corporation but for the fact that government passed laws permitting their creation. There are already laws on the books specifying how a corporation is to be governed. When it comes to public corporations, they are even more intrusive, the idea being that when you buy stock on a stock exchange, you ought to be able to count on certain things without having to order and read copies of their organizational documents. There is a certain standardization in how public companies are governed. Unfortunately, it does not generally extend to how management’s salary is determined. There is currently a shareholder movement growing across the nation that requires corporate structures to have shareholder approval of executive compensation, and for good reason.
Let’s face it, you can’t very easily justify the salaries that some of these guys get paid based on their performance. We’ve got companies on the verge of bankruptcy where the management is getting paid a bundle. Companies that haven’t made a profit in years, and yet the CEO gets paid hundreds of millions of dollars for driving the company into the ground.
The only way to explain that situation is that the shareholders don’t have enough control. Sprint is a good example. If the shareholders truly had control, they’d boot everyone in management out in a second. They certainly would not be paying them what they are getting paid. These financial institutions that are in trouble are another example.
YOU were the one making the charge without sourcing the actual statement which would show he actually said it.
"Second, there's no way I'm going back in those debate threads to look for it! Those things are massive. Have fun!"
Is this SNL? YOU were the one who brought up the "fact" he said what you said he said in some debate or other......not I. But you refuse to source it. You want ME to have all the fun of researching YOUR charge. I respectfully decline your generous offer.
Usually, on this board, freepers have the source, the facts, the direct quote, the context and a link if possible at the ready BEFORE they post generalized or nebulous charges. We demand it when some lib does it against one of our conservative icons.....and for me, at least, these standards should work both ways.
Leni
Leni
Very true. But I don’t know how you help the situation by slapping on yet another regulation.
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.