Posted on 10/09/2008 9:01:46 AM PDT by kingattax
If a recent poll found that almost 75 percent of America's top business leaders felt that a McCain presidency would be disastrous for the nation, with some even stating that his proposals if enacted would bankrupt the country in three years, do you think media would have reported it?
Probably every hour on the hour until every American had heard about it, right?
Well, on Wednesday, with the nation in the middle of what is being regularly portrayed as the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, Chief Executive magazine released its survey of 751 CEOs finding that 74 percent fear "an Obama presidency would be disastrous for the country."
Some CEO's went so far as claiming "[Obama's] programs would bankrupt the country within three years, if implemented"
Chief Executive magazine’s most recent polling of 751 CEOs shows that GOP presidential candidate John McCain is the preferred choice for CEOs. According to the poll, which is featured on the cover of Chief Executive’s most recent issue, by a four-to-one margin, CEOs support Senator John McCain over Senator Barack Obama. Moreover, 74 percent of the executives say they fear that an Obama presidency would be disastrous for the country.
“The stakes for this presidential election are higher than they’ve ever been in recent memory,” said Edward M. Kopko, CEO and Publisher of Chief Executive magazine. “We’ve been experiencing consecutive job losses for nine months now. There’s no doubt that reviving the job market will be a top priority for the incoming president. And job creating CEOs repeatedly tell us that McCain’s policies are far more conducive to a more positive employment environment than Obama’s.”
“I’m not terribly excited about McCain being president, but I’m sure that Obama, if elected, will have a negative impact on business and the economy,” said one CEO voicing his lack of enthusiasm for either candidate, but particularly Obama.
In expressing their rejection of Senator Obama, some CEOs who responded to the survey went as far as to say that “some of his programs would bankrupt the country within three years, if implemented.” In fact, the poll highlights that Obama’s tax policies, which scored the lowest grade in the poll, are particularly unpopular among CEOs.
Despite the poll's findings, from what I can tell, even though this study was disseminated by PRNewswire, it has garnered very little mainstream media attention.
Think that would be the case if these business leaders were so negative about McCain's economic policies?
No, I don't either!
Oh, thank you.
BTW,.Rush is playing soundbites from the TownHall meeting in Wisconsin.
It’s awesome!
“Treating all CEOs as part of some evil entity that must be brought down is retarded.”
I know of someone who does the evil CEO/corporation line 24/7. Thing of it is, he’s early retired with an awesome benefit package. I sometimes wonder why he doesn’t understand that it’s an extra and if companies must fork over extras to the government, it’s possible he will lose his awesome retirement package and it might be difficult to find something equally as good in the working world.
Most corporations I know provide decent benefits. Why kick that gift horse in the mouth? Because the government has so many fine examples of running programs cleanly yet under the tightest of budgets?
Chavez got the same in Venezuela. Socialism Here we come.
“BTW,.Rush is playing soundbites from the TownHall meeting in Wisconsin.”
Thank you!! I just ran to the radio to turn it on and heard the soundbite of Sarah asking someone to look up 0’s voting record regarding Born Alive Protection. I just got my groove back!
Great way to sum it up. Dr. Sowell is a brilliant man.
Frankly, I think you are lumping all CEOs together like the media does. Good luck with that.
Yup.
Back in the primaries when it was explained to Obama that capital gains tax cuts have always led to more revenue, and capital gains tax increases have led to reduced revenue.
He completely ignored those facts and said raising the capital gains tax was a matter of fairness.
Thats not someone who is using their God given intellect. Thats someone sticking to a weak position because someone told them to.
That not all CEO's are members is irrelevant. Investors expect these standards to be met in much the same way FASB accounting standards are met by most accounting firms although most accountants are not members of the FASB.
Again, if you could be bothered to educate yourself on this group instead of blithely dismissing what I'm pointing out you'd get a better grasp of what I and other people have observed.
For instance, http://www.ethicsscoreboard.com/liars/0607_roundtable.html
Read it. Maybe this will pique your interest. If not, then say that you are disinterested because to disagree with something you're not fully aware of is...well, I'm sure you can find a word on your own to describe that.
If this is case, then why can’t 74% of american see Obama in the same way?
Very few pay attention to it....
I'm not going to attempt to insult you...as you have lamely attempted. ROFLOL!!
We disagree.
You apparently think all CEO's are greedy SOB's. You lump them all together.....Not unlike many Democrats.
As I've said at least twice. We disagree.
So be it.
Good, that means more people voting for McCain....
Your post is exactly why this story will get no traction. Rightly or wrongly, considering the current financial situation this will get about as much consideration as a headline that says "74% of child molesters think Obama presidency would be disastrous for the nation".
“Myself, I believe that 74% of CEO’s are disastrous for the nation.”
I’m with you, and here is why, and what WE can do about it. Thirty-five years ago big company CEO’s earned about 40 times what their lowest level employees were paid. Since that time the ratio has crept up to somewhere between 400 to one to 1,000 to one. Is it any wonder they have been outsourcing American jobs to low wage countries, or charging high prices for medicine. I think our economy will only recover when the ratio of 40:1 or maybe 50:1, (since maybe PC’s and cell phones have made them slightly more efficient) have been restored. This is probably the GREED that McCain has been talking about. It was recently reported that the CEO of Lehman Bros. had earned $500,000,000, that is 1/2 $billion during his tenure.
If the government is going to bail these people out, then they should be cutting back on their salaries at the top levels. Personally, it bugs the heck out of me that these guys are earning $10 million or more a year while my son going to Afghanistan is earning under $50,000. Here are some things WE can do.
If you are a stockholder, question the high salaries your top executives are earning. Why should they get all the goodies while your dividends and stock values are shrinking?
If you belong to a health plan, when the annual free choice period comes around, question what each plan’s top executives are earning. Talk to your plan administrators about this. Select the plan with the more reasonable salary structures even if it will cost you a little more. Let them know that the top salaries influenced your choice.
If you have the choice of several grocery stores, for example Giant, Safeway, Harris Teeter, Shoppers Food Warehouse, find out what their top executives are earning. Favor the stores with the better salary ratios. Let everyone know why you are choosing the particular stores.
All this will only change when we exercise our power of the purse and active, targeted criticism. If you have other ideas, I would love to hear them.
“That’s why I think the Dems manipulated this to happen this month.”
Yeh, and that’s why the Pubs manipulated oil prices to drop this month. Sheesh. Of course Paulson was working for the Dems when he proposed his unsupervised, unrestricted $700 billion bailout. (sarc.)
“They get appointed as CEO because the B of D thinks they have the experience and knowledge...”
They get appointed because in many cases these board are filled with people on multiple boards who are engaged in a mutual back scratching collusion, that has little to do with the welfare of the stockholders in general. When minority stockholders have introduced proposals to permit all their votes to go to one board member (I think this is called cumulative voting) rather than be distributed among all board positions, management invariably lobbies against it. This keeps them safe from having to deal with minority opinions during their deliberations. As a small stockholder, I always vote in favor, but not enough people pay attention to this, but send in their proxies as a rubber stamp.
“The rejection of free enterprise and capitalism by some on this site is kind of shocking. “
Absolutely. It is amazing. I think a lot of it is sheer stupidity.
Depends on you definition of "If" is...
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.