Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You can certainly vote and mail it in. I never sign away my vote to a proxy.
I do read over the material and see which way the board recommends and then do a bit of research myself. Every shareholder gets to vote..you give away your vote then don't go crying later on about the results.
Spot on!
This thread is a crying thread about a CEO's salary. ...Which was negotiated by the Board of Directors. ...Which was elected by the shareholders. Don't like the Board of Directors handing millions of dollars to the CEO? Then, VOTE THEM OUT!
So now that you whiners know the real deal, that it's NOT the CEO's making their salary decisions ...it's the Board of Directors that the shareholders elected... Score another huge win against the liberals' idiotic class warfare campaign. It just so happens that the class warfare they're constantly trying to stir up matters the absolute LEAST to voters.
Why? If a "bailout" stabilizes a company by adding liquidity in times of financial crisis, and is paid back with interest, doesn't everybody win? .
No. A bailout makes competition unfair. How would you like it if your competitor had government safety net? It would put you at a competitive disadvantage.
And then you introduce Crony Capitalism (which is what we have today). The person in charge (Obama) gets to play God and decide who fails and who gets bailed out. I don't want anybody in government deciding who should win and who should lose. The market should pick winners and losers.
Failing companies should be allowed to fail.
Bailing out Obama's buddies is not an appropriate government function.
No. A bailout makes competition unfair. How would you like it if your competitor had government safety net? It would put you at a competitive disadvantage.
And then you introduce Crony Capitalism (which is what we have today). The person in charge (Obama) gets to play God and decide who fails and who gets bailed out. I don't want anybody in government deciding who should win and who should lose. The market should pick winners and losers.
Failing companies should be allowed to fail.
Bailing out Obama's buddies is not an appropriate government function.
Exactly. I don't understand why liberals think that's okay.
No. A bailout makes competition unfair. How would you like it if your competitor had government safety net? It would put you at a competitive disadvantage.
And then you introduce Crony Capitalism (which is what we have today). The person in charge (Obama) gets to play God and decide who fails and who gets bailed out. I don't want anybody in government deciding who should win and who should lose. The market should pick winners and losers.
Failing companies should be allowed to fail.
Bailing out Obama's buddies is not an appropriate government function.
Great post. You described exactly how it is supposed to be.
Because most shareholders don't attend meetings. They give their proxy to whomever is recommended to them. Who makes the proxy recommendations?
That's a huge cop-out. The big pension funds are the ones that drive most of the corporate board changes and are quite vocal.
I'm trying to figure out why a private company paying 10million a year to this guy is bad or "disgusting" while it would land him about 100th or so from the top of the baseball player salary rankings.
No. A bailout makes competition unfair. How would you like it if your competitor had government safety net? It would put you at a competitive disadvantage.
And then you introduce Crony Capitalism (which is what we have today). The person in charge (Obama) gets to play God and decide who fails and who gets bailed out. I don't want anybody in government deciding who should win and who should lose. The market should pick winners and losers.
Failing companies should be allowed to fail.
Bailing out Obama's buddies is not an appropriate government function.
Bush started the bailouts. Again, this is the reason they will continue. Partisanship always rules the day.
That's a huge cop-out. The big pension funds are the ones that drive most of the corporate board changes and are quite vocal.
I'm trying to figure out why a private company paying 10million a year to this guy is bad or "disgusting" while it would land him about 100th or so from the top of the baseball player salary rankings.
At 10 million they are paid far more than any other government employee. As long as they owe taxpayers this kind of money, they are employee's of the taxpayers just like the person working at the DMV.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
