Discussion in 'Economy' started by Toro, Jul 7, 2007.
Personally, if I knew a way to do it legally and consistantly I would dump contributions from all sources to individuals. I would require contributions be put into a single pot and divided up amongst the eligable contenders.
Of course that doesn't work in practice, since how do you determine who and how many can run? How do you get people to contribute when they know all their money is not going to "their" candidate? And you sure as hell probably wouldn't get "special Interest" groups and corporation to donate in such a system.
I would further require that all contenders be given a set amount of air time, both cable, TV and radio ( the air waves ARE our property after all) and that they recieve x amount of space in newspapers and magazines of their choice.
And I do not mean just Democrats and Republicans. Perhaps a national signing drive with a requirement for x number of signatures from registered voters through out the US every 2 years to certify what Parties or groups would get these funds and time.
Wishful thinking, it will never happen.
Gee, I hear libs saying what a rotten economy we have and yet they are able to raise this much money for their candidates
How will they explain this one?
Seeing all the money people are handing over to the Dems - it is true - a fool and his money are soon parted. (As if Dems did not take eneough of their money in taxes)
First, Obama is running for President and those that donated to his CAMPAIGN have every right to choose to do such.... none of this is his own money, right Toro?
Second, CEO's are PAYING THEMSELVES these huge, and in some cases, unelthical salaries along with company monies paying for things like $6000 dollar shower curtains, and 40th birthday parties for their Trophy Wives with all invited flown to the Carribean, out of STOCK HOLDER'S PROFITS, via the Cronie loaded board of Directors whose fiduciary duty is to the Stock Holder and NOT to their buddy who is the company's CEO, I can understand the inquiry and the need for change, even if the change came from within the specific industry itself, instead of the gvt.
This is what was being investigated, from what I had read?
who are you to judge when a CEO is making to much money? Are we headed to a maximum wage law in the US? The pay for a CEO is determined unusally by a contract and approved by the Board of Dorectors
Hillary has bellowed how her government will "oversee" CEO pay - my sound like the old Soviet Union to me
WHAT RIGHT DOES THE CEO HAVE to TAKE the stockholder's profits and pay for his wifes 40th birthdasy party in the carribean with all invited's airfare and hotel paid for by STOCKHOLDERS, THE OWNERS of the company, without at least notifying or telling them?
Or the CEO taking stockholder's profits to pay for a $6000 dollar gold plated shower curtain for the CEO'S HOME, in the guise of it being his salary??
Care, the pay is APPROVED by the Board of Directors. If the CEO is is misusing company funds (as you are giving examples of) he can be charged (and he was)
Libs have this wealth envy phobia and it is really sad
Do you want the government to "oversee" CEO pay? If you do, where will it stop?
That's why Dennis Koslowski is in prison.
and other CEO's as well
Well, look at the situation that the Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream Corporation was in.
Ben & Jerry are well known liberals, so when they had to hire a CEO, they put all these limits into CEO pay, i.e. The CEO could not be paid more than 5 times the amount of the lowest paid Ben & Jerry's employee.
Guess what happened? With that pay, they could not get a decent CEO and lost business and had to drop it's limits for executive pay.
Separate names with a comma.