Why do democrats hate poor black people and want them permanently on welfare?

[jc456]

A Board of Directors set the CEO's pay.

The board is filled with other Ceos who also want raises.

There are some but they have a bigger obligation to the stockholders.

Most stock holders aren't paying they much attention to CEO pay. They would only notice if the stock really tanks.

Most board members have a vested interest in the companies that they sit. I'm not going to keep a CEO that is going to hurt the stocks. That's my money I'll lose.

But most board members are also CEO's and have a vested interest in CEO pay increasing. Things really have to go bad for a CEO to get a pay cut or be fired.

no they get shares of stock and they want to make money off of that stock. Period. They give a shit about the pay of the CEO. They merely want a qualified CEO that earns them capital gains so they can invest, invest, invest. and make money. NOthing about salaries. you're lost.

 

[Markle]

High enough to have budget surpluses.

 

[Redfish]

The board is filled with other Ceos who also want raises.

There are some but they have a bigger obligation to the stockholders.

Most stock holders aren't paying they much attention to CEO pay. They would only notice if the stock really tanks.

Most board members have a vested interest in the companies that they sit. I'm not going to keep a CEO that is going to hurt the stocks. That's my money I'll lose.

But most board members are also CEO's and have a vested interest in CEO pay increasing. Things really have to go bad for a CEO to get a pay cut or be fired.

no they get shares of stock and they want to make money off of that stock. Period. They give a shit about the pay of the CEO. They merely want a qualified CEO that earns them capital gains so they can invest, invest, invest. and make money. NOthing about salaries. you're lost.

this thread proves a couple things
1. that the defective liberal gene is alive and well
2. that liberal indoctrination has been effective with the marginally capable
3. that the liberal posters do not understand anything about our economy, money, employment, that stock market, or life in general

 

[jc456]

I'm aware, but it's not like a democratic process. The holders don't pick who they are voting for. It's just one big racket. You can't see the problem with having CEO's in the board? And the board picks who's up for vote in the board? You don't question CEO pay at all even though it can't be explained by any economic indicators? The system is rigged. To believe otherwise is just foolish.

Outrageous Executive Compensation: Corporate Boards, Not the Market, Are to Blame

The standard justification for the high pay of CEOs and other top executives is that the market demands it. It is argued that if you do not pay CEOs at or above the market, they will leave and go to a competitor. There are a number of problems with this argument. Perhaps the most important one is that numerous studies have shown that CEOs rarely move from one company to another, and when they do, they are usually less successful than internal candidates. In short, at least at the CEO level, there is little evidence that an efficient market for talent exists that is based on compensation levels.

Some members of corporate boards have an even greater self-interest in making sure that the compensation of the CEO continues to go up, up, and up. They are the CEOs of other companies. You don’t have to be a compensation expert to realize that if you vote for one of your peers to have a higher salary, you are in effect voting for your own salary to go up, because it is based on what will be a higher market.

For boards to change their stripes when it comes to executive compensation, major changes need to take place in who is on corporate boards and on their compensation committees. It would mean fewer CEOs on corporate boards. It would require more board members who understand talent management and are concerned about the societal impact of corporations. Another effective change would be to have a board membership that is dominated by strong, independent directors.

I'm amused by your fixation with the pay of a CEO. General Electric has 333,000 employees...ONE CEO. Exxon/Mobil 73,500 employees...ONE CEO, formerly Rex Tillerson.

Is this all you have? Quit you're belly-achin'.

And the CEOs should be increasing worker pay with their own. That isn't happening however.

Report: CEOs Earn 331 Times As Much As Average Workers, 774 Times As Much As Minimum Wage Earners

Sounds like you may be expecting life to be fair, and life is anything but fair.

its a fantasy ingrained in the liberal mind. That the government can make life fair.

Well government can sure make life more fair or less fair depending on the ideology of those running the government. Our government was formed with the idea of making life more fair than it was under kings, dictators and so forth. Our founders spent a summer working on a set of rules they hoped would fit into the age of enlightenment, and make a happier life for its citizens. But you're right it is ingrained in the liberal mind, and they keep working on the pursuit of happiness, and for all citizens.

no it was to provide options of working hard and reaping rewards for hard work. creating the environment of progress. there is nothing fair. Fair is a libturd word that means they have no idea what they speak about.

equal opportunity is the only thing guaranteed in our country. Nothing more.

 

[jc456]

And the company has less to spend.

The company is spending on the worker. The worker can then spend more on other things.

Right. So how does that increase economic growth?

How Consumer Spending And Economic Growth Is Linked

Thanks!

GDP = C + I + G + NX

C = Consumer spending

I = Business investments

G = Government spending

NX = Net exports

So the broom pusher has an extra $3000 to add to consumer spending.
The company has $3000 less which subtracts from business investments.

How has your plan increased economic growth?

If paying little so that the business keeps more was going to grow the economy, we would already have huge growth.

no because you don't understand that every other employee received a similar raise as the lowest employee on the list. It just lost the lower employee his/her job. ooops more welfare.

 

[jc456]

So in other words, have government run everything. And you called me a Communist?

And how would a CEO making less help the little guy?

No, the government would run nothing. Because we have corporate taxes now, the government is running those companies? Seriously?

It would decrease inequality which would increase economic growth which is good for everyone.

It would decrease inequality which would increase economic growth which is good for everyone

How does giving the broom pusher a raise increase economic growth?

It increases the circulation of money and engenders a positive multiplier effect.

It increases the circulation of money

How? Walk thru the steps.

The poor tend to spend most of their income, sooner rather than later. That increase in demand causes a corresponding increase in supply.

Increasing supply usually requires more labor or more hours or both.

not if the cost of the product went up meaning the guy that just got an increase uses as much of his resources as he used to even though he got a raise. No economic growth. none, zip, and unless you can find an example of such a thing, let us all know by posting a link.

 

[Markle]

High enough to have budget surpluses.

Once AGAIN, my Progressive good friend works overtime to prove their ignorance of economic principals.

What is the 'Laffer Curve'
The Laffer Curve is a theory developed by supply-side economist Arthur Laffer to show the relationship between tax rates and the amount of tax revenue collected by governments. The curve is used to illustrate Laffer’s main premise that the more an activity such as production is taxed, the less of it is generated. Likewise, the less an activity is taxed, the more of it is generated.



BREAKING DOWN 'Laffer Curve'

Read more: Laffer Curve Laffer Curve
Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook

 

[jc456]

It would decrease inequality which would increase economic growth which is good for everyone

How does giving the broom pusher a raise increase economic growth?

It increases the circulation of money and engenders a positive multiplier effect.

It increases the circulation of money

How? Walk thru the steps.

The poor tend to spend most of their income, sooner rather than later. That increase in demand causes a corresponding increase in supply.

Increasing supply usually requires more labor or more hours or both.

And you've reduced the business investment which creates supply. Zero net change.

Business investment in other countries doesn't help us.

duh!!!!!! what do you think would need to happen to bring that money back into our country? quickly now.

 

[jc456]

follow up question: why do democrats support the organized murder of unborn black children through planned parenthood?

Limit their numbers and keep them on the plantation. Sounds like something from the KKK democrats of the 1800s.

So Redfish you want the black babies to be born, but don't want to feed, or cloth them until they are able to themselves..I am a pro life democrat who also believes in what happens after the baby is born..

Maybe you can throw them a crumb every now and then..

View attachment 119450View attachment 119451

Ah..The old all or nothing straw man argument. ....Nonsense. Do you really believe that if social entitlements were reduced, there would be starving people in the streets?
How little faith you have in your fellow human being.
The problem with social entitlements is not the entitlements themselves. The problems are many. One, the methods by which they are administered. Administration of the programs accounts for more than half of the funding. That's absurd.
Next, there is little or no enforcement of the rules that govern who receives benefits and who does not. There are millions of people gaming the system. And with this so many who are most in need, get shut out and get nothing.
The amount of waste fraud and abuse has reached stratospheric levels.
Finally, these programs were developed to END poverty and get people back on their feet. They have turned into handouts. The programs offer little in the way incentive to move out of the programs.

it is what makes a libturd a libturd.

 

[Markle]

The Congressional Budget Office has stated categorically that cutting taxes DOES NOT increase employment, and that it does not increase revenues.

Please show us your reliable source and link.

Do you know how the CBO arrives at their figures? Where do they get their instructions?

 

[Brain357]

If that's what your really believe, then the solution to your problem is to become a CEO yourself.

If the BOD does not do their job effectively, they will lose their power, investors, or both. Nobody is going to stay invested in a company with low growth and high paid CEO's.

Just look at the GE board. You said it is not CEO's, and obviously there are many. CEOs are just giving themselves raises. Why do you choose to be so blind even with all the facts proving me right?

Your claim is not right because you said that CEO's and their salary are out of control and not regulated because the BOD is fixed. The BOD is selected by shareholders who value their investment and would never allow any prolonged loss of their investments.

The BOD does not select the BOD. They just vote on the CEO who wants to be on their board.

What I said was that it's the stockholders who vote on the BOD's.

the dude is one fked up socialist. doesn't know what a CEO does or what their role is. Too funny watching this in here.

My posts are supported by facts and links.

 

[Brain357]

I'm aware, but it's not like a democratic process. The holders don't pick who they are voting for. It's just one big racket. You can't see the problem with having CEO's in the board? And the board picks who's up for vote in the board? You don't question CEO pay at all even though it can't be explained by any economic indicators? The system is rigged. To believe otherwise is just foolish.

Outrageous Executive Compensation: Corporate Boards, Not the Market, Are to Blame

The standard justification for the high pay of CEOs and other top executives is that the market demands it. It is argued that if you do not pay CEOs at or above the market, they will leave and go to a competitor. There are a number of problems with this argument. Perhaps the most important one is that numerous studies have shown that CEOs rarely move from one company to another, and when they do, they are usually less successful than internal candidates. In short, at least at the CEO level, there is little evidence that an efficient market for talent exists that is based on compensation levels.

Some members of corporate boards have an even greater self-interest in making sure that the compensation of the CEO continues to go up, up, and up. They are the CEOs of other companies. You don’t have to be a compensation expert to realize that if you vote for one of your peers to have a higher salary, you are in effect voting for your own salary to go up, because it is based on what will be a higher market.

For boards to change their stripes when it comes to executive compensation, major changes need to take place in who is on corporate boards and on their compensation committees. It would mean fewer CEOs on corporate boards. It would require more board members who understand talent management and are concerned about the societal impact of corporations. Another effective change would be to have a board membership that is dominated by strong, independent directors.

I'm amused by your fixation with the pay of a CEO. General Electric has 333,000 employees...ONE CEO. Exxon/Mobil 73,500 employees...ONE CEO, formerly Rex Tillerson.

Is this all you have? Quit you're belly-achin'.

And the CEOs should be increasing worker pay with their own. That isn't happening however.

Report: CEOs Earn 331 Times As Much As Average Workers, 774 Times As Much As Minimum Wage Earners

Sounds like you may be expecting life to be fair, and life is anything but fair.

Well stagnant wages slows an economy. I'd much rather workers were treated fairly so our economy could be stronger.

and obummer fail caused stagnate wages. why are you for something that ruins an economy if you are in here arguing otherwise? you're confused.

Wages have been stagnant since long before him.

 

[jc456]

Why does the right wing complain about the cost of social services, which makes it possible?

Well that way they keep the focus squarely on the poor as the source of middle class misery, and away from the 1% who are benefitting most from these wage supplementing social programs.

no, the politicians are the source of middle class misery. especially those on the losing left.

 

[Brain357]

Not my favorite idea, but lots of support for an increase in minimum wage, though not to $15.
Over 600 Economists Sign Letter In Support of $10.10 Minimum Wage: Economist Statement on the Federal Minimum Wage

job killer, produces the opposite of its intent. you should read a book or two and learn that.

Gee I think I'll believe the 600 economists. Funny how much you talk out of your ass.

 

[Brain357]

There are some but they have a bigger obligation to the stockholders.

Most stock holders aren't paying they much attention to CEO pay. They would only notice if the stock really tanks.

Most board members have a vested interest in the companies that they sit. I'm not going to keep a CEO that is going to hurt the stocks. That's my money I'll lose.

But most board members are also CEO's and have a vested interest in CEO pay increasing. Things really have to go bad for a CEO to get a pay cut or be fired.

no they get shares of stock and they want to make money off of that stock. Period. They give a shit about the pay of the CEO. They merely want a qualified CEO that earns them capital gains so they can invest, invest, invest. and make money. NOthing about salaries. you're lost.

this thread proves a couple things
1. that the defective liberal gene is alive and well
2. that liberal indoctrination has been effective with the marginally capable
3. that the liberal posters do not understand anything about our economy, money, employment, that stock market, or life in general

It seems the right doesn't understand economics or how the world really works.

 

[jc456]

Just look at the GE board. You said it is not CEO's, and obviously there are many. CEOs are just giving themselves raises. Why do you choose to be so blind even with all the facts proving me right?

Your claim is not right because you said that CEO's and their salary are out of control and not regulated because the BOD is fixed. The BOD is selected by shareholders who value their investment and would never allow any prolonged loss of their investments.

The BOD does not select the BOD. They just vote on the CEO who wants to be on their board.

What I said was that it's the stockholders who vote on the BOD's.

the dude is one fked up socialist. doesn't know what a CEO does or what their role is. Too funny watching this in here.

My posts are supported by facts and links.

not in here.

 

[Dragonlady]

FACT CHECK: Do Tax Cuts Grow The Economy?

. . .
It's not just Gale. According to a 2012 report from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service (referenced by the New York Times' David Leonhardt in a 2012 column), top marginal tax rates and economic growth have not appeared correlated over the past 60 years.

. . .
Likewise, the economic research firm Moody's found in 2008 that temporary tax cuts (like rebates) could boost GDP, but permanent ones had a much weaker effect. Meanwhile, boosting spending on programs like food stamps and unemployment had a stronger effect, they found.

In short, if your sole, ultimate goal is faster growth, tax cuts might not be the best policy."

And this report from the Congressional Budget Office:

The Short-Term Effects of Tax Changes—Evidence for State Dependence: Working Paper 2016-03

 

[Brain357]

Your claim is not right because you said that CEO's and their salary are out of control and not regulated because the BOD is fixed. The BOD is selected by shareholders who value their investment and would never allow any prolonged loss of their investments.

The BOD does not select the BOD. They just vote on the CEO who wants to be on their board.

What I said was that it's the stockholders who vote on the BOD's.

the dude is one fked up socialist. doesn't know what a CEO does or what their role is. Too funny watching this in here.

My posts are supported by facts and links.

not in here.

Then you are blind or stupid. You certainly back up nothing you say.

 

[jc456]

I'm amused by your fixation with the pay of a CEO. General Electric has 333,000 employees...ONE CEO. Exxon/Mobil 73,500 employees...ONE CEO, formerly Rex Tillerson.

Is this all you have? Quit you're belly-achin'.

And the CEOs should be increasing worker pay with their own. That isn't happening however.

Report: CEOs Earn 331 Times As Much As Average Workers, 774 Times As Much As Minimum Wage Earners

Sounds like you may be expecting life to be fair, and life is anything but fair.

Well stagnant wages slows an economy. I'd much rather workers were treated fairly so our economy could be stronger.

and obummer fail caused stagnate wages. why are you for something that ruins an economy if you are in here arguing otherwise? you're confused.

Wages have been stagnant since long before him.

no, they weren't. Bush failed to perform correctly at the end of his second term, the banks were the issue and still are the issue and the same issue exists today. but, obummer fail killed full time work and merit increases. sorry fella.

 

[Brain357]

And the CEOs should be increasing worker pay with their own. That isn't happening however.

Report: CEOs Earn 331 Times As Much As Average Workers, 774 Times As Much As Minimum Wage Earners

Sounds like you may be expecting life to be fair, and life is anything but fair.

Well stagnant wages slows an economy. I'd much rather workers were treated fairly so our economy could be stronger.

and obummer fail caused stagnate wages. why are you for something that ruins an economy if you are in here arguing otherwise? you're confused.

Wages have been stagnant since long before him.

no, they weren't. Bush failed to perform correctly at the end of his second term, the banks were the issue and still are the issue and the same issue exists today. but, obummer fail killed full time work and merit increases. sorry fella.

Link?