Those who say we need to "support the President" have it exactly backwards.

[jgraz]

It's well past time he started supporting us.

White House Flip Flops On Reining In CEO Pay

The White House is intervening at the last minute to come to the defense of multinational corporations in the unfolding conference committee negotiations over Wall Street reform.

A measure that had been generally agreed to by both the House and Senate, which would have affirmed the SEC's authority to allow investors to have proxy access to the corporate decision-making process, was stripped by the Senate in conference committee votes on Wednesday and Thursday. Five sources with knowledge of the situation said the White House pushed for the measure to be stripped at the behest of the Business Roundtable. The sources -- congressional aides as well as outside advocates -- requested anonymity for fear of White House reprisal.

Advocates said that the corporations fought the issue primarily over executive compensation concerns. Given proxy access, investors could rein in executive salaries. The Business Roundtable is a lobby of corporate CEOs.

An administration spokesperson said that the White House isn't flip-flopping because it has never made proxy access an explicit position it supports. "It was not part of our original financial reform proposals, and we have not taken a position explicitly. We have heard from and understand the various concerns on this critical corporate governance issue from multiple stakeholders including business, investors, labor and others. We are confident that the House and Senate conferees will come to a resolution and deliver a consensus view," said the spokesperson.

But two top administration officials publicly supported proxy access, and the Senate version in particular, at the Council of Institutional Investors annual conference in April...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/17/white-house-guts-reform-t_n_615952.html

So, while the rest of us are focused on the catastrophe in the Gulf, the White House takes the opportunity to strip out one of their own key reforms from a bill already passed by the House and Senate, excusing it with another Public-Option-esque "we never were in favor of that thing we said we were in favor of."

It's hard to imagine a more cynical move. Is this a president who's acting in the interests of the people who elected him?

[ProSense]

1. So this the case for not supporting the President? Rumors?

This was posted previously, from the OP:

An administration spokesperson said that the White House isn't flip-flopping because it has never made proxy access an explicit position it supports. "It was not part of our original financial reform proposals, and we have not taken a position explicitly. We have heard from and understand the various concerns on this critical corporate governance issue from multiple stakeholders including business, investors, labor and others. We are confident that the House and Senate conferees will come to a resolution and deliver a consensus view," said the spokesperson.

<...>

Frank said that he wasn't certain the White House was involved. "There may be some sense that the White House -- I'll explain it this way: this affects, of course, not just the financial institutions, but all corporations and, yeah, I think there are some people in the White House who think, 'Well, we're fighting the financial institutions, but why fight with some of the others you know, the other corporations?' But all I can do is stand firm in our position, which we're doing. I think there may be some White House influence, but I don't really know. I would ask the Senate. It is interesting that they are reversing their own position," he said.

<...>

Because the conference committee deliberations are televised, a broad range of interested observers were able to watch corporate America gut the reform proposal live. On Thursday, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) fought back, attempting to amend the language to strike the five percent requirement. It failed; the only Democrats to back Schumer in the vote were Pat Leahy (D-Vt.), Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) and Jack Reed (D-R.I.).

Yeah, why would they reverse their own position?

In fact, this sounds like Ryan Grimm trying to make Schumer out to be a hero, as he tries to do.

[jgraz]

9. So this is your case that the president does not need to support us?

We're just here to cheer him on as he guts his own reform provisions, eh?

[ProSense]

23. Can you point to where I said that? n/t

[jgraz]

33. You certainly don't seem bothered by his actions.

Or do you believe this is an example of the president supporting us?

[ProSense]

36. Point to where I said "the president does not need to support us." n/t

[jgraz]

37. Point to where you've ever criticized him for ANYTHING.

[ProSense]

45. Let's play: How does not criticizing the President equal he doesn't have to support us?

Now, can you point to where I said he doesn't have to support us?

You, on the other hand specifically stated: "Those who say we need to "support the President" have it exactly backwards."

Really?

[jgraz]

47. So your answer is "NO", you've never criticized Obama.

We already knew that, but it's good to see you admit it.

My statement is that Obama needs to support US. I even put it in the content of the post. What is your problem with that sentiment?

[ProSense]

51. No, that's not my answer. That's your attempt to change the subject.

"What is your problem with that sentiment?"

"My statement is that Obama needs to support US."

That's part of your statement. The other part is this:

"Those who say we need to "support the President" have it exactly backwards."

Why exactly do you believe we don't need to support the President?

[jgraz]

55. "When, exactly, did you stop beating your wife?"

Nice try.

[guruoo]

152. Oh, I see. It's just a game. n/t

[guruoo]

151. Just as I thought...

more vaporware from the gotta protest something crowd.

Thanks for clearing this up prosense.

[muffin1]

2. K&R

It's sad really - I'm not even shocked.:grr:

[Name removed]

3. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dave29]

4. You know what, I think I'll still support him, rather than engage in rumors and disinformation

have fun though

[jgraz]

6. I'd prefer journalism supported by five separate sources

Of course, since that challenges your fragile world view, feel free to call it what you will.

[dave29]

7. I will call it "5 anonymous sources" and you can call it responsible journalism

as to my fragile world view. Waaaaaaaa

[jgraz]

21. Are you saying the reporters are lying? What evidence do you have for that?

:shrug:

[dave29]

29. maybe they just haven't.... finished... reporting yet.

Just a theory

[jgraz]

34. Oh shit, why don't you just call it the work of Satan?

Makes about as much sense.

[dave29]

39. I don't believe in satan

That's why

[jgraz]

40. At this point, both beliefs are equally supportable

Might as well go with Satan. He throws better parties.

[dave29]

41. according to how many sources?

:hi:

[jgraz]

44. Well, Satan, for one.

But he prefers to remain off the record.

[dave29]

82. did you know the bible was also filled with un-named sources?

It is the whole unvarnished truth around a lot of parts as well.

[jgraz]

83. But there weren't five corroborating sources

Hell, I might reconsider my lack of belief if there were.

[dave29]

85. What's funny is I am not religious, but my lack of belief revolves around you

Copernicus is orbiting his grave

[olegramps]

140. Well, they had four: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. No fifth though.

[vaberella]

12. 5 unnamed sources, while the named sources said they didn't know but didn't think so.

Nice.

[jgraz]

13. Stunning denials

:eyes:

[dave29]

14. Stunning disinformation

shall we dance?

[HughMoran]

62. Stunning is the word of the hour

[vaberella]

17. How is it denial...I'm going by the information you provided. Your named source don't have a clue.

Yet your unnamed sources which could be made up of Republican Jackasses for all I know or we know---could be saying whatever they want because they know people will go nuts over it.

[vaberella]

10. Thank you. The article hasn't a clue. Jarrett even says they support the regulations. n/t

[damntexdem]

5. Yeah, it's a two-way street. And we keep getting run over.

[vaberella]

8. I was waiting for someone to post this CRAPPY story and did you hear Jarrett's response.

This story was on Huffpost last night. I ignored it when I saw the updates ----Ie response from the White House which actually says the article is incorrect. Yet you're running with it. One person said Jarrett was involved and then you come to find out Jarrett has had no contact with anyone on the committee.

Secondly...even the article you state says this---with at least one named source unliked the 5 fools that remain unnamed:

Frank said that he wasn't certain the White House was involved. "There may be some sense that the White House -- I'll explain it this way: this affects, of course, not just the financial institutions, but all corporations and, yeah, I think there are some people in the White House who think, 'Well, we're fighting the financial institutions, but why fight with some of the others you know, the other corporations?' But all I can do is stand firm in our position, which we're doing. I think there may be some White House influence, but I don't really know. I would ask the Senate. It is interesting that they are reversing their own position," he said.

There is no bloody evidence and you're running this disingenuous post as though it is. Take a look at the bottom of the page...This story has been updated to include the White House response. Lucia Graves contributed reporting. People seem to have ignored Jarrett's response.

You're selling this as an Obama flip-flop when the very article has no clue what it's talking about. There is no concrete evidence just rumor, innuendo and drama.

[jgraz]

11. Wait, a White House flack denied she just did what she did?

Stop the presses. :eyes:

[dave29]

15. "white house flack"

nice touch

[vaberella]

16. How do you know she did it?! Where's your evidence? The 5 secret santas?!

Congress is not known for being the sharpest knives in the bunch. You don't think they reversed it to get votes. You think the White House did it---but it does fit your agenda to push rumors---unsubstantiated rumors, and misinformatoin.

You act like there aren't people around Obama who will gladly post wrong information. Like the fools who said "health care reform will create concentration camps."

[jgraz]

18. Yes, five corroborating sources.

Of course, the journalist who wrote this MUST be lying, since that's the only thing that fits with your personal belief system.

[vaberella]

19. You're telling me those in the media don't twist the truth?!

You've got to be kidding me. Thank you for telling me that the fuckers on FOXNEWS (used as an example) don't lie. I've heard it all. Media lies and the journalist put in a person with some leverage who said THEY DON'T KNOW! But you're willing to take the side that says they did it but with no names. ~sigh~

[jgraz]

20. You're saying these reporters have fabricated a story. That's beyond a "twist".

In order to support your presidential fantasies, the journalists would have had to outright lie about the five sources and the fact that they feared White House reprisals. Your only response to this is someone saying "I don't know", yet you treat that as an ironclad denial.

[vaberella]

26. I never said it was fabricated. I did say that it was based on rumor. Tabloid news!

What you want is to believe this...when there is no evidence even in the article. You keep saying 5 sources. Who are ALL UNNAMED. The one named source said he "DIDN'T KNOW" You need to accept it. You need to accept that the writer could have said 7 sources and we wouldn't know otherwise.

[jgraz]

32. If this story was about a Repug president, you'd be all over it.

And you know it.

[vaberella]

35. Don't project your actions onto me, assuming you know how I think or would react.

And it's unlikely I would be all over this, but I'm sure hundreds on the site would be. Like they are with the Palin articles---calling Obama sambo. I never subscribed to that shit. I need a bit more than what you're giving me. Further more you're not known for positive posts on Obama, which in my eyes hurts your credibility.

[jgraz]

38. Oh, so you'd make these excuses for Bush?

Good to know.

Now tell me, how does *my credibility* affect an article I posted verbatim? How exactly does that work?

[vaberella]

42. You're ecpecting me to have childish knee-jerk reactions when even your article has no proof.

As for hurting credibility. When I posters pushing anything they can when even the article they provide has NAMED sources who don't know, and said poster has regularly posted negative and/or questionable articles like this before---I get the feeling their push for others to believe is to promote their own agenda of dislike---it goes beyond policy to something else. Anyway, since this is turning circular. I'll reiterate that your named source doesn't know if the rumors are true. This is like the current KO situation. Rumor has that the drama on MSNBC was fabricated. Plenty of rumors and unnamed sources said it was true. I'm not sitting around believing it. Like you want me to believe this.

[jgraz]

60. I'm expecting you to have a tenuous grasp on reality.

You know that you would be screaming about this if Bush or any Repug did it. The only reason you're making excuses is because it's Obama and you refuse to admit he'd do something this cynical.

[dave29]

80. You act like Bush would have even considered it.

I find that humorous

[jgraz]

87. So not the point.

Any story on Bush's shenanigans that had five corroborating sources would NEVER have been questioned on this board.

Think of all the whistleblower stories that were originally single-sourced, unnamed:

Cheney energy meetings
NSA Domestic spying/wiretapping
US Attorney purges
MMS corruption

And on and on and on... How many of those did you or any DUers dispute based on sourcing?

[olegramps]

141. Five sources that report the same facts isn't rumor. It could be a lie, but not rumor.

[Tarheel_Dem]

48. "You're telling me those in the media don't twist the truth?"!

He sure thought so when the media ran with negative stories on Hillary. How many of these "unnamed sources" stories are we supposed to contend with? The problem with these "sources" is you can neither confirm nor deny their existence. :shrug:

[jgraz]

59. Oh, FFS. You need to get your memory checked.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/jgraz/79

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/jgraz/78

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/jgraz/63


Seriously, try to post something that isn't completely pulled from your nether regions.

[HughMoran]

69. Since we're posting links, how about the 3 other posts on this topic?

Including the top of the Greatest Page?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8582947

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8584450

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4431379

Look for trouble and ye shall find it.

[jgraz]

77. Strange, a search only turned up one

:shrug:

[Tarheel_Dem]

71. I will, if you will. And this is the last time I'm kicking this crap, so don't bother. (NT)

x(

[jgraz]

78. Well, I can still kick it.

[LaFeminist]

130. Do you believe five liars lied to the Huffington Post at the same time?

Some conspiracy there.

[vaberella]

137. I'm taking into account that we have 5 unnamed.

While the one person who is named says BS to the 5 people who are unnamed and claims he doesn't know who requested the section to be stripped. If you are willing to believe the 5 unnamed who could be repubs trying to under mine the president since we know there are plenty versus the only one who hasn't a clue and had no shame in giving their name...then you believe it. I'm not about to stick my nose into a pile of shitty innuendo.

[ihavenobias]

22. Imagine if this was 2006 and the headline/general story substance was the same.

Boy would this comment section look different. I'll leave it at that.

[jgraz]

30. Exactly. Sad, isn't it?

[Tarheel_Dem]

49. As well it should. This is "Democratic" Underground. I know you & Cenk

have forgotten that.

[ihavenobias]

54. So if the Democratic party tried to ban abortion and replace the Constitution with the Bible

it would be ok in your mind because it would be the Democratic party doing it rather than the Republican party?(!)

I'm using that absurd example to show just how outrageous it is to let party affiliation trump actual policies. The whole reason to be affiliated with a particular party is precisely because they ultimately represent a particular set of policies. So if they repeatedly do the opposite (or damn near it) on core issues the D next to the name becomes irrelevant.

[HughMoran]

70. I have massive bias

& it sucks.

[ihavenobias]

73. That was such a well thought out, fact based response!

You're the best HughMoran.

[HughMoran]

79. I almost didn't post it

...but, as you know, us HughMoran's don't have anything better to do. :headbang:

[Tarheel_Dem]

72. Your example is as ludicrous as your original o.p. Still broadcasting...

from a basement?

[ihavenobias]

84. Between you and HughMoran you've managed to come up with 0% substance.

Seriously, you both came up with childish personal attacks that didn't even attempt to address my point. And I don't know what you're referring to when you talk about the basement? If you mean the TYT studio I agree I hate our set (working with a designer now actually), but the building and studio itself is pretty damn nice.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qd9UTA-ATRU|Dylan Ratigan didn't seem to mind> when he guest-hosted our show in studio a couple of weeks ago.

[jgraz]

88. And you're surprised by this?

The next time Tarheel or Moran post something of substance will be the first. Their role on this tag team seems to be throwing as much mud as possible so none of their brethren ever has to answer a real question.

[bvar22]

97. The same crowd used the very same spin tactic over the...

"White House negotiates secret deal with Pharmaceutical Lobbyists" when that story broke from an anonymous White House Source.
The deniers were as foaming at the mouth in their group attacks.
Nothing new here.
.
.
.
.
.
Oh, and that anonymous White House leak about the Pharm Deal?
Well, we KNOW how that one turned out.

Thank GAWD for anonymous White House leaks!


"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for,
at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them."
--- Paul Wellstone

[olegramps]

142. Hey, his die hard supporters still believe that he got a "strong public option" on HCR.

[theFrankFactor]

90. Wow, THIS is what being a Democrat is about? Bowing to the master no matter what?

This is "Hope & Change". Disgusting.

Look at the rebuttals and defense of this BULL SHIT act by the Administration. A lesson in political non-speak. Tom asks a question using hyperbole to flesh out SOME KIND of substantive rebuttal and what does he get? Childish school yard come backs.

Democratic... "UNDERGROUND", really? As in Democratic Party CRATERING? I can see that alright. But if this is what passes for grass roots oversight of party principal without fear of reprisal? Well... I'll let you fill in the rest.

I'm so glad CEO pay is protected by the Democrats. (There, maybe my post will pass censor)

[theFrankFactor]

91. We Need More Democrats Like ProSense! Yea!

Cutting to the bone with laser like investigative power! Always tirelessly bucking the mainstream, Forcing the party to look at its self in stark and clear reality! Meeting each thoughtless attack with the bright light of brave and concise rebuttal!

Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!

It is only because of people like you, keeping the Democratic party focused and on course, that we will persevere and bring about the kind of sea change Americans voted for!!! What kind of party evades criticism and stands blindly behind its leaders? Not us! Not the Democrats! That's why we come here--a place where we can speak openly and freely about our party and its problems! It's this kind of mature self awareness that makes us great!

[jgraz]

106. Lookout -- Frank's in da house!

:thumbsup:

[jgraz]

57. Most of us understand the difference between "Democratic" and "democratic".

We're also sophisticated enough to understand why the name of this board is intentionally ambiguous. Let us know when you catch up.

[girl gone mad]

95. That's right, it's the "Democratic" Underground..

where people support Democratic ideals and Democratic policies.

You seem to have forgotten that.

[BuelahWitch]

112. And what if the people in Washington with the "D" after their name

are NOT supporting Democratic ideals? :shrug:
OP was about THEM not supporting Democratic ideals. I support Democratic ideals. When my "D" representatives abandon those ideals, I abandon them!

[treestar]

123. If we were supposed to be completely objective, freepers would be

allowed. Sometimes I think the far left here needs that. They seem to have no idea what they are up against.

[muffin1]

66. Yep. It's the same no matter the topic.

Torture and rendition under bush? x(
Torture and rendition under Obama? :)

Screwing the low and middle class under bush?:-(
Screwing the low and middle class under Obama? :9

Treating gay people as second-class citizens under bush? :puke:
Treating gay people as second-class citizens under Obama? :bounce:

It's enough to make me :mad:

[theFrankFactor]

102. +1

[20score]

101. The crux of the matter. Critical thinking.

Everyone benefits from that.

[Uzybone]

24. ok. We no longer support the President

happy now?

[jgraz]

31. So missing the point.

Do you believe this story is an example of our president acting in the interests of the people who elected him?

[Uzybone]

43. if true, I'm opposed

BTW many of the people who elected him are more than happy with the status quo. Its not only DU liberals who voted for President Obama.

That said, I disagree 100% with this move, but I still support him. You don't have to agree with 100% of a politicians policies to support him.

[jgraz]

46. As someone else said, it's a two-way-street.

The man is OUR EMPLOYEE. If one of my direct reports fucked up and then lied about it, we'd be having a serious talk about future career choices.

[Uzybone]

52. So what to do about it?

What I never understand it what exactly those who don't support the President want us to do. Join you and gnash teeth and whine? Stew in anger? Vote Republican? Vote third party? Organize a new party? Armed revolution?

What actions do you think should be taken?

[treestar]

122. He can't be considered an EMPLOYEE

An employee has only one boss to answer to - there is no way to answer to 300 million bosses. some of them will approve any move.

A politician elected to office is not an employee and it's not helpful to think of it that way.

[jgraz]

128. He sure the hell can

It's even easy to deal with his job performance: if I work to benefit my employer 90% of the time, I get a raise and bonuses. If I work to benefit my employer 10% of the time, I get fired.

It's time Obama started working to benefit the 90% of the population who need his help, and not the 1/10th of one percent CEOs who can take care of themselves.

[treestar]

131. Just silly

Your boss is one person. If you had ten bosses, it would be impossible to do what they wanted 90% of the time, as a group, and what they wanted conflicted.

Just dumb, silly, stupid, shallow thinking.

The POTUS is not your employee or my employee. He's an elected official - that's not your typical job.

[jgraz]

139. This from someone who barely knows the Constitution exists.

:eyes:

[olegramps]

143. I thought that we had a Party Platform which he ran on. Guess I was wrong.

[girl gone mad]

96. Is this a joke?

Obama's campaign slogan was "CHANGE".

If the people had wanted status quo they would have voted for the Republican.


Unbelievable. The level of cognitive dissonance at work here is off the charts.

[Dr.Phool]

127. He is acting in the interests of the people who elected him.

Without all those big campaign contributions, he never could have mounted the PR campaign to get himself elected.

Money talks, people walks.

[treestar]

121. It's like they are salivating because they think they found the smoking gun!

[yurbud]

25. this is Obama/Rahm's idea for getting us to vote in Nov.? Calling us crazy and stupid?

[yurbud]

27. He could use the same PR efforts to convince us he's being as progressive as he can

though he'd need some facts to back that up.

[olegramps]

144. Well, I caned it around the neighborhood. Guess I am retarded.

[TheKentuckian]

28. Familiar sort of pattern..hmm I wonder if??? Nah, can't be, it just can't be!!!

Folks certainly don't have to buy anything they don't want to but how do they think that someone is just soooooooooooo far off to be like nuts or beyond the pale to tend to believe the reports.

Usually only sex, money, or fundamentalist religion generate such passions and faith.

[HughMoran]

65. An obsession by another can be a bit of a sight to see

Who can resist looking at a car wreck on the highway?

[BuelahWitch]

113. Obsession? Pot meet kettle!

[FrenchieCat]

50. Yes, you are right in not supporting this President about anything,

and most who do are wrong.

I don't support the stripping of this provision as described by this unnamed sources,
but I do support many other things that this administration has done.

So I Guess I'll take a mixed bag that has more than I want than I don't,
cause progress is still progress,
even if it ain't all that I would want it to be,
cause I never expected a Rose Garden.....
Hell, I don't even demand one!
If that makes me "wrong", and makes you right....so be it.

[Aramchek]

53. don't feed it, Frenchie

[jgraz]

56. Yeah, that's nonsense.

I support the president when he does something that I approve of. The Cairo speech, winning the Peace Prize, handling the pirates, setting up the BP escrow account are a few that come to mind.

Now, can you name one time when you haven't blindly made excuses for this president? Just one?

[HughMoran]

64. You like your knives

have fun playing with them.

[FrenchieCat]

67. See the post you just responded to .

Sorry if I lack repetition and drama in my opposition.....
I'm too busy fighting our side, cause some don't really
give a shit if we lose all, so that they can say they were right.

[Phx_Dem]

58. The government should not be deciding what private companies

pay their CEOs or anyone else. That's for the board and the shareholders to decide.

I think current CEO salaries are absolutely fucking appalling, but that doesn't mean the government should be involved.

[jgraz]

61. Once again, this bill would give SHAREHOLDERS the power to limit CEO pay.

At least, it would have until Obama intervened.

[Phx_Dem]

63. In some large firms, they already do. Including the large

financial firm that I work for. It was included on the ballot for the last shareholder vote.

edited: typo

[jgraz]

76. But you're against the government allowing other shareholders to have that right.

Interesting perspective for this board, but hardly unique.

[olegramps]

147. You work for a financial corporation???

[olegramps]

146. That is exactly what the provisions were intended to do.

Let's step back and look how corporations were to be controlled. Firstly, investors purchase stock in support of a product with the hope sharing in the profits. The Board of Directors was answerable to the Stock Holders and were to oversee that the company was properly managed in order to protect the investor. This is exactly what is not happening since a cabal of some 500 or so people sit on the boards of numerous companies and vote each other ridiculous compensation even when the companies are losing billions of the stockholders money and the average stockholder can't do a damn thing about it.

[HughMoran]

68. This is on the top of the GP - it's been posted 3 times already

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8582947

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8584450

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4431379

Kind of difficult to state that you're not playing this up as a nice flamefest topic. Good for you.

[jgraz]

81. This post has already been posted in this thread.

Are you trying to start a flame war?

[WI_DEM]

74. He has been supporting us--the people of the USA overall and doing a damn good job.

[jgraz]

75. So this is, in your opinion, the way our president should "support" us?

:shrug:

[dave29]

86. personally the pirate thing gets my vote

I'd like to see more presidential pirate parlance, in fact

[polichick]

89. The crazy thing is that every time the WH caves to corporate interests...

...they lose with the people. Which makes you ask why they're doing it?

[jgraz]

92. Maybe they realize that it's not 'the people' who decide elections

:shrug:

[salguine]

99. Because the people don't decide elections; corporations do.

[polichick]

100. Directly, through vote tampering - or indirectly, through contributions?...

Or do they tag someone to run early on - say, following Obama's 2004 speech?

[jgraz]

107. Yes, yes and yes.

[polichick]

109. How depressing! I guess that's why we need to draft candidates...

...who will pledge not to take corporate money, as Andrew Romanoff from Colorado has.

[salguine]

111. Green Party candidates don't take corporate money. The one time one did,

a woman who was in the California state legislature, she was running for re-election and accepted a $5,000 campaign contribution from Chevron. For this she was swiftly and unceremoniously booted out of the Party. They were serious about their policy of "No corporate money" and when push came to shove, they walked the walk. I have to give them credit for that.

[polichick]

118. Wow, that's pretty cool. Maybe progressive Dems and Greens need to get together. nt

[LWolf]

93. k&r

[Kltpzyxm]

94. But we can't reduce CEO pay

Then the money won't trickle down.

:eyes:

[bvar22]

98. Hey!!!

First laugh of the day.!

:patriot:

[KansasVoter]

103. Obama is perfect!

[mix]

104. right on

I'm old fashion...people first, not corporations.

[noamnety]

105. He's playing chess here.

If he transfers more money to the richest people, that will help reduce the middle class, which in turn helps cut down on employment and consumerism. This will reduce a lot of the demand for petroleum products and I'm guessing is part of his master plan for weaning us off oil dependence. He addressed this in his speech.

[jgraz]

108. Checkmate.

[grahamhgreen]

115. Gosh he's so far ahead if us! Geez!

[depakid]

110. "It's hard to imagine a more cynical move."

Unfortunately, it is not- though the point's well taken.

[jgraz]

126. Yeah, you got me there.

Maybe I should have said, "It's hard to imagine a more cynical move from a President I worked so hard to elect." But, at this point, even that isn't entirely true.

[grahamhgreen]

114. k&r. And let's stop offshore drilling forever, and close gitmo. Out of Iraqistan, fix HCR, etc.

[Laelth]

116. I was willing to k&r this after reading only the subject line.

The President and the Democratic Congress need to support us, not vice-versa. They work for us, after all.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Greyhound]

117. Kicking just to irritate the wrecking crew.

[treestar]

119. Why do people think THIS is particularly bad?

It's not even understandable.

But the government has no power over CEO pay.

[Aramchek]

124. because they like throwing fits and flailing about

[jgraz]

125. Wow. If you have to ask that question, I really can't help you.

:wow:

[treestar]

132. Good luck with the populace them

If I can't figure out what the hell you're talking about, they can't.

Why would the government have the power to determine pay, other than minimum wage?

[jgraz]

133. See, we have this document call "the Constitution"

and it gives the federal government power over interstate commerce. Which means that the federal government can regulate wages in any way we see fit.

The fact that you don't know that is what earned you the :wow:.

[donco6]

134. It would give shareholders some power over CEO pay.

And if you don't see a problem with it, . . . well it wouldn't be surprising at all, actually.

[TheKentuckian]

138. They would have if they passed the damn law.

and an even stronger bill should have been passed to even more directly control the pay because the system as is creates perverse incentives to take insane gambles and ignore medium and long term risks and instability in favor of short term gains so they can ca$h out and take the money and run.

If the people running these companies want the protections of incorporation and to operate in the US then they should play by rules that help ensure systemic stability and that act in the interest of our nations people.

The current pay structure is not only not beneficial to the American people, but actually harmful to us.

I suggest a mix of incentive restructuring to encourage longer term results and a multiplier cap on the difference between lowest and top paid employees but other systems might be better but something needs to give for our national integrity and a functional economy.

[olegramps]

148. You must be kidding. Where did you get that talking point?

Corporations exist under the law and laws can be passed that govern how they are operated. This provision would provide the stockholder, the very person who invested their hard earned money, in determining how much a CEO should earn. The Board of Directors are in allegiance with the management to award the management ridiculous compensation that rightfully should have been returned to the stockholder. I can only suppose that if you bought stock expecting a return on your investment that you wouldn't have any problem with the management giving you nothing and they taking all the profits. What is even stranger is I suppose you wouldn't have any problem if the incompetent bastard lost billions and still paid themselves millions.

[branders seine]

120. K&R

It would be a nice, umm, change, wouldn't it?

[Dr.Phool]

129. Change we can make belive in!

[Catherina]

135. "Error: you can only recommend threads which were started in the past 24 hours" n/t

[PufPuf23]

136. I don't think Obama plans to have a 2nd term

I don't blame him and expect Obama to pull an LBJ.

He has said as much that he may be a one term POTUS.

[Teaser]

145. Those who post straw men about what others are "saying"

don't really get listened to. Or shouldn't get listened to, at least.

[DailyGrind51]

149. As a small shareholder, my votes mean nothing, even though I consistently oppose

board recommendations regarding executive compensation.

[pundaint]

150. I was too late to recommend, but this is the whole point. The president is clearly not supporting

the People. This is a cynical, misrepresenting crew who are not to be trusted.