- Joined
- Nov 15, 2009
- Messages
- 13,156
- Reaction score
- 1,038
- Location
- melbourne florida
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
I think the problem many working-class families have with this notion is:
1) Not many new jobs were created under Reagan, GH Bush or GW Bush despite their tax cuts to the upper crust; and,
2) All the CEOs of big corporations that received bailout money still got their big bonuses or severance pay when they left their positions.
The average Joe can care less about the fat cats getting fatter while the company they work for gets downsized, they get pick slips while learning that their big boss received millions while at the same time jobs are being cut. In other words, saying that the economy is doing bad, jobs are hard to find/create and that it's all the government's fault doesn't make sense when you see your boss still got paid but you just lost your job. And then you hear that some in Congress (Republicans) still want to give the riches of the rich more tax cuts!?!
I'd say it's bad if you're a CEO and your company is laying off workers while you're still receiving a massive paycheck. Yes! I'd say that's neither in the best interest of the company nor the nation's economy overall. I do, however, see the significance of making stock options part of a CEO's compensation plan. If he/she does the job well, the reward is higher profits on the stock. But therein lay the problem: I don't know of many CEO's who left their company when their stock went south. In fact, most will either leave beforehand or sell the stock prior to leaving.
What BS. Obama has said these huge salaries must go yet his guy in GM is allowed. Hypocrisy. I notice you have to bring up the past to deny the facts of Obama