What do cons not understand that the problem liberals have with Large Corporations isn't that they make $$$?

Question

I mean be resonable.
Ford lost 12.7 billion dollars in 2006.
They paid their CEO 39.1 million dollars for 4 months of failed service.
http://www.miamiherald.com/795/story/64487.html
They are closing 14 manufactoring plants.
http://money.cnn.com/2006/01/23/news/companies/ford_closings/index.htm?cnn=yes

Thats why the corporate system in America is UN-AMERICAN.
39 million could have saved 1 of those plants for a full year.
Instead it goes to an ULTRA-WEALTHY Failure who only got the postion because of his elite wealth status.

But charity for people who need it is destroying America? Liberals are bad? Are you kidding me? How many of you get paid 39 million for 4 months of work?

The problem is with the fact that the top of corporations are so grossly overpaid while they cut off the productive parts of the corporation. Which is going to produce more $$$ for the company, a 15th VP getting paid 5 million a year or a whole manufactoring plant creating sellable goods.

once again not one con addressed that fact.

I know it bothers them to all high hell too. If it doesn't, then they are just stupid.

Cons, its okay not to argue about everything... things that piss liberals off can piss off cons too.

you guys crack me up..lol

I would think Conservatives would want to see some responsibility by American corporations.

Answer 1

Im a conservative and I pretty much agree with you.
I would like to see come corporate executives with teh confidence enough take a performance based contract.

Answer 2

Because it is all about the money. You said his compensation package of $39 million could have saved a plant for a year. Then what? Who is going to run Ford? You? The article also said that Bill Ford has not received compensation since 2005 when he vowed not to until the company was solvent again. Thats unAmerican too right?

You stated they are closing "productive parts of the company" That makes no sense in any way. If these plants are so productive (a net plus for the company) then why would they close them?

Since $39 million is too much what is the correct amount?

So the executives at Exxon Mobil Chevron and all them are earning their pay because of the record profits, right?

A Con who naswered, although you will not like it.

Answer 3

Okay, first that payout is for their NEW CEO, a good guy from Boeing. Ford is in such bad shape that they could never hope to attract a really good new CEO without an excellent compensation package. Think about it. Why would any great leader want to run a company with so many problems?

Second, while I am not a conservative, I have just as much of a problem with the major Democratic party candidiates being bought & paid for by unions and their own set of corporations. So, until we get meaningful campaign & ethics reform in Washington, we are going to continue to see pay imbalances in Corp America too. It's all one big greedy party.
Have a nice day.

Answer 4

May I make a suggestion, that both conservatives and liberals might agree on?

The notion of means testing for being placed on the welfare rolls and getting Medicare/aid is normal, and the idea of merit pay/bonuses for workers at various levels is considered a common aspect of corporate life. Why not extend it to Directors? CEOs and possibly other members of Boards should have minimum salaries (with a baseline on the order of CEOs overseas). Tie their compensation programs directly to the profitability of the company.

This makes them no more or less beholden to their performance than any other employee of a company. There are all sorts of perks that come with being a Director. They should have to earn their keep--for the good of a company and its profit.

Answer 5

If what you say is true, then why are they (Liberals), always complaining that corporations don't pay enough taxes to support their welfare programs? They complain that corporations are rich, and should pay more than the middle class in taxes, even though the richest group of people are the middle class, not the rich. The rich produce jobs, the poor don't. Let's grasp a little reality here. If the rich paid for all those who can't or won't work, they wouldn't be rich anymore, now, would they? They couldn't hire anyone to work for them. Why? Because most of their money would be going to taxes to feed, and support non-workers, aside from other taxes. Common sense.
Nothing wrong with charity, as long as it is given of a person's free-will, and not through a persons earnings in taxes, without choice. Anything else is theft.

Answer 6

Thats how the system works. Corporate CEO's get paid a lot of money and they get paid wheither the business is successful or not. More if it is. It has nothing to do with taxing the people and giving away the money for needless social programs. Lets talk about a total waste, there it is. So yes, Liberals are bad, their plans have failed for decades and cost the people of this country a billion times more than the 39 million your whining about.

Answer 7

My sentiments exactly!

And here are some more examples

Lucent (LU) CEO Patricia Russo was paid over $17 million for the last two years, while Lucent's five-year return to shareholders was minus 80 percent. Home Depot's CEO, Robert Nardelli, made $50 million while the company's stock returned a negative 19 percent. Pfizer's (PFE) Hank McKinnell was paid more than $26 million, Pfizer's stock is down 34 percent.

Answer 8

Publicly held corporations are only able to get away with this because the shareholders - the public - allows them to. I agree with you - it's outrageous, but you can't say it's just the right. ALL shareholders are responsible for this crap.

And you certainly can't say that conservatives are anti-charity - they give in far greater numbers than liberals.

We just don't believe in handing people money to sit on their butts. It does *nothing* for their sense of self-worth, and just creates an entitlement mentality. Why is it wrong to expect people to help themselves? I think we need to revamp our system and quit screwing our low wage earners. If someone is making a sincere effort but can't make ends meet, *they* should be helped before some heifer that just wants to sit home and pump out kids like puppies.

Answer 9

If it were that simple. It's not.

A new CEO was brought in to correct the problems. Sorry, you'd have a hard time getting someone to work for free until the company turns a profit.

GM is in much worse shape than Ford. It acually costs them more to produce and sell cars than if they chose not to. So, to keep the dealers happy, they do so. They have a HUGE pension burden thanks to the UAW.

By the way, you don't even mention that the Ford Chairman works for a dollar, for now.

Answer 10

I am a conservative and I agree with you up to a point I think that what you earn should be solely based on performance. Our system is basically set up to what the market will bear, the system is one of the fairest in the world where one skill and expertise is in a direct relationship to what you earn albeit it is not always perfect but it is a lot better than communism and socialism or dictatorship if you know of a perfect system I would like to know.

Answer 11

we choose a center stability. i in my opinion am financial Conservative and Socially Liberal. i do unlike all of the payouts to crooks (Acorn), banks, GMC...etc. I hate tax funds wasted! i do no longer choose to artwork tougher as a results of fact others do no longer choose to artwork in any respect! If i replace into exempt from paying Federal earnings taxes, i might desire to care much less what the tax funds went too. it could be none of my corporation! on the different hand, i'm professional-decision, i do no longer concepts if marijuana human beings who smoke have legal get entry to to their dope. pass away the pot heads on my own! i'm a extensive supporter of animal rights. Conservatives may be real tight wads approximately a number of those subject concerns. yet i visit never vote Demacrat!