Does Obama agree with Robert Reich who praised the CEOs compensations

[question everything]

as "deserving," since they raised the value of their companies' shares?

Several months ago, perhaps even last year, Reich had an op-ed in the WSJ about this topic. He ended with suggesting that these CEOs should be heavily taxed, though, which brought the ire of the WSJ readers..

It is not that, supposedly, the board of directors approve these obscene compensations as reward for the rise in the share value. It is that in many cases, the CEOs still get their "rewards" even when their companies' shares drop. I vaguely remember complaints about this in 1990, or 1991.

And even when the CEO has to leave the failing company, he gets out with his pockets full of millions of dollars, like the ones of Home Depot, and Countywide, and others.

Not only that, too often the share rises after an announcement of major layoffs, as we've seen today with Citi Group.

Both the CEOs of Delta and of Northwest Airlines got millions from Northwest Airline (the Delta guy was a Northwest CEO) yet the pilots, mechanics and flight attendants unions had to make major concessions when both companies went through bankruptcies (at least, the NWA did).

No, I do not hold Obama guilty by association. Just because Reich, and other despicable individuals endorse him does not mean that he agrees with their agenda. For example, I don't remember Sam Nunn being too loved on DU.

But I hope that he realizes what this former Labor Secretary - the irony - is now saying.

On the other hand, we know that of the Democrats making more than $100K Obama has been the clear favorite, so it figures.

[MannyGoldstein]

1. The Clintonistas Are Just Jealous That Obama Has More Money

in his personal savings account.

The Clintons continue to live modestly and work exclusively for charitable causes for little or no money, while Obama makes hundreds of millions through deals with Uzbeki amd other "businessmen".

[pocoloco]

2. Us poor fucks like him also!!

[babylonsister]

3. No, and had you bothered to look, you might have found the answer, too.

Maybe even Reich has changed his opinion given the changing economic situation in this country. But regardless, what someone who endorses Obama believes is not the same thing as Obama believing it. Don't we know that by now?

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/04/obama_to_take_on_mccain_over_b.php

[question everything]

5. "Nonbinding shareholders vote?"

Words, just words. If it is non binding that why bother? Plus, these days most shareholders are institutions who, like Reich, would approve the compensation because the share value rises. They really don't care about the workers who actually make the company successful. Why, do you think, the share value rises after major layoffs are announced?

But, no, Obama is not going to comment on this, now would he?

But, then, again, this is Obama. All style and no substance. Words are cheap and may generate headlines but no one would come and ask him what he really means.

[babylonsister]

7. You're really lousy at this sliming stuff, ya know? nt

[question everything]

10. Typical. When you cannot offer specific comments you "slime"

the messenger.

If you and the other Obama worshipers do not like the criticism here, what will you do when Rove open his special bag of tricks?

[madrchsod]

9. gee i guess i should have looked before i posted the samething!

great minds think a like? :hi:

[Spider Jerusalem]

4. This is goddamned stupid.

Reich endorsed Obama, not the other way around. Endorsements are one-way.

[ProSense]

6. Reich? How about the guy who was president

Bill

[madrchsod]

8. here ya go

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/04/obama_to_take_on_mccain_over_b.php
TPM Election Central | Talking Points Memo |




as far as i know bob is`t on obama`s staff and he`s stating his opinion. unless bob is slated to become a member of obama staff then it`s a non issue