Over 70 percent of CEOs fear an Obama presidency will be a DISASTER

Search

Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2005
Messages
3,255
Tokens
<TABLE cellSpacing=5 cellPadding=5 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>I GUESS ITS NOT JUST ME!!!

Job Creators Prefer John McCain 4-to-1 Over Barack Obama

Over 70 percent of CEOs fear an Obama presidency will be a disaster
<META content=LNBOFXCKHK name=SKYPE_FRAMEID><META content=LNBOFXCKHK name=SKYPE_FRAMEID><META content=LNBOFXCKHK name=SKYPE_FRAMEID><META content=LNBOFXCKHK name=SKYPE_FRAMEID></TD></TR><TR><TD>
McCain-Obama_Page_11_.jpg
Chief Executive magazine’s most recent polling of 751 CEOs shows that GOP presidential candidate John McCain is the preferred choice for CEOs. According to the poll, which is featured on the cover of Chief Executive’s most recent issue, by a four-to-one margin, CEOs support Senator John McCain over Senator Barack Obama. Moreover, 74 percent of the executives say they fear that an Obama presidency would be disastrous for the country.
“The stakes for this presidential election are higher than they’ve ever been in recent memory,” said Edward M. Kopko, CEO and Publisher of Chief Executive magazine. “We’ve been experiencing consecutive job losses for nine months now. There’s no doubt that reviving the job market will be a top priority for the incoming president. And job creating CEOs repeatedly tell us that McCain’s policies are far more conducive to a more positive employment environment than Obama’s.”
For several months during this presidential election year, Chief Executive has conducted specialized polling of CEOs’ attitudes on issues affecting national policy and the economy. During this period CEOs were first asked what policies and approaches would work best for business, energy policy and job creation. Subsequently, they were asked which presidential candidate’s policies were best aligned with these prescriptions for growth.
Even though CEOs rated McCain’s policies over Obama’s in the most recent polling, their support came with reservations, as can be witnessed by the B- grade given to McCain’s overall policies. McCain received strong marks for defense and foreign policy but only a C+ on energy, environment and education. Conversely, Barack Obama’s overall plan received a barely passing C- with four out of eight policy areas receiving D grades. Neither candidate received an A.
“I’m not terribly excited about McCain being president, but I’m sure that Obama, if elected, will have a negative impact on business and the economy,” said one CEO voicing his lack of enthusiasm for either candidate, but particularly Obama.
In expressing their rejection of Senator Obama, some CEOs who responded to the survey went as far as to say that “some of his programs would bankrupt the country within three years, if implemented.” In fact, the poll highlights that Obama’s tax policies, which scored the lowest grade in the poll, are particularly unpopular among CEOs.
“Overall, many CEOs are concerned about the future of the U.S. economy and its ability to compete in the global market, but they look to John McCain and hope that this self-described political maverick may yet shake up established thinking and not give into to the tired policies of the past,” concluded Kopko.


</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
 

Honey Badger Don't Give A Shit
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
46,540
Tokens
LOL....not a single CEO of the supposed 750 was willing to be quoted by name.
 

Rx .Junior
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
2,376
Tokens
and of course they think that...they make over 250k a year...LOL
 

New member
Joined
Oct 20, 2005
Messages
9,282
Tokens
I would say 74% of the country also fears CEOs also, so i guess were at a crossroads. Obama, the prophet (sic) and your typical (74%) bottom line CEO - whats the difference? Both are a bunch of fucking liars anyway, so i say this poll is unimportant to the one party system.
 

Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2005
Messages
3,255
Tokens
Yeh, your probably right. W hy would people that run a business and provide jobs have any idea.

We all will work for the govt and work in the cummunty sharing our wealth.

Im sure everything will be fine, silly me :ohno:
 

Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2008
Messages
321
Tokens
"He (Obama) is a decent person, and a person that you don't have to be scared as president of the United States" -- John McCain
 

Rx. Poster
Joined
Dec 9, 2007
Messages
597
Tokens
"He (Obama) is a decent person, and a person that you don't have to be scared as president of the United States" -- John McCain

he was talking to a guy who was saying Obama is a terrorist. if McCain was talking to that guy who owns a plumbling company, he would ssay "yeah you should be scared of Obama because he is gonna take the money you earned and give it to someone who didnt earn it. yes, my friend, you should be very afraid".
 

Conservatives, Patriots & Huskies return to glory
Handicapper
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
87,149
Tokens
LOL....not a single CEO of the supposed 750 was willing to be quoted by name.

I totally concur, I tend not to like "unnamed sources". At the same time, I understand why CEO's do not want to be connected to any such story. They can't get away with the same political speak Hollywood can, and they don't want a political witch hunt against them or a boycott of their company.

Catch 22
 

2009 RX Death Pool Champion
Joined
Apr 3, 2005
Messages
13,603
Tokens
here are the suits.....


<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/3XGJq8wrw5I&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/3XGJq8wrw5I&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
 

New member
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
9,491
Tokens
Are not they the people that the repubs are always trying to give tax cuts to?

I like the party that looks after my interest.
 
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
45,000
Tokens
Are not they the people that the repubs are always trying to give tax cuts to?

I like the party that looks after my interest.

Um, could it be because they pay most of the taxes in
this country?

:ohno:

Top 50% Pays 97% of All Federal Income Taxes


The U.S. income tax system is highly progressive. The top 1% of income earners, by household, paid more than 39% of all federal income taxes in 2005, the top 10% paid more than 70%, and the top 50% paid almost 97%, whereas the bottom 50% paid a little over 3%. Further, 32% of all tax returns filed in 2005 were from people who paid no federal income tax at all.

The chart below (click to enlarge) shows graphically the levels of household income earners, and their proportion of the federal income tax in 2005:


 

the bear is back biatches!! printing cancel....
Joined
Mar 31, 2006
Messages
24,692
Tokens
Wire: BLOOMBERG News (BN) Date: 2008-10-21 04:01:03
Morgan Stanley's Bonuses Get Saved By You and Me: Jonathan Weil


Commentary by Jonathan Weil
Oct. 21 (Bloomberg) -- Wall Street had it wrong: An
investment bank's most precious asset isn't the army of
employees who head down the elevators each day. It's the
paychecks they take with them out the door.
You can imagine the devilish grins on the faces of Morgan
Stanley employees last week, after the Treasury Department said
it would pump $10 billion into the bank. Not only did we, the
taxpayers, save their company, with the help of a Japanese bank
named Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group Inc. More importantly, we
funded their 2008 bonus pool.
Morgan Stanley has accrued $10.7 billion of employee-
compensation expense this year, almost twice as much as its
pretax earnings. The vast majority of this remuneration hasn't
been paid yet. Now it probably will be, assuming the firm
survives through next month. Meantime, Morgan Stanley's stock-
market value has dropped $34.7 billion, to $21 billion, since
the company's fiscal year began.
The rescue of Morgan Stanley's bonus pool is an unpleasant
downside of Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson's decision to inject
$250 billion of cash into U.S. banks in exchange for preferred
stock. It is one thing for a company to pay much more to
employees than it earns for its shareholders. It's quite another
to keep doing it while receiving taxpayer bailout bucks.
Before securities firms were public companies, a brokerage
in need of capital would have called on its partners to pony up.
That's how it still works at private partnerships, such as law
firms. The reason they don't get taxpayer rescues is they can't
credibly threaten to take down the world's financial system.

Global Threats

Morgan Stanley can. So can Paulson's old firm, Goldman
Sachs Group Inc., which also is getting a $10 billion infusion
from Treasury. Year-to-date, Goldman has reported $11.4 billion
of compensation expense, almost twice its $5.9 billion of pretax
earnings. During the same span, its market capitalization has
fallen $41.7 billion, to $57.7 billion.
Morgan Stanley needed Treasury's cash. Goldman didn't, but
got it anyway. As long as Paulson can't think of any better
ideas, the government will keep throwing money at an industry
that pays too many people more than they're worth, to perform
services the world has too much of already. The bright side is
we avoid a global meltdown, for now.
Here's all you really need to know to see who lost and who
benefited most at the Five Families of Wall Street, otherwise
known as Goldman, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers
and Bear Stearns. From the start of their 2004 fiscal years
through yesterday, the big standalone investment banks lost
about $83 billion of stock-market value. During the same period,
they reported about $239 billion of employee-compensation
expense.

Lined Pockets

So, for every dollar of shareholder value destroyed, the
employees got paid almost three. Only a sliver of that money
went to chief executives such as Goldman's Lloyd Blankfein, who
got a $70.3 million package last year, and Lehman's Richard
Fuld, who made $34.4 million. Morgan Stanley's John Mack, by the
way, received $1.6 million for 2007.
The Five Families -- now down to just Goldman and Morgan
Stanley -- weren't alone. Citigroup Inc., which is getting a $25
billion injection from Treasury, has reported $139.3 billion of
compensation expense since the start of 2004, more than double
its $62.8 billion of pretax earnings. Its market cap, by
comparison, has declined by about $168 billion, to $82 billion.
For all the complaints about outrageous executive pay and
how little Paulson is doing to curb it, a big reason why these
firms have been scrounging for capital is they keep blowing huge
wads of it on their rank-and-file, too. The Paulson plan will do
nothing to change that.
In the interim, we continue propping up an industry that's
bloated with overcapacity, because we're all too scared to let
the market fix it. That's good for the people getting bonus
checks at Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs. It's not so great
for the rest of us.

(Jonathan Weil is a Bloomberg News columnist. The opinions
expressed are his own.)
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,119,908
Messages
13,575,089
Members
100,883
Latest member
iniesta2025
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com