Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: justlurking

damn..... an intellegent person whit an intellegent reply... I just do not know where to begin ( this is not sarcasm )

I would agree with you on both one and two... as for number three, the article is about the pbgc not being able to meet it’s obligations currently.. therefore the logical conclusion is that i will either have my taxes raised, or services reduced, in order for the government to meet the obligations of a private pension plan...

I agree with your description of number 4, but I disagree with not being able to persue them if they are doing shady, but legal deals. I also cannot agree with them taking millions after the fact. That cash should go to meet obligations.

As for number 5, i write and keep in contact with all my representatives in government... but if the sheeple keep electing them, we are all toast... might be time to take up operation cheapskate again ( starve the beast )..


30 posted on 02/02/2012 11:32:56 AM PST by joe fonebone (Project Gunwalker, this will make watergate look like the warm up band......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]


To: joe fonebone
as for number three, the article is about the pbgc not being able to meet it’s obligations currently.. therefore the logical conclusion is that i will either have my taxes raised, or services reduced, in order for the government to meet the obligations of a private pension plan...

Yeah, I should have said: "WHEN the PBGC can't meet their obligations." It sucks, but that's how they set it up -- just like Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Sallie Mae, and myriad public employee pension plans that are under-funded.

I agree with your description of number 4, but I disagree with not being able to persue them if they are doing shady, but legal deals. I also cannot agree with them taking millions after the fact. That cash should go to meet obligations.

If it's legal, then it's not shady -- at least according to the law. And, here's the gotcha: when C-level officers get their golden parachutes, it's honoring a contract. The company offered them that guarantee when they hired the employee, and the company is obligated to fulfill it. Depending on the terms, the obligation may come before other obligations.

No one else gets that kind of guarantee, but it has become "normal" to entice executives to jump ship. Do they deserve it? It depends. Steve Jobs deserved his: after being squeezed out of Apple, they offered him a big incentive to return. And it paid off, big time. Of course, there are plenty of examples where the parachute wasn't deserved.

However, the fault or the credit for offering parachutes to C-level executives lies with the Board of Directors. And they are elected by the stockholders. So, the practice will only be curbed if stockholders demand it, and vote out board members that don't listen.

31 posted on 02/02/2012 1:02:23 PM PST by justlurking (The only remedy for a bad guy with a gun is a good WOMAN (Sgt. Kimberly Munley) with a gun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson