Why CEOs can't stand Obama

[whell]

There has been comments in the forum regarding the $2.0 Billion that corp America is "sitting on", and why such companies are hording cash versus investing and spurring the economy. Here's some CEO perspectives on why they're choosing to sit on the sidelines right now:

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com...and-obama.aspx

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by whell

There has been comments in the forum regarding the $2.0 Billion that corp America is "sitting on", and why such companies are hording cash versus investing and spurring the economy. Here's some CEO perspectives on why they're choosing to sit on the sidelines right now:

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com...and-obama.aspx

"In unusually vitriolic attacks on a sitting president, including references to communist Russia and Adolf Hitler, CEOs have complained they can't predict what Obama will do next -- and how his new regulations and taxes might hit their companies."

And we're supposed to take these "CEOs" seriously?

John

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by whell

There has been comments in the forum regarding the $2.0 Billion that corp America is "sitting on", and why such companies are hording cash versus investing and spurring the economy. Here's some CEO perspectives on why they're choosing to sit on the sidelines right now:

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com...and-obama.aspx

lmao

just spoiled little brats

nothing more

it's really off putting

[BlueStreak]

In other words they hate not having a government that sucks up to them. Boo Hoo, so life is hard. Poor babies, somebody get the spoiled little bastards a tissue.

Hey! I see the sequel to Wall Street is out! Maybe this time someone KILLS Gekko in the most shocking manner conceivable? Probably not, but I can dream can't I?

Dave

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by Boreas

"In unusually vitriolic attacks on a sitting president, including references to communist Russia and Adolf Hitler, CEOs have complained they can't predict what Obama will do next -- and how his new regulations and taxes might hit their companies."

And we're supposed to take these "CEOs" seriously?

John

Certainly NOT T.J. Rodgers if he is who I think, wasn't he the hatchet man who used to take ailing companies and bleed them dry at considerable profit to himself?

[whell]

Originally Posted by merrylander

Certainly NOT T.J. Rodgers if he is who I think, wasn't he the hatchet man who used to take ailing companies and bleed them dry at considerable profit to himself?

No. Rodgers is a life-long computer guy.

[merrylander]

Apparently also a libertarian and a laissez faire capitalist and look just where that got us.

[d-ray657]

One of the quotes in that article highlighted the reason why corporations do not deserve the status of persons. One of the CEOs defended the morality of his position by stating that it protected the bottom line. If the only duty these "persons" owe is to the bottom line, they are not responsible citizens. They lack humanity, therefore, they do not deserve to be persons.

Regards,

D-Ray

[piece-itpete]

"CEOs are uncertain, so they don't want to have the liability of adding a lot of employees,"

Taa da!

Like it or not, CEOs owe the shareholders their due - isn't it called 'fiduciary duty'?

So the Dems are demonizing business. Brilliant, that'll spur growth.

Pete

PS:

[d-ray657]

To say corporations are not persons - or that they don't deserve to be - is not to demonize them. However, because they lack human values, they do not deserve to stand on equal footing as humans with respect to constitutional rights. The CEO's certainly want to demonize the President, though. They don't give a flying flip about the working stiffs if they are not going to bring them an immediate profit.

Regards,

D-Ray