Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TigerPaw who wrote (10110)	1/27/2006 6:26:37 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541457

Stock represents ownership in the company. "Paying off the passive investment" against the owners will, is similar to exercising eminent domain against someone's property. In both cases the owner is compensated but in both cases the owner is no longer the owner at the end, no matter what they might want to happen. Tim

To: TigerPaw who wrote (10110)	1/27/2006 6:45:08 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541457

Oops. New study by non-partisan research firm says no dice to claims Jack Abramoff was steering tribal money to Dems like he was to Republicans. In fact, the study suggests opposite... (January 27, 2006 -- 04:43 PM EST // link) talkingpointsmemo.com Some nuggets ... The analysis shows that when Abramoff took on his tribal clients, the majority of them dramatically ratcheted up donations to Republicans. Meanwhile, donations to Democrats from the same clients either dropped, remained largely static or, in two cases, rose by a far smaller percentage than the ones to Republicans did. This pattern suggests that whatever money went to Democrats, rather than having been steered by Abramoff, may have largely been money the tribes would have given anyway. and this ... The analysis shows: in total, the donations of Abramoff’s tribal clients to Democrats dropped by nine percent after they hired him, while their donations to Republicans more than doubled, increasing by 135 percent after they signed him up; five out of seven of Abramoff’s tribal clients vastly favored Republican candidates over Democratic ones; four of the seven began giving substantially more to Republicans than Democrats after he took them on; Abramoff’s clients gave well over twice as much to Republicans than Democrats, while tribes not affiliated with Abramoff gave well over twice as much to Democrats than the GOP -- exactly the reverse pattern. The truth is that only idiots and liars (actually, I guess the liars 'say' but don't 'believe') think the Abramoff operation was really bipartisan in any meaningful sense. But here's at least some more data points to add to the mix. -- Josh Marshall ___________________________________ THE DEMS DON'T KNOW JACK prospect.org

To: TigerPaw who wrote (10110)	1/27/2006 7:05:38 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541457

It would not rely on the good will of the upper management, it would be the way things work. Mandating stock dividends as part of the compensation package? I don't get it. I get it less than I get the deferred salary to heirs. It seems to me that employees would want more choices, not fewer, in their benefit packages. I'd take the cash. And I'd buy whatever stocks I wanted with it. I wouldn't want to be forced into taking the stock of my company as part of my compensation. I can't believe that you would either. Look at all the people now who have their 401Ks largely invested in company stock. I bet they sure wish they had diversified. I don't understand why you want to take options away from employees, I don't understand how that would be fair, and I don't understand how that would benefit anyone--the company, society, the employee, the government, anybody. I really don't.