How is it that the CEO can make a 4 BILLION dollar boondogle and survive???? Four billion loss was from the breakup fee from the T-Mobile merger failure.
Now the pension is underfunded at ~84%. ATT is still on the hook for funding at 100%
Stephenson was penalized for the failure by the board. Instead of his total compensation being 17 million, it's now a mere 15 million. (read your own sarcasm into that one). You can bet Stephenson's pension or the executive pensions are NOT underfunded.
ATT needs to get their act together.
Randall is bullet proof. He did in a sense steal 4 billion dollars from T, and used it for personal gain. But in this day and age, CEO's who steal and lie and cheat are rewarded not punished, paid off not fired, and sometimes given bonuses for it. This is not longer the real world where people are held accountable for their actions. Randall is a 1%r, just like the President. They make the rules because they have all the money and they screw the common American
>>>>Would never give them a chance to screw me....cause that is their goal....
Please be careful of what you say, Ricky the liberal may interpret this as an invitation it really won't matter to him what gender you are.
to runnerd920---- always worry more about the Republicans taking my money.... you're saying that the company won't figure out a way to keep that pension money? how naive are you......isn't that what the 1996 pension act backed by Bush2 has and will do???? Would never give them a chance to screw me....cause that is their goal....
in some ways pension underfunding is class warfare.I say this because I know of no companies who underfund upper management as to bonuses/options/ (pay for performance?), golden parachutes/stock awards/full medical/full dental,etc etc. Also you must consider the pensions were also offered to workers in lieu of pay and or future pay increases. I have worked in shops that at contract time the company would offer say an extra .25 per hour or an increase in the pension per month per year of working at retirement time. Well, guess what? Inevitably the younger workers wanted the money and older wanted the increase in pension. The younger were not looking ahead 30+ yrs.
>>>but to demand deficit spending reduction
He doesn't demand deficit spending reduction. It's a pledge about taxes. It says nothing about spending.
Bush & Congressional Republicans kept the pledge while growing spending by leaps and bounds. It is the most irresponsible thing I can imagine.
Here's the text:
>>>an approach you seem to abhor.
I do abhor it, because it is bad for our country. Every government we have had since the Great Depression has spent its way out of the recessions. There is a broad consensus that this is what is best, long-term, for the country. And, like it or not, you are a part of this country. Unless, of course, you move to Singapore and renounce your citizenship (citizenship, remember that?) like certain FB executives.
Whether you think so or not, you have benefited from the strong and stable economy this has fostered. You have benefited by being able to afford and grow our massive defense establishment--the only part of government you claim to enjoy. You want these benefits and you have received the benefits. Those you did not receive you had access to if, god forbid, you needed them due to medical problems or other needs.
And those are only the indirect benefits. Do you intend to turn down Medicare? Social Security? Doubtful. Defense, Soc. Sec., Medicare are the three largest parts of our budget.
What you do is use a few relatively small programs you don't like to justify irresponsibility on your part. That type of rationalizing may help you feel righteously indignant every time you're asked to do your share. But it doesn't pay for your stuff.
But again, the worst part is you are knowingly dumping the consequences of this on your children and grandchildren.
......"I'm looking for politicians who have the guts to say no every time some clown comes along asking for something"
So when convicted tax evader, Jack Abramoff’s buddy, Grover Norquist asks the popularly elected representatives of all the people to sign an oath to his political philosophy which contradicts their oath to all the people – an oath that says to never compromise on taxes for the wealthy and corporations, but to demand deficit spending reduction funded on the backs of the middle class, the elderly and the poor – that’s NOT asking for something??????
I am continually amazed how many people who are in no way benefiting from these policies, defend them for the corporations and 1 per centers who are taking advantage of both these policies and the naive people foolishly defending them. A quarter of total US income now accrues to the richest 1% - less than 40 years ago it was only 10%. One unfortunate by-product of economic inequality is that it also brings inequality in opportunity and political inequality. But, hey, you have a Supreme Court who told us that is the American way – Corporations and foreign special interests have the same rights as John Q. Public.
How can you not find this troubling? Oh, that’s right; it’s all the lazy, poor people’s fault.
"Then stop asking for more stuff"
I'm not asking govt at any level for jack spit in more stuff and the folks I know aren't asking for more either. I can't remember asking for anything for years but for govt to get out of my face. A don't call me, I'll call you approach.
Consistent with that view, I'm looking for politicians who have the guts to say no every time some clown comes along asking for something. I will at least admit they are few and far between on both sides of the aisle which is far more than I can say for you. I've said it before, that is exactly why folks are starting to ask politicians to sign commitments consistent with their campaign rhetoric, an approach you seem to abhor.
Oh, by the way, did I mention I'm very, very tired of paying for stuff for other people.