Quote:
|
Originally Posted by host
rocahboy, I find it amazing that anyone still takes "at his word". anything that Mr. Bush says:
The "surge", for example, will have to include up to 48,000 troops to make it effective, or believable:
|
You ARE aware that this has nothing to do with the subject people wish to discuss in this thread, aren't you?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JustJess
Am I missing something?
No one is saying government would be/should be regulating business directly. Not putting caps on things, nothing like that. The only thing Bush suggested - and I actually agree with - is that compensation packages should be transparent to shareholders etc, and SUGGESTED that corporations start tying pay to performance. No one wants to make the pay/performance thing a law. Not the right, and not any of the usually-identified-as-left people here either.
The only thing that I agree should be law is the comp transparency.
It seems like you guys are used to automatically arguing, but no one is actually reading anything.  |
I recently sold my Home Depot stock. Partly because its performance sucked, and partly because they compensated a lackluster CEO to the tune of $240 million. That caused me to decide they don't need my money.
If more stockholders did the same, corporate salaries would get back to reality, without the need for government interference.
Agreed on the transparency issue.