[P-Marlowe]

We expressly do NOT have a right to be offended by what others own.

When you are a shareholder, you do have the right to be offended by what the CEO is earning. Especially when your stock starts to dive while your CEO and board of directors is raiding the company.

All this regulation would do is to provide the owners of the company with a right to approve or disapprove of the compensation package of the CEO.

Actually I am puzzled as to why there is so much opposition to this idea.

[Earthdweller]

Actually I am puzzled as to why there is so much opposition to this idea.

Because it's a drop in the bucket to our problems and it will only serve as a minuscule pacifier to a few and run the pay-offs further underground.

[DManA]

McCain was not speaking of shareholders. He was using the collective we. I can't understand why conservatives would support even one more increment of the already stifling regulations on private business.

[piytar]

“Actually I am puzzled as to why there is so much opposition to this idea.”

For the same reason most KOscum and DUmmies hate anything and everything GW does. There are many freepers here who suffer from McCain Derangement Sybdrome. McCain proposed it, ergo it is uncontitutional socialism, further proof he is just like Obama, etc.

[6ppc]

Actually I am puzzled as to why there is so much opposition to this idea.

Because everyone is responding to the headline and didn't bother to read the article. The headline is totally misleading as to the content of the article.

[668 - Neighbor of the Beast]

Actually I am puzzled as to why there is so much opposition to this idea.

That's what they always say when the camel's nose enters the tent.

[farlander]

The opposition is to the idea that it is mandated. What business of governtment is that ? If shareholders object, they should elect the board and fire everyone. Otherwise, thanks for playing.