[chrisser]

Why would anyone be opposed to limiting compensation to incompetent, fatcat executives receiving MY taxpayer dollars?

Because if you ever want those tax dollars back, you need competent management at the top.

What you are behind is a system where bad management runs the company into the ground, the government bails them out, puts a salary cap, the executives responsible leave (with all the salary they made previous intact) and no one with the capability to fix the companies will take the job because the salaries are too low.

It takes a helluva good executive at the reigns of a struggling company to get it back into profitability, and you want to limit the pool of people who will take the job to only those who are desperate enough to do it at a cut rate?

[ArmedConservative]

chrisser, spot on.

I could not agree more.

[Red in Blue PA]

“It takes a helluva good executive at the reigns of a struggling company to get it back into profitability”

If the CEO is incompetent while making $100 Million, then what?

Would love to hear you and others if we subsituted “GM” for “Wall Street”

[bronxboy]

If you are a struggling company...you can’t afford to pay 100 million in salaries and bonus...the morons bankrupted their companies and should all be fired...new management is needed. Also, get rid of the boards...bastions of cronyism and return control to stockholders.

[P-Marlowe]

Because if you ever want those tax dollars back, you need competent management at the top.

LOL!