Perchoutofwater Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 GM CEO forced out by the government. I know some will say "they took public money, the public should have some say", and while I can understand that, I don't necessarily agree with it. I really didn't want the government (The Bush Administration) to bail them out, then I really didn't want the government (The Obama Administration) to throw more good money after bad. We should have just let them go bankrupt, they probably will anyway, and we all could have saved a lot of money, and we wouldn't have government over-reaching its bounds by quite so much. What really worries me with this isn't whether or not GM's CEO should have been canned, but that the government is doing the canning, instead of the board of directors. Again there will be those that say "well they took government money!", and my response to that is, what about the banks that were not floundering but were forced to take government money so that the government could keep the American public in the dark as to which banks were about to topple? Are they now subject to the same government treatment, even though they in fact did the government a favor? This scares me a little. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cre8tiff Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 Something Obama did bothers you? NEWS FRICKEN FLASH. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 News Flash: The economic condition we are in is F'n scary Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 Something Obama did bothers you? NEWS FRICKEN FLASH. Oh please. Obama can do no wrong in your simple little eyes. This is not an insignificant action here. It is not the place of a President to fire and hire executives like this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 (edited) let me ask...was this able to be done because of the strings attached to GM getting the money they got? If so I guess this falls under the careful what you wish for category EDIT: Disclaimer, I did not vote for obama. Edited March 30, 2009 by keggerz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 this move is all a show. the govt needs to say they did something in order to funnel more of our money into a failed company and industry. communism rocks!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cre8tiff Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 Oh please. Obama can do no wrong in your simple little eyes. This is not an insignificant action here. It is not the place of a President to fire and hire executives like this. There is plenty I don't agree with, it's just there is so much crap here from ya'll that there is no need to voice it. That said, I see no problem with the government leveraging the fact that in order to get taxpayer dollars, a company must have capable leadership. I think it is a little ridiculous NOT to insist so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted March 30, 2009 Author Share Posted March 30, 2009 let me ask...was this able to be done because of the strings attached to GM getting the money they got? If so I guess this falls under the careful what you wish for category EDIT: Disclaimer, I did not vote for obama. First like I said in my original post, they should have been allowed to fail, they are more than likely going to fail anyway. My biggest concern isn't what they are doing to GM, but what about the banks that took money as part of the government's smoke screen? Are they subject to this as well? Keg, there is no doubt the economy is a little bit scary, but it appears as though Obama is trying to fundamentally change the role of government in business. So now instead of just economic uncertainty, there is a ton of uncertainty as to what the role of government is going to be and how that will affect business. If anything I see this move as bad for the economy as it just injects that much more uncertainty into it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 so now the CEO of GM is a political appointee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted March 30, 2009 Author Share Posted March 30, 2009 (edited) so now the CEO of GM is a political appointee Barney Frank's new lover? Edited March 30, 2009 by Perchoutofwater Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 so now the CEO of GM is a political appointee Make sure he's another tax cheat, please. We need more tax cheats telling us to do the right thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 I agree with perch - if this guy lost his job over the money he/they took, then why isn't the Board of Directors from AIG on the street after taking Auto$ x 5 or 6 - instead of still paying off the bonuses? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted March 30, 2009 Author Share Posted March 30, 2009 I agree with perch - if this guy lost his job over the money he/they took, then why isn't the Board of Directors from AIG on the street after taking Auto$ x 5 or 6 - instead of still paying off the bonuses? Well AIG contributed a hugh amount to Obama's campaign. But really my concern is that the government is going to be involved in the hiring and firing practices of a private business. Like I said, it can be argued, that they took government money that they should be subject to this, but what about the banks that took federal money to help with the government's smoke screen? Are they subject to this kind of treatment too? What other ways is Obama going to force himself on businesses? Bush never should have started the bail out of GM, he should have had the stones to say, nope you are a private business, you are not relevant to national security, you are on your own. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 Maybe Toyota and Honda and BMW can make our tanks during the next War. Yay, America...you're stupid and short sighted. You've already cashed out your children's financial future. so let's just kill any future for this country. Eventually you'll run out of money to buy these foreign products when you have nothing else to offer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 I agree with perch - if this guy lost his job over the money he/they took, then why isn't the Board of Directors from AIG on the street after taking Auto$ x 5 or 6 - instead of still paying off the bonuses? I could be wrong on this, but the CEO of AIG has only been in place since after all the terrible decisions have been made. Also, it was not in his power to withhold the bonuses because there were contracts in place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 I could be wrong on this, but the CEO of AIG has only been in place since after all the terrible decisions have been made. Also, it was not in his power to withhold the bonuses because there were contracts in place. Let's drop the contract thing to ratchet down the hyperbole. The auto idustry took 15% (maybe?) of what the banks have taken, yet it hasn't cost anyone a single job that I'm aware of. More details needed, but this seems odd, especially when I'd much rather see Wall Street when I wore my first dressers getting the slip. Fer cryin's out loud we OWN citi. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 just saw this...... Government Motors Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 This country could get by on community banks alone. There is no real need for some large super-big banks. This country has far greater needs and the money could be spent far wiser than throwing it at these "too large to fail" entities. I can't believe it if the Citibanks and such aren't forced to break up into smaller pieces (like we'll do with GM/Ford). GM had to stand in front of Congress being grilled for nothing compared to the money we've thrown at the insurance/financial sector and we don't even know where most of that money went. This is as stupid as wasting 2 weeks on $165 million in bonuses to cover the fact we've thrown trillions down the toilet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 The auto idustry took 15% (maybe?) of what the banks have taken, yet it hasn't cost anyone a single job that I'm aware of. More details needed, but this seems odd, especially when I'd much rather see Wall Street when I wore my first dressers getting the slip. Fer cryin's out loud we OWN citi. I'm pretty sure there was a lot of turnover in AIG's executive team. These are some names I've found of executives who left: Martin Sullivan Robert Willumstad Maurice Greenberg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 why isn't the Board of Directors from AIG on the street after taking Auto$ x 5 or 6 - instead of still paying off the bonuses? at least two of them I know of are working for obama now -- richard holbrooke and martin feldstein. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 For all those that said Obama is not living up to campaign promises, he certainly did promise fundamental change with respect to government policies on economics. He's delivering. The government already controls the money (through use of the Fed and the IRS), it controls education through the public education system and the board of accreditation (private schools still report to the government) and so is teaching our young people how to think on top of teaching them knowledge, it controls much of the aspects of how you raise your family, it controls the food and medicine through the FDA, and soon will control the doctors through government run healthcare (more so than it does through the medical licensing boards). Soon it will also control much of the private sector and several years of every American citizen's life (If Rahm has his way with the national service issue), accomplishing a greater level of indoctrination. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 For all those that said Obama is not living up to campaign promises, he certainly did promise fundamental change with respect to government policies on economics. He's delivering. The government already controls the money (through use of the Fed and the IRS), it controls education through the public education system and the board of accreditation (private schools still report to the government) and so is teaching our young people how to think on top of teaching them knowledge, it controls much of the aspects of how you raise your family, it controls the food and medicine through the FDA, and soon will control the doctors through government run healthcare (more so than it does through the medical licensing boards). Soon it will also control much of the private sector and several years of every American citizen's life (If Rahm has his way with the national service issue), accomplishing a greater level of indoctrination. Have to agree here!! We now return you to our regularly scheduled programming. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 It's funny that people still think the Civil War was fought over slavery and not Federal Government taking over everything. Those Yankee schools don't teach real good, do they? It has happened before and it will happen again. So say we all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 Have to agree here!! We now return you to our regularly scheduled programming. Intelligent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 The verdict was gloomier for Chrysler. The government said it would provide Chrysler with capital for 30 days to cut a workable arrangement with Fiat SpA, the Italian auto maker that has a tentative alliance with Chrysler. If the two reach a definitive alliance agreement, the government would consider investing as much as $6 billion more in Chrysler. If the talks fail, the company would be allowed to collapse. way to give chrysler absolutely zero leverage in those negotiations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.