Jump to content
[[Template core/front/custom/_customHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

Obama Forces GM CEO out.


Perchoutofwater
 Share

Recommended Posts

What I'd really like to hear from all you libs is the constitutional justification for the obamessiah taking over car companies, or any bailouts for that matter.

 

You killed shrub (rightly so) for his trampling of constitutional rights with Patriot, gitmo, etc. But now strangely silent about the constitution, or you offer justifications (just like the righties did defending shrub).

 

Where in the constitution does it say the government can't involve itself in the private sector? And where was that argument when child labor laws were enacted? Or anti-trust laws? :wacko:

 

Now if the government took over a mega-CHURCH, I could see a constitutional argument...

 

ETA: BTW, How did you feel about King Ronnie and the air traffic controllers? I trust you felt he was completely overstepping his governmental boundaries?

Edited by cre8tiff
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 231
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

What I'd really like to hear from all you libs is the constitutional justification for the obamessiah taking over car companies, or any bailouts for that matter.

 

You killed shrub (rightly so) for his trampling of constitutional rights with Patriot, gitmo, etc. But now strangely silent about the constitution, or you offer justifications (just like the righties did defending shrub).

 

The chief exec was asked to step down as a condition of getting federal bailout aid. From every report, it appears it was keystone kop operation. They agreed to make rather obtainable benchmarks under the previous agreement and didn't make one. I have little problem with this, if constitutional scholars have a problem, we will hear about it soon.

 

I didn't realize that receiving govt. approval of a massive bailout plan under whatever circumstances a private entity sees fit, and involving massive amounts of taxpayer dollars, was a right guaranteed under the constitution. :wacko:

Edited by bushwacked
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wasn't aware that we had hope.... :wacko:

 

are you sure that is an option at this point?....I think the US economic state is and will continue to be hopeless for the next 4-6 years at a minimum....

 

There is money to be made an opportunity to be had. BFD if the government takes over everything including the churches. Who says that we are reliant on the US govt for salvation?

 

Ever read Atlas Shrugged? Pick up your crap and move somewhere that appreciates ingenuity and profitability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where in the constitution does it say the government can't involve itself in the private sector? And where was that argument when child labor laws were enacted? Or anti-trust laws? :wacko:

 

Now if the government took over a mega-CHURCH, I could see a constitutional argument...

 

ETA: BTW, How did you feel about King Ronnie and the air traffic controllers? I trust you felt he was completely overstepping his governmental boundaries?

 

Have you ever read that pesky Constitution? Do you know how it works?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The chief exec was asked to step down as a condition of getting federal bailout aid.

 

This.

 

All this "Obama fired him" talk is rhetoric. As a condition of receiving more undeserved federal money, you must replace this guy who is too incompetent to put together a plan for recovery in 90 days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This.

 

All this "Obama fired him" talk is rhetoric. As a condition of receiving more undeserved federal money, you must replace this guy who is too incompetent to put together a plan for recovery in 90 days.

 

I used to receive unemployment benefits 2-3 months a year, when I worked seasonally for Washington DNR. Per a requirement of receiving the benefits, it was mandatory that I was actively looking for work and making at least 2 job contacts a week, while documenting those. I'm going to contact my lawyer so I can sue the state of Washington for eroding my constitutional rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wagoner career highlights, for those of you that think we should give more tax money to a company this guy runs:

 

- Stock down 98% since he became president and CEO

- Paid out huge dividends and bonuses as his pension and healthcare obligations became unmanageable

- Cut out electric vehicle, hybrid and small car development in favor of SUVs because it was more profitable, despite the fact that it pigeonholed the company and lost them 10% of the market share to Toyota and Honda.

 

I am in favor of this move.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

March 30 (Bloomberg) -- General Motors Corp. Chief Executive Officer Rick Wagoner may be eligible for pensions valued at $20.2 million as of the end of 2008, according to a regulatory filing. He isn’t eligible for severance pay.

 

The pensions under two retirement plans include a $68,900 yearly amount and five annual payments of $4.5 million, according to the Detroit-based company’s annual report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 5.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...id=aAaIGx9s_otI

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wagoner career highlights, for those of you that think we should give more tax money to a company this guy runs:

 

- Stock down 98% since he became president and CEO

- Paid out huge dividends and bonuses as his pension and healthcare obligations became unmanageable

- Cut out electric vehicle, hybrid and small car development in favor of SUVs because it was more profitable, despite the fact that it pigeonholed the company and lost them 10% of the market share to Toyota and Honda.

 

I am in favor of this move.

Could an Atomic CEO be next to get the Obama ax? :wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course you are aware we have hope...

 

Dont you HOPE that this economic crisis does NOT last 4-6 years?

Dont you HOPE that you dont lose your job or ability to take care of yourself/family(if you have one)?

 

Right now for many people HOPE truly is all they have...they HOPE they dont lose their job...they HOPE they can find a new job because they

just lost their job....they HOPE that the economy gets fixed so their children dont have to suffer thru what they are suffering thru...they HOPE that their loved ones fighting in IRAQ etc come home safe.

 

like him or hate him for whatever reason can anyone say that they really HOPE that Obama fails to fix our economy? No matter if you agree with his methods or not do people really HOPE he fails?

 

to quote one of my favorite actors from one of my favorite movies: "either we heal now as a team. Or we will die as individuals"

 

 

I completely agree...I just don't see anyone around me that realizes what is going on....

 

Obama can't fix our economy....only the people can, but the mindset everyone has is that something is just going to whisk us out of this predicament and we'll be back to blowing our money on unnecessary BS...like rims and a new cell phone every 3-6 months...

 

oh wait...people are still doing that :wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wagoner career highlights, for those of you that think we should give more tax money to a company this guy runs:

 

- Stock down 98% since he became president and CEO

- Paid out huge dividends and bonuses as his pension and healthcare obligations became unmanageable

- Cut out electric vehicle, hybrid and small car development in favor of SUVs because it was more profitable, despite the fact that it pigeonholed the company and lost them 10% of the market share to Toyota and Honda.

 

I am in favor of this move.

 

Here is a question for you. How many of us griping about this move thought the car companies should receive a dime? I know I was against the auto bail out from word go, as were most of the people I see here complaining about it. Are the banks that were forced to take government money so that the government could hide which banks were in trouble also subject to this type of government interference? Can Obama decide that a particular bank or banker didn't give him enough in contributions, and just replace him because the banks stock goes down one week?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wagoner career highlights, for those of you that think we should give more tax money to a company this guy runs:

 

- Stock down 98% since he became president and CEO

- Paid out huge dividends and bonuses as his pension and healthcare obligations became unmanageable

- Cut out electric vehicle, hybrid and small car development in favor of SUVs because it was more profitable, despite the fact that it pigeonholed the company and lost them 10% of the market share to Toyota and Honda.

 

I am in favor of this move.

 

It doesn't matter if he did a good job or a bad job. It matters that it was the President who forced him out. People who don't do a good job in the private sector get fired all of the time, but not by the President. Never by the President.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those FORD guys look pretty smart now. Keep the Gubment out of the private sector IMO, if your crappy business decisions force your company to fail someone else will be along shortly to pick up your customers.

Capitalism. Look it up.

Given history's many examples, can anyone really believe that state ism is the answer here ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter if he did a good job or a bad job. It matters that it was the President who forced him out. People who don't do a good job in the private sector get fired all of the time, but not by the President. Never by the President.

 

I'm against the bailout of the auto industry. But, if the argument to save it is "It would hurt the citizens of (Michigan) the US too much and cause us to lose too many jobs", then the best we can hope for is competent leadership from them.

 

No Bailout > Bailout to a company without incompetent leadership > Bailout to company with incompetent leadership

 

The people arguing that Wagoner shouldn't have been forced out are either arguing for a jump in the wayback machine to take back our bailout money (which Bush gave them, let's remember), or they are arguing for an even bigger waste of money. Which one is it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm against the bailout of the auto industry. But, if the argument to save it is "It would hurt the citizens of (Michigan) the US too much and cause us to lose too many jobs", then the best we can hope for is competent leadership from them.

 

No Bailout > Bailout to a company without incompetent leadership > Bailout to company with incompetent leadership

 

The people arguing that Wagoner shouldn't have been forced out are either arguing for a jump in the wayback machine to take back our bailout money (which Bush gave them, let's remember), or they are arguing for an even bigger waste of money. Which one is it?

 

Just stop. Just because you've made a mistake in giving them the first few billion doesn't mean you continue to throw good money after bad. Let. them. die. Someone will pick up the slack. If not, it isn't a viable company anyway. Many UAW worker's jobs require no more skill than it does to make the fries at McDonalds. You want social and economic justice? Start there. If they lose their jobs and can't do anything else, then their decisions put them in that position.

 

Perch's comments are also valid - what might have happened if the card check bill passed and FedEx had killed the purchase of those planes? Would the obamessiah have decided that purchase was essential to the economy, and had fedgov step in and take over FedEx? Tell me, where is the line? Where do you say "This far, but no further?" Using these justifications statist fedgov can nationalize anything, and some folks would be OK with that. Does no one have the right to keep what they've built and earned?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter if he did a good job or a bad job. It matters that it was the President who forced him out. People who don't do a good job in the private sector get fired all of the time, but not by the President. Never by the President.

 

 

 

Tell that to the Air Traffic Controllers in the 80's. Touche. :wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Enlighten me. Tell me exactly where the auto bailout situation is covered in the Constitution. I'd love to read up on it. :wacko:

 

Allow me to edumacate you.

 

The articles of the constitution that define the threee branches of government are very specific in defining what each branch is allowed to do in terms of governance.

 

in article 1, section 1:

 

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

 

And then the power of Congress are specifically defined in article 1, section 8:

 

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

 

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

 

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

 

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

 

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

 

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

 

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

 

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

 

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

 

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

 

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

 

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

 

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

 

To provide and maintain a Navy;

 

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

 

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

 

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

 

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

 

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

 

So you see, the powers granted to Congress are very specific. This is not a question of "Where does the constitution specify that X can't be done by the government?", it's a question of "Where does the constitution specify that X can be done by the government. The constitution was written specifically to grant powers to the government, not to set limits on otherwise unlimited powers. This is true in all of the Articles of the constitution. The amendments take on a different course and purpose, but that's for later.

 

What this essentially means is that any actions taken by Congress that are not allotted for specifically in Article one, or that are not allowed later by amendment, are an illegal seizure of power by the Federal Government.

 

It can certainly be argued that child labor laws are not direct involvement in a business. Frankly, while I agree with child labor laws, I am not sure exactly how congress gains the power to enact them. It is certainly an easier argument to make than congress enacting laws that affect a specific private entity, or the President taking actions to fire an executive in a private company

 

In article 2:

 

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

 

Easy to understand. Congress makes laws, the President executes the laws as drafted. Outside of that, the President has only the following powers granted to him by the Constitution, in Article 2, Section2:

 

Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments

 

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

 

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

 

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

 

That's it. In Section 3, it defines that he can convene congress if necessary, make recommendations to Congress, but is otherwise bound to execute the laws as they have legislated.

 

Section 3 - State of the Union, Convening Congress

 

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

 

Again, nowhere does it grant the power to take over a private corporation, or for direct involvement in business in any fashion.

 

There is no congressional amendment that defines or allows a congressional or presidential power to interfere with a private business.

 

The problem here is that the only entity that, as an active participant in the daily workings of our country, can hold the government and it's powers in check is...the government. So long as the Federal government chooses to ignore the limits set upon it by the constitution, and that would include the Judicial branch which is certainly not keeping the other two branches in check, then there is no bar to the power they can usurp.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, bailing out private corporations with taxpayers money is thesignificant issue.

 

No, it's not THE significant issue. Not to downplay it, because throwing taxpayer money at failed businesses is incredibly disturbing, but THE significant issue is a President who feels no compunction whatsoever about unilateral action, bypassing the legislative branch of government, while injecting the federal government into the private sector. This is a fundamental breakdown and an end run around not only Congress but the Constitution. This is something that should profoundly disturb all Americans and shakes the very roots of our economic and political systems.

Edited by Bronco Billy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it's not THE significant issue. Not to downplay it, because throwing taxpayer money at failed businesses is incredibly disturbing, but THE significant issue is a President who feels no compunction whatsoever about unilateral action, bypassing the legislative branch of government, while injecting the federal government into the private sector. This is a fundamental breakdown and an end run around not only Congress but the Constitution. This is something that should profoundly disturb all Americans and shakes the very roots of our economic and political systems.

 

Didn't you get the memo? All that was bad and terrible under Bush is now innovative, bold, capable and praiseworthy under Obama. :celebrategoodtimesc'mon!:

 

Not that I would not end around congress if I were POTUS. They are in utter shambles and have no clue of their own powers and responsibilities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information