Ronaldus Magnus
Well-Known Member
When they come begging the government should say no. Not just no but HELL no....learn to run your company the right way. Bankruptcy court is down the hall....Good Day.
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
The President of the US orders a private citizen to quit his job
- Thread starter Little-Acorn
- Start date
When they come begging the government should say no. Not just no but HELL no....learn to run your company the right way. Bankruptcy court is down the hall....Good Day.
Werbung:
Little-Acorn
Well-Known Member
I couldn't have said it better. This should have been said a thousand times over the last thirty years (or severnty, actually).
But since it wasn't, now what do we do, to get back to actual Constitutional adherence?
Mr. Shaman
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2007
- Messages
- 7,829
BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Buh-BYE, Corporate-Welfare (until the next Republican lands in the Oval Office.)
Buh-BYE, Corporate-Welfare (until the next Republican lands in the Oval Office.)
Mr. Shaman
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2007
- Messages
- 7,829
Republicans have always called it Accepting Responsibility For Your OWN Actions.
chestnut
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2008
- Messages
- 1,222
The only reason the Auto companies got any money at all, which is not even legal, is because of the UAW and the donations it makes to the dems in congress along with Obama.
If the UAW was not donating millions and expecting a payback, the bailouts would have never happened to begin with.
If the UAW was not donating millions and expecting a payback, the bailouts would have never happened to begin with.
Mr. Shaman
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2007
- Messages
- 7,829
Ya' got any SIGNIFICANT-collateral???????????
Probably, not...........
Probably, not...........
Little-Acorn
Well-Known Member
The govt did a fair amount of harm, requiring extreme smog controls, CAFE standards that shrank cars and made them lighter and more dangerous in crashes, etc. Some of it was beneficial... but all of it was expensive, and coerced.
But the principal culprit in the automakers' present troubles, was the unions. They originated for good and just purposes, getting workers together to fight against old-time management's practice of getting together to oppose workers. But they've far outlived their usefulness, and still hang around to extort fantastic "benefits" from the companies like lifetime medical coverage for employees who worked relatively short periods; disproportionately high wages for comparatively trivial, simple work, etc.
Long before the mortgage crisis hit in the last year or two, many quarters went by where GM lost $4,000 dollars on EVERY car it made. The losses were incredible, staggering... and GM staggered. And most of the money was going to the union-forced programs I mentioned.
To the extent that government prevented the companies from resisting or defeating the UNREASONABLE demands of unions, the govt is also culpable. But I place most blame on the greed and sefishness of unions... and their rank-and file members. Yes, the members are living well, especially considering the work they do. And their companies are dying as a direct result.
Andy
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2008
- Messages
- 3,497
You still don't get that it was government fault for giving out the money in the first place? Only an idiot would look at the government blowing his money all over the place, and be happy that the government is now kicking the people who make the company work, out of their position.
This is what is wrong with America. We are more upset with the irrelevant, than the real infringements of our government on society.
But how long will Americans remain stupid, and let their liberties go, is a scary thing to wonder.
If the shareholders or the board fired him then it is entirely acceptable.
GenSeneca
Well-Known Member
Here you are supporting corporate welfare (Bailouts) and in the same breath trying to say its those who oppose the bailouts that are supporters of them...
Pack another bong full of Hope & Change but this time, don't drink the bong water.
The real question isn't the restrictions he puts on the money he gives out... I am fine with restrictions. My question is, why are OUR representatives giving handouts? This is supposed to be a capitalist country... If these companies are willing to take Welfare, then they should have to follow the restrictions attached to the money, even if it is someone gets fired.
In reality, we shouldn't be giving anyone any money in the first place.
Pandora
Well-Known Member
I agree we should not be giving money in the first place. I am also ok with restrictions too FOR THOSE WHO TAKE THE MONEY. But I am against being bullied into taking money like Wells Fargo was. Hopefully Ford is paying close attention and will not go down the road GM did.
I am also VERY against what Timothy Geithner tried to do last week. He tried to get congress to give him power over private companies he deems a threat to our economy. Even companies who did not take government money.
I don’t think it was obama's place to fire the head of GM; He is a president not a king. The board could fire him if they thought it was what the company needed but it was not obama’s place. He could say no more money if things don’t change but I think its dangerous how much power we are giving this guy and congress for that matter.
This situation is very interesting.
Arguably, this CEO was holding the livelihoods of his workers hostage to a bailout, but not offering to do the necessary management restructuring and product modifications necessary to receive and benefit from the bailout.
If all the bailout is going to do is help finance upper-management bonuses, like with AIG, and there is no sign of a willingness to make needed changes, then it would seem that the board of directors is not doing its job as well.
But can the President step in and order Wagoner's dismissal (under threat of withholding bailout money or just in general)?
I would say yes ... but not without first declaring a state of national emergency in this recessionary-depressionary matter.
If he's not going to summon the necessary balls to declare a greatly needed state of national emergency, then I would question BHO's authority in the matter.
Nevertheless, I truly would love to see some of these recalcitrant CEOs get what's coming to them!
I mean, first they take unjustified risks (ARMs and other toxic assets), then they try to pawn them off on others, then they halt weekly loans until they can recoup their losses, then they demand bailouts under threat, then they take the money and give obscene bonuses to these same managers who made the stupid risks, bonuses they most certainly don't deserve, and, ultimately, when it all comes tumbling down for them, they layoff innocent low-level workers, not themselves.
That BHO is attempting to "layoff" the GM CEO (who, by the way, is also the chairman of the board at GM!) seems like fitting justice in the matter.
Indeed, who knows how many toxic assests GMAC Financing created, and though GM sold a 51% controlling interest in GMAC in late 2006, the damage was likely already done by then, and, they still are stock owners in GMAC, GMAC which some time ago branched out into real estate loans in addition to their auto loans.
Yes, it just feels good to have these corporate untouchables touched up a bit.
Maybe this will serve as a lesson to the other greedy CEOs and boards.
Arguably, this CEO was holding the livelihoods of his workers hostage to a bailout, but not offering to do the necessary management restructuring and product modifications necessary to receive and benefit from the bailout.
If all the bailout is going to do is help finance upper-management bonuses, like with AIG, and there is no sign of a willingness to make needed changes, then it would seem that the board of directors is not doing its job as well.
But can the President step in and order Wagoner's dismissal (under threat of withholding bailout money or just in general)?
I would say yes ... but not without first declaring a state of national emergency in this recessionary-depressionary matter.
If he's not going to summon the necessary balls to declare a greatly needed state of national emergency, then I would question BHO's authority in the matter.
Nevertheless, I truly would love to see some of these recalcitrant CEOs get what's coming to them!
I mean, first they take unjustified risks (ARMs and other toxic assets), then they try to pawn them off on others, then they halt weekly loans until they can recoup their losses, then they demand bailouts under threat, then they take the money and give obscene bonuses to these same managers who made the stupid risks, bonuses they most certainly don't deserve, and, ultimately, when it all comes tumbling down for them, they layoff innocent low-level workers, not themselves.
That BHO is attempting to "layoff" the GM CEO (who, by the way, is also the chairman of the board at GM!) seems like fitting justice in the matter.
Indeed, who knows how many toxic assests GMAC Financing created, and though GM sold a 51% controlling interest in GMAC in late 2006, the damage was likely already done by then, and, they still are stock owners in GMAC, GMAC which some time ago branched out into real estate loans in addition to their auto loans.
Yes, it just feels good to have these corporate untouchables touched up a bit.
Maybe this will serve as a lesson to the other greedy CEOs and boards.
Werbung:
chestnut
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2008
- Messages
- 1,222
Once these powers are given to the government, than what' s to stop them from going after any U.S. business they feel is a threat?
Usually, once the precedence is set, it just gets easier and easeir for the government to step over their boundaries.
Out of bounds by handing out bailouts
Out of bounds by going after bonuses
Out of bounds by asking Wagoner to step down.
The govt is supposed to be referee, not play in the game.
Usually, once the precedence is set, it just gets easier and easeir for the government to step over their boundaries.
Out of bounds by handing out bailouts
Out of bounds by going after bonuses
Out of bounds by asking Wagoner to step down.
The govt is supposed to be referee, not play in the game.
Similar threads
