- Joined
- Aug 26, 2007
- Messages
- 50,241
- Reaction score
- 19,243
- Location
- San Antonio Texas
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
GM, Chrysler Get Ultimatum From Obama on Turnaround - Automotive * US * News * Story - CNBC.comPresident Obama asserted unprecedented government control over the auto industry Monday, rejecting turnaround plans from General Motors and Chrysler and raising the prospect of controlled bankruptcy for either ailing auto giant.
Eager to reassure consumers, Obama also announced the federal government would immediately begin backing the warranties that new car buyers receive _ a step designed to signal that it is safe to purchase U.S.-made autos and trucks despite the distress of the industry.
I'm in the mood to say something harshly racist, but I will refrain per CC's wishes.
GM, Chrysler Get Ultimatum From Obama on Turnaround - Automotive * US * News * Story - CNBC.com
On what grounds, constitutional grounds does Obama have to make such a move, make the claim the US Government would back a private companies warranties?
People screamed bloody hell Bush was tapping phone lines to catch terrorist as Government out of control... what the hell do you call this bullsnot?
Obama firing GM CEO? Is that what I'm hearing? Unbelievable!!
I honestly don't see how this whole thing isn't going to turn into a gigantic cluster**** and this is coming from someone who even voted for Obama. I'm trying to remain optimistic, but seeing the current administration strong-arming a corporation into getting rid of their CEO is rather disconcerting.
Lot of hyperbole being thrown around in this thread. The administration simply stated that as a condition of additional government assistance, the CEO would have to step down.
How is that any different then say if Warren Buffet bailed them out and made the same condition? If GM wanted to keep the guy, they could have just declined additional assistance.
I honestly don't see how this whole thing isn't going to turn into a gigantic cluster**** and this is coming from someone who even voted for Obama. I'm trying to remain optimistic, but seeing the current administration strong-arming a corporation into getting rid of their CEO is rather disconcerting.
And how is that not strong-arming?
They shouldn't even be giving these companies assistance in the first place. That's my point.
Thats all well and good. However, if your giving someone a ton of money, it's certainly not inappropriate to attach some conditions to it.
Government is not in the business of running industryLot of hyperbole being thrown around in this thread. The administration simply stated that as a condition of additional government assistance, the CEO would have to step down.
It is the rule making body.
Now the rule maker is the rule maker, funder and The Decider.
Just like in the USSR.
Warren Buffet would be investing his own or hos company's cash and as an investor that would buy enough of the company he would have bought that right; that power.How is that any different then say if Warren Buffet bailed them out and made the same condition?
What do Obama, Biden, Geithner or any of his pointy headed staff know about designing, building and selling cars?
Nothing. Zero.
Bait and switch.If GM wanted to keep the guy, they could have just declined additional assistance.
I'll NEVER buy a Goverment Motors car.
They'll be selling The Obama pretty soon; about as safe as a Trabant, as big as a Polski Fiat, and all the power of a mule on speed.
The arrogance of Obama, who knows nothing about cars... to tell GM to go back and make a new plan with his government pin heads.
GM is his now... like it or not.
.
More statism, more socialism.
if there is a problem. Obama's answer is more government.
Lot of hyperbole being thrown around in this thread. The administration simply stated that as a condition of additional government assistance, the CEO would have to step down.
How is that any different then say if Warren Buffet bailed them out and made the same condition? If GM wanted to keep the guy, they could have just declined additional assistance.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?