![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-349924-100x100.png\")
I wasn't aware that the President could fire employees of non-governmental agencies. This is a dangerous precedent and a vast over-stepping of boundaries by the government.
How come the AIG executives got to stay on-board (and get bonuses) but someone who prepared a feasibility plan and presented goals gets the axe?
![\"user-pic\"](\"/css/images/default.gif\")
@mergatroy6: Comrade Obama has already set a precident by targeting another private citizen - Rush Limbaugh. Whether you like or hate Limbaugh, you can't deny The One has already gone after him in an attempt to cause harm to his privately owned media business.
This is just a small step. Do not worry. No slippery slope here.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-16563-100x100.png\")
@Canino: Tee hee. You tinfoil hat people. Chuckle
Hey, so long as we're on the topic: Can I have my public airwaves back? The ones that these guys are monopolizing for free?
If he's such a private-business stalwart, I'm sure he'd like to divest himself of those socialistic, big-government-seizing properties...
@Trai_Dep: Al Franken says what?
Public airwaves? That's your argument? So you believe that all radio shows should be government run? There should be no competition? Nationalize talk? Better nationalize music and sports also. Yep, no slippery slope here.
Wait...of course you believe that. Because without government control of the airwaves, Air America has to steal from orphans and widows to stay afloat.
@Canino: Conglomerates shouldn't be able to own vast swaths of stations across the country, and in particular in the same market.
Let a thousand flowers bloom.
That, and a loosely-defined demand that a small portion of their programming be done in the public interest (non-sectarian, no ideological tests from either side), and I'd be happy.
Competition produces variety and innovation. Right?
First of all the CEO of AIG was in fact asked to leave. Second, the leaders of Freddie and Fannie were also asked to move on - and all of those things happened when Bush was President, so what Obama is doing is hardly a precedent.
Finally, nobody is overstepping boundaries. If the companies wish to keep their failing leadership they can, but at the same time they can't come crying to the government to a bailout. It is called being responsible with taxpayer funds - and those funds come with certain conditions. If they don't like it, they don't need to take the money. Problem solved.
Try to keep up.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-72607-100x100.png\")
@Costner: You just made it sound more insidious. So let me help too. Wasn't this the guy not too long ago that \"suggested\" if the government didn't play ball GM would be \"forced\" to liquidate? And then not much further down the line, the White House \"asks\" Mr. CEO with the balls to \"resign\" or The Giving Tree our government turned into recently will cut them off.
Not even mentioning that, people that are \"happy\" about this are pretending this is somehow a choice. As if there was anyone in this world that couldn't be made to do something at the President's behest, particularly when money is involved. This isn't even politics, it's office politics.
You don't HAVE to work. You can quit your job anytime you want.
You don't HAVE to take this overtime. But we have been \"laying off\" people for the past fifteen years or so.
You don't HAVE to join our union, but you can't work here if you don't.
And yet somehow having to live in a shack in the middle of a swamp with no car, electricity, or running water does not appeal.
Land of the free right? If any politician says a word with more than seven letters in it, it is rhetoric. That didn't change. I'm just hoping I'm wrong and Obama didn't have a pissing match with the CEO of GM.
@mergatroy6: I don't believe he can? Rather, the article basically points out it's a \"You want our bailout cash, you need to meet these conditions.\" GM is perfectly free not to fire their CEO just as they're perfectly free to reject the government bailout.
@mergatroy6: Read the article rather than Consumerist's misleading headline. Obama didn't fire anyone. Wagoner resigned as a condition of this bailout of GM. He didn't have to accept the terms when he agreed to them.
@Lincolnsbeard33: Actually he didn't, but if you're to stupid to understand that I don't have the time to explain it. Tell Limbaugh I said hi though.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-775624-100x100.png\")
@akuma_x: oh i get it because I don't agree with everything Obama does I must be a stupid republican. Yes thats it I must not have an original thought to think that Obama is doing wrong. So I guess I am not a registered democrat and I didn't vote for Obama.
If you can't understand that this is a very underhanded and dirty way of firing someone then you need to open your eyes a little.
Now of course you will probably say something stupid like \"DUHHH If GM wants the money they have to go by the governments conditions.\" and then I will reply with \"Well that leads us back to the real issue which is the fact that the government should not be giving any money out to these companies. They messed up and they should fail. Sure it will make things bad for a year or so but in the end it will get better all without the government stepping in and wasting money and controlling the private sector\"
@Lincolnsbeard33: No, it's because you can't tell the difference between \"The gummint is FIRING CEOs!!\" and \"We're not giving another hundred billion loan to the same clown that drove the company off a cliff\". In spite of this distinction being explained, in black and white, in the very article you're commenting on.
@Trai_Dep: Yes I read the article when the story broke the other day. He shouldn't stay in charge or GM at all however the government has no right to put a stipulation on the money like that. Of course we shouldn't give the money to them in the first place but that is another discussion for another time.
@Lincolnsbeard33: Whether or not we should be bailing out the auto industry (we shouldn't be, by the way) has no bearing on the fact that Obama didn't fire him.
If you were asking the president for taxpayer money and he said \"Sure, I'll loan you the money if you divorce your wife.\". And you divorce your wife to get the money. It doesn't matter that the president shouldn't have loaned you taxpayer funds to begin with. You still divorced your wife, the president didn't make you, you chose to, to obtain your goal.
@akuma_x: yes thats it the government should be able to set up any rules it wants as long as it is able to get involved in the private sector.
Sorry but you are wrong and an idiot the government has no right what so ever asking CEOs to resign.
@Lincolnsbeard33: Actually the government can anybody it wants to resign. It could ask me to resign. I would politely turn down the request but the difference is I'm not asking for billions of dollars of your money.
They can't force anybody to resign though and that is the difference here. They asked Rick Wagoner to resign, and he did. That is the difference here idiot.
@akuma_x: \"Actually the government can anybody it wants to resign.\" really? what are you 15 years old?
Sorry but again you are wrong by giving him essentially an ultimatum they are forcing him to resign.
@Lincolnsbeard33: Incorrect, an ultimatum is a choice. Your bossing coming to you and saying you're fired isn't a choice. You can't say, no, I'll take the option where I stay and get a raise. Waggoner was given a choice. He chose to leave for the greater good.
The government can ask anybody to do anything it wants. You don't have to choose to do what they ask. That is why it's a free country. The president can ask that all males under 25 sign up for the military to serve. They can choose not to what to do so.
This isn't exactly a \"cake or death\" option being given here. It's you can quit and we'll give your company money to try and save it or you can stay in your position and do your job to run the company to profitability. Waggoner felt like he couldn't handle the job he was hired to do so he chose resignation. An 8 year old could grasp this concept so I don't know why you're having such a hard time getting it. Assuming you're older than 7.
@akuma_x: wow no not at all. An ultimatum is not a real choice. It is a demand that is meant to give the appearance of a choice. An ultimatum is a demand with the backing of a threat if they don't do what you want.
In this case the demand is the CEO leaves and the threat is we don't give you any money and your business is gone. The government knows that GM needs the money to stay alive so Obama is making demands he has no right to make.
Not to mention he wasn't asked to leave Obama's admin DEMANDED he leave. It even says so in the first few lines of the article perhaps you should have taken the time to read it.
@mergatroy6: They do it the same way they got Chase to break their contract and pay the penalty for the jet they were trying to purchase. \"It'd be a shame if something were to happen to your business. Now if you do things our way, we could be persuaded to not pass this legislation/executive order/etc...\"
@mergatroy6: Why should our President not have the same powers as other Presidents around the world? Hugo Chavez comes to mind.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-203062-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-6173-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-52435-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-78160-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-80880-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-890779-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-386301-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-22777-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-343837-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-224192-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-537475-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-685967-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-53248-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-851357-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-158650-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-62589-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-6536-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-469220-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-388919-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-332258-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-681073-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-352008-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-351903-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-219805-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-316976-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-68719-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-706751-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-78520-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-83382-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-702014-100x100.png\")
Ok, this government intervention in private business is really starting to become worrying.
Between this and the whole AIG fiasco things are getting quite strange.
@wgrune: When the private business starts asking for 700 billion dollars to replace the money they loss, I think the government has some rights to get involved.
@wgrune:
I agree. It is quite troubling that government is meddling in business. The bailout money should be going to the private citizens hurt by the fraud perpetrated upon us by the failing businesses.
But, if the government IS going to give GM money, it should have the right to say how GM spends it. We tried it your way - \"here's money! do whatever you want with it!\" and AiG and others quickly turned and paid lavish bonuses, threw lavish parties, and tried to buy lavish airplanes. Why do you as a tax payer want to give away your money for corporate executives to get even richer?
@wgrune: How is it worrying. The government has been keeping GM afloat and that idiot in charge managed the company into the ground. The fact that he isn't in jail is a huge bonus for the guy.
@wgrune: As opposed to big businesses controlling the US market and driving it into the ground to a near depression? No, not scared at all that our government has the lick of sense to step in when they need to. I just wish they did have the power to knock every dumb ass CEO out on their ass without a single penny. That'd give something those embezzling dumb asses something to fear on whether or not they should swindle their customers.
@wgrune: Why you getting worried?
For the most part, Obama is doing exactly what he said he would do. I knew this was coming. You guys put this man into power. When you see how his policies ACTUALLY work, instead of theoretically work, please, vote for someone else in 2012. (Assuming he isnt our dictator by then)
Ya, I added a little fear mongering to spice my post up.
@wgrune:
\"Ok, this government intervention in private business is really starting to become worrying.
Between this and the whole AIG fiasco things are getting quite strange.\"
Ok, this telling your brother in law that you are not giving him any more money for liquor until he cleans up his act is starting to worry me. That's his behind-closed- doors private business.
Between this and funding your loser cousins meth addiction,things are getting quite strange.
See how \"helping\" the dysfunctional makes you an enabler ?
@wgrune: What worries you exactly? The fact that somebody conditioned you to be scared of the big bad government? These companies screwed themselves and now the government has to fix what they effed up.
Here's the thing: It doesn't really matter if people drive American cars for any point national pride. What matters is that the huge number of people involved at all levels of making these cars keep their jobs. It would seriously screw up the economy if something happened to all of these jobs.
I highly doubt that the government wants to be involved in the production of crappy cars. They just want to keep the economy from stagnating. Hopefully all of these super awesome private businesses can learn a lesson or two from the fact that they were so royally screwed up that they all needed to be rescued. Their ineptitude sure says a lot about them.
@mergatroy6: He didn't. Read the article. The gov't is simply withholding funds until GM makes changes. One of those changes is the replacement of their CEO. They could've decided to forgo the gov't money, but no, every big business seems to be falling over itself to stick its hand in the pocket of the taxpayer. I, for one, am glad that it's not without strings attached.
@wgrune: I'm curious as to what triggers your worry. Minus any government intervention, there would no longer be a GM. I personally have no problem with that; however, now that we've committed to that course, I think the government gets a say in what the business does.
@wgrune: It would be one thing if the automakers had been unwillingly taken over--that would be worrisome. They begged and pleaded for government intervention, and that intervention came with great reluctance on the part of the government.