BREAKING: Obama demands GM CEO resign

[mash107]

If a company thinks its necessary to ask for government help, why should the CEO stay?

In the private market, when a restructuring occurs, they usually fire the CEO and hire a new guy. How is this any different? Why should the taxpayer fund a management team that brought the company to the brink of insolvency?

If you want the government to act more like a private business, this is what private business does.

I agree with the outcome because that's what would've resulted from Chapter 11. There's no question that more needs to be done as well. GM now needs to completely rewrite the contract w/ UAW and make their salaries more competitive. It also needs to totally ignore whatever Washington wants for cars. They should make cars that the market needs so that they'd be profitable once again.

I just don't like our leaders pretending they have powers like Kings centuries ago over our financial future. Also it's the fact we're $30+B poorer propping up this zombie company.

 

[jillian]

The CEO won't care! He was working for nothing anyway.. If obamalama dosen't make the unions make concessions it will all be money pissed away. the American auto industry cannot comptete with the Asians.

leave it to the dingbat to think the problem is the unions.

cause the failed CEO's sure deserve their golden parachutes

 

[WillowTree]

If a company thinks its necessary to ask for government help, why should the CEO stay?

In the private market, when a restructuring occurs, they usually fire the CEO and hire a new guy. How is this any different? Why should the taxpayer fund a management team that brought the company to the brink of insolvency?

If you want the government to act more like a private business, this is what private business does.

Is the head dood of FM and FM resigned? or been asked to resign???

 

[elvis]

The CEO won't care! He was working for nothing anyway.. If obamalama dosen't make the unions make concessions it will all be money pissed away. the American auto industry cannot comptete with the Asians.

leave it to the dingbat to think the problem is the unions.

cause the failed CEO's sure deserve their golden parachutes

I think a big part of the problem was GM's refusal to change over the past 30 years.

 

[del]

The CEO won't care! He was working for nothing anyway.. If obamalama dosen't make the unions make concessions it will all be money pissed away. the American auto industry cannot comptete with the Asians.

leave it to the dingbat to think the problem is the unions.

cause the failed CEO's sure deserve their golden parachutes

they're every bit as deserving as the union guys sitting in "day care" for $35/hr plus benefits. they just cut a better deal.

 

[DavidS]

When our glorious leader demands, we are happy to obey!

If I needed money from an investor to keep me in business - that investor has a right to put strings on the money. That's American capitalism at its best. You wouldn't be opposed to this if it were another corporation taking over GM, but because GM can't get money from another corporation and they're going to the government for loans, you think it's bad that we're putting strings on the conditions we're loaning them money? Forget you don't think we should loan money in the first place - it's too late for that. You think we should just throw money at GM unconditionally?

 

[WillowTree]

The CEO won't care! He was working for nothing anyway.. If obamalama dosen't make the unions make concessions it will all be money pissed away. the American auto industry cannot comptete with the Asians.

leave it to the dingbat to think the problem is the unions.

cause the failed CEO's sure deserve their golden parachutes

I think a big part of the problem was GM's refusal to change over the past 30 years.

Yep! they cannot afford all the retiree's benefits.. Too bad they let the unions price them right out of competition.. Their shitty cars cost 2 or 3 thousand dollars more than an Asian car. They don't last until you can get them paid for.. Tooo bad too bad.. If they leave things just as they are? they still won't be able to sell their shitty cars.. Americans know better.

 

[DavidS]

If a company thinks its necessary to ask for government help, why should the CEO stay?

In the private market, when a restructuring occurs, they usually fire the CEO and hire a new guy. How is this any different? Why should the taxpayer fund a management team that brought the company to the brink of insolvency?

If you want the government to act more like a private business, this is what private business does.

Absolutely. It happens all the time. The investor receives enough percentage share of the corporation to make business changes. Either that or they receive a percentage on the board where their decisions make a difference in corporate policy. Now I don't see any government members on the board of GM... so this is the only alternative.

 

[Zoom-boing]

If a company thinks its necessary to ask for government help, why should the CEO stay?

They had no business asking the government for help. Get private money or go Chap. 11

In the private market, when a restructuring occurs, they usually fire the CEO and hire a new guy. How is this any different? Why should the taxpayer fund a management team that brought the company to the brink of insolvency?

The taxpayer shouldn't be funding GM or anyone else's mistakes. Period. The GM management screwed up. Fire the screw ups, restructure, learn from the mistakes made and do not repeat.

If you want the government to act more like a private business, this is what private business does.

The government shouldn't be acting like a private business. The government should butt the hell out and if GM fails, it fails. Something better and stronger will emerge.

 

[jillian]

I think a big part of the problem was GM's refusal to change over the past 30 years.

I agree. They knew the markets were changing and that people wanted more fuel efficient cars. You can't run a company by marketing only to people who want to drive trucks and then rely on that over and over again. It seems to me that GM knew that the japanese cars were saturating our market. And that in terms of fleet type or "practical" sedans, Ford's Focus and a couple of other cars led in sales. Yet, rather than adapt, they sat back and figured the government would be there. And they were right, but it doesn't mean the CEO shouldn't get canned for messing up... just like how people get treated in real life. At least that's how I see it.

 

[jillian]

The government shouldn't be acting like a private business. The government should butt the hell out and if GM fails, it fails. Something better and stronger will emerge.

The problem is that 2.5 million jobs are attached to that failure between GM, its suppliers and the peripheral businesses which cater to GM and its employees.

We'd end up paying for that anyway, through unemployment insurance; federal benefits and medicaid (medicare??).

Better to keep people working and help them get back on their feet.

 

[dilloduck]

[youtube]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/FOA4ixV-3jU&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/FOA4ixV-3jU&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]

 

[Toro]

When is Obama intervewing for the next CEO ?

You should apply!

It pays well.

If a company thinks its necessary to ask for government help, why should the CEO stay?

In the private market, when a restructuring occurs, they usually fire the CEO and hire a new guy. How is this any different? Why should the taxpayer fund a management team that brought the company to the brink of insolvency?

If you want the government to act more like a private business, this is what private business does.

I agree with the outcome because that's what would've resulted from Chapter 11. There's no question that more needs to be done as well. GM now needs to completely rewrite the contract w/ UAW and make their salaries more competitive. It also needs to totally ignore whatever Washington wants for cars. They should make cars that the market needs so that they'd be profitable once again.

I just don't like our leaders pretending they have powers like Kings centuries ago over our financial future. Also it's the fact we're $30+B poorer propping up this zombie company.

The American auto companies are only viable long-term if there is significant restructuring, meaning that there needs to be a lot of slashing at the worker level. Any plan that does not do so is pointless. Thus, if you are going to slash the workers, you should also slash management, i.e. Wagoner.

If a company thinks its necessary to ask for government help, why should the CEO stay?

They had no business asking the government for help. Get private money or go Chap. 11

In the private market, when a restructuring occurs, they usually fire the CEO and hire a new guy. How is this any different? Why should the taxpayer fund a management team that brought the company to the brink of insolvency?

The taxpayer shouldn't be funding GM or anyone else's mistakes. Period. The GM management screwed up. Fire the screw ups, restructure, learn from the mistakes made and do not repeat.

If you want the government to act more like a private business, this is what private business does.

The government shouldn't be acting like a private business. The government should butt the hell out and if GM fails, it fails. Something better and stronger will emerge.

I have no problem with putting GM through bankruptcy, at least in normal times. However, if the company is asking for the government to become an investing partner, then the investing partner has a say on the composition of top management. That is how it is done.

 

[Zoom-boing]

The government shouldn't be acting like a private business. The government should butt the hell out and if GM fails, it fails. Something better and stronger will emerge.

The problem is that 2.5 million jobs are attached to that failure between GM, its suppliers and the peripheral businesses which cater to GM and its employees.

We'd end up paying for that anyway, through unemployment insurance; federal benefits and medicaid (medicare??).

Better to keep people working and help them get back on their feet.

I'd rather be paying for their unemployment, etc. than have the government infiltrating yet more private business. They should have restructured; something better would have come out of it. Or not. Government shouldn't be propping up businesses that have mismanaged themselves into the ground. If you screw up you pay the consequences, you don't get a wad from uncle.

 

[Zoom-boing]

When is Obama intervewing for the next CEO ?

You should apply!

It pays well.

I agree with the outcome because that's what would've resulted from Chapter 11. There's no question that more needs to be done as well. GM now needs to completely rewrite the contract w/ UAW and make their salaries more competitive. It also needs to totally ignore whatever Washington wants for cars. They should make cars that the market needs so that they'd be profitable once again.

I just don't like our leaders pretending they have powers like Kings centuries ago over our financial future. Also it's the fact we're $30+B poorer propping up this zombie company.

The American auto companies are only viable long-term if there is significant restructuring, meaning that there needs to be a lot of slashing at the worker level. Any plan that does not do so is pointless. Thus, if you are going to slash the workers, you should also slash management, i.e. Wagoner.

They had no business asking the government for help. Get private money or go Chap. 11



The taxpayer shouldn't be funding GM or anyone else's mistakes. Period. The GM management screwed up. Fire the screw ups, restructure, learn from the mistakes made and do not repeat.

If you want the government to act more like a private business, this is what private business does.

The government shouldn't be acting like a private business. The government should butt the hell out and if GM fails, it fails. Something better and stronger will emerge.

I have no problem with putting GM through bankruptcy, at least in normal times. However, if the company is asking for the government to become an investing partner, then the investing partner has a say on the composition of top management. That is how it is done.

I don't have a problem with the government putting strings on the money, I have a problem with the government involved in private businesses like this. I don't think they should have been bailed out to begin with. Yes, I'm aware that it's too late to do much about that. GM didn't ask the government to become an investing partner, they just wanted the money and to be on their merry way, no lesson learned. They should have realized that Obama wants in.

 

[dilloduck]

I have no problem with putting GM through bankruptcy, at least in normal times. However, if the company is asking for the government to become an investing partner, then the investing partner has a say on the composition of top management. That is how it is done.

Who is really the investing partner here ? Obama ?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The government should not have bailed anyone out in the first place, but since they did this is not surprising.

 

[jillian]

I'd rather be paying for their unemployment, etc. than have the government infiltrating yet more private business. They should have restructured; something better would have come out of it. Or not. Government shouldn't be propping up businesses that have mismanaged themselves into the ground. If you screw up you pay the consequences, you don't get a wad from uncle.

I understand. We disagree on this score. But the workers aren't the ones who mismanaged. Yet we bailed out banks so we could protect our economic system. I don't like that we had to do it. But given the circumstances, I don't think we had a lot of choice. And I'm not going to discriminate between the people who shower at the beginning of their day and those who shower at the end.

I think manufacturing is really important in terms of maintaining a middle class. It's worth protecting. I'd like not to formalize the move to banana republic yet.

 

[Vel]

Industry sources had said the White House planned very tough medicine, which turned out to be an understatement. And it went to the very top. The measures to be imposed by the government will have a dramatic effect on workers, unions, suppliers, retirees and the communities where plants are located, the sources said.

Do you know what will happen? Are they going to reopen some plants they closed down, or give back jobs to the people who lost them at the plants that are still open? That would be great news.

This should all be revealed tomorrow, I think. Ragoner ran GM into the ground. He even outright admitted that under his tenure, GM put out cars that didn't even come close to their quality standards. They put out shit for cars and he expected to keep his job?? How come Ford doesn't need a bailout? Because of good management.

Does this mean that as we continue to see piss poor financial management from our federal government and continue to see deficits drive our economy into the ground that we can expect Obama's resignation? I'm thinking that fair is fair and if our economy keeps tumbling then we should yank the leadership at the top.

 

[DavidS]

If a company thinks its necessary to ask for government help, why should the CEO stay?

In the private market, when a restructuring occurs, they usually fire the CEO and hire a new guy. How is this any different? Why should the taxpayer fund a management team that brought the company to the brink of insolvency?

If you want the government to act more like a private business, this is what private business does.

I had to read your post 3 times just to make sure I understood what you typed. Do you really believe this? Do you not see this as a huge power grab by the government? This is a war on Capitalism and the American way of life.

Two scenarios:

I form a corporation. From that corporation I buy and sell goods and services without government intervention. I set my own price for those goods and services and I deal with private consumers and corporations who want to purchase those goods and services.

My business gets big enough that I have an IPO (initial public offering). I put together a board of directors of 10 people who get to vote on policy and decisions of the corporation. I put myself as the Chairman of the Board and I get to break ties.

A bad recession hits and no one will loan me money. So I go to the government for money - and the government says they'll loan my corporation money if I resign as the chairman of the board. I resign and the board elects a new chairman. The government loans the corporation money and the corporation continues to produce goods and services.

Scenario 2: A bad recession hits and a venture capitalist corporation loans me money. The venture capitalist says in order for the loan to go through, I have to resign as the chairman of the board. I resign and the board elects a new chairman. The venture capitalist the corporation money and the corporation continues to produce goods and services.

Tell me what the difference is except for the source of who loans people money? The government isn't setting policy for the corporation, although it should have the right to since it's a majority shareholder of the corporation.

Capitalism states that whoever has the most money in a business gets to make the decisions. Socialism is where everyone owns a percentage of the corporation and its run collectively where the government sets prices for the goods and services based upon the social value of the goods and services. That's not happening here.

You people need to brush up on what socialism is and isn't.