- Aug 27, 2008
- 18,450
- 1,823
- 205
he had no constitutional authority to ask GM's CEO to resign, he did it anywaycurious....
He has no constitutional authority to do so.
You're absolutely right. But they asked, so I answered.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
he had no constitutional authority to ask GM's CEO to resign, he did it anywaycurious....
He has no constitutional authority to do so.
They should not have gotten government money at all.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?
The government should not have bailed anyone out in the first place, but since they did this is not surprising.
Kevin, surely even YOU cannot be blind to the market panic that occurred when Lehamn Bros. filed for bankruptcy.
Compare the importance of Lehman Bros to a company like AIG or GM. Not even close. The market would be in negative value right now if the government had not stepped in and unemployment would be in the 20% range. We would be in another depression. Our economy would have collapsed and would have taken the world's economy with it. Thanks largely in part to the government stopping that from happening, we have not hit that point and we will not hit that point.
Your wish for the government to be asleep at the wheel of the economy and let things happen for themselves is a wish for us all to fail. Most if not all of us would be unemployed and poor. The FDIC would be insolvent and banks would fail everywhere.
This is what fiscal conservatives and fiscal libertarians want. Please think about that before associating your ideas with any of theirs.
No one is saying it would have been a pleasant experience to let the market correct itself, but propping up a phony economy for a little while longer is only going to bring about a bigger bust in the future.
It all comes down to the outcome had the government not propped up the banks doesn't it?
You characterize the outcome as " not a pleasant experience" Kevin. I suspect that's a bit of an understatement.
Now, you may be right, but you do realize, don't you, that the majority of economists disagree, right?
They are telling us that failure to bail out some of those banks may have resulted in the complete failure of our entire banking system.
And the market, under that scenario, would NEVER have recovered.
This nation would NEVER have recovered. This nation would have fallen apart had that happened.
So it really all depends on whose vision of what would have happened, doesn't it?
Eventually the government is not going to be able to step in and we'll have no choice but to take our medicine then, and we'll be wishing that we took it now.
That is a distinct possiblity, too, in my opinion.
I am not at all convinced that the bailout/tarp as constructed now, really IS solving anything for the nation.
1) Obama forced GM's CEO to quit before he would give them bailout money.
2) WHY is GM's CEO being singled out and NOT any of Wall Street or the Banking community CEOs?
3) Why is GM's bailout only for two months of operating capital, yet Chrysler is going to get a massive bailout?
4) Is this due to past political contributions...or lack of? If not, what IS the reasoning?
5) Why aren't union demands negated and wiped clean off the board? Why hasn't UAW been thrown out of a company they sucked dry, lowered the quality of the product, and crippled a formerly GOOD American company?
6) Why is AIG's CEO still in place?