White House forces Gm Ceo Rick Wagoner's resignation.

If you care at all about the GM company, it's product, and it's employees, you should be just fine with this. It's a change that is entirely for the better.

Originally Posted by Jeff

If you care at all about the GM company, it's product, and it's employees, you should be just fine with this. It's a change that is entirely for the better.

That really isn't my concern, my concern is that the president has the power to do things like this.

Do you even have any idea of what type of powers the government can have or give itself with the right cause? If you are worrying over the power of the government the fact that they can do this should be the least of your concerns.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

That really isn't my concern, my concern is that the president has the power to do things like this.

No, he doesn't. He suggested that the Gm quit, its totally different. Therefore, what you are saying is absolutely false. It also shows me, no, us, that you hardly know what powers the three branches of government have. Not trying to sound mean there, but you're always spewing out things that just aren't true.

Now, knowing that the welfare of the company and employees are non of your concerns, it seems that you're just trying to find a way to flame Obama in some way, even when the well being of millions of jobs are at stake here.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

That really isn't my concern, my concern is that the president has the power to do things like this.

To do what? He didn't create the recession and GM's financial woes are not his fault. He is offering to help them in a way that he is not obligated to but it has a condition. The President should be allowed to negotiate conditions with companies who WILL BE SPENDING TAXPAYERS' MONEY. GM have no real choice but to accept the offer, true, but just because a company is desperate doesn't mean he should give them free money unconditionally - he still has a responsibility to the people not to waste money, and so he's getting the best deal he can for the money the people will be spending. It's called negotiation, and why shouldn't he put the screws to someone who he's got over a barrel? They have no problem with taking money from Joe Public so why should he have a problem with making them work for it?

Over here, someone on unemployment benefits gets less if they can't prove they're actively looking for a job. That's just common sense: the government SHOULD be able to ensure that taxpayers' money doesn't get wasted on leeches. If a leader thinks that spending money might be wasted, I should damn well hope that he negotiates a deal that reduces that risk. What kind of leader would he be otherwise? As a party to a transaction in which he's spending money, he has a right to negotiate a favourable contract for that transaction.

While I agree that in this case the CEO wasn't doing his job, I compleatly disagree with Obamas actions. It is not the presidents place to interfere in nongovernmental affairs. This should have been the GM board's decision, not the presidents.
I can agree to the president influencing companies through tariffs and contracts, but not to them firing whoever doesn't agree with them.

Originally Posted by SheikahSage

I can agree to the president influencing companies through tariffs and contracts

That's basically what happened. He offered the bailout with conditions, they fired Wagoner to get that bailout.

He gave them terms to which they will recieve federal funds when they are met. What is the problem here? He didn't fire anyone, the company did out of the need for this money. I see no problem in this.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

Firstly, how can "The White House" Being Barack Obama, do such a thing? Making a Ceo step down? They fired him, is what they did. What a filthy act of power. Simple as that.

I call it one small step towards getting rid of the greedy *******s. That, or covering your ass after seeing that bailout bill that got passed being used as bonuses.

It's all over the media now, wait no it isn't because it's against Obama.

Shut the **** up about "liberal media" already. We've been over this before.

Originally posted by Flames of Valor
That really isn't my concern, my concern is that the president has the power to do things like this.

If you were one of the thousands of people in the US whose livelihood depends on the success of the industry, you'd be plenty concerned for it.

Isn't firing CEO's of a company outside President Obama's jurisdiction?
I mean, I know he's the President and all, but that's not right.

Have you read a single post in the thread? People have repeatedly said that was not the case.

Originally Posted by Citizen Snips

No, he doesn't. He suggested that the Gm quit, its totally different. Therefore, what you are saying is absolutely false. It also shows me, no, us, that you hardly know what powers the three branches of government have. Not trying to sound mean there, but you're always spewing out things that just aren't true.

Firstly, the Train-leader did not 'suggest' the he told General Trains that if Wagoner did not resign they would be allowed to have any more money, which would lead to the death of their company, so it was a threat to which they had no other choice and they knew this. Secondly, I am not spewing things that just aren't true. Did you know that clouds cry when it rains?

Now, knowing that the welfare of the company and employees are non of your concerns, it seems that you're just trying to find a way to flame Obama in some way, even when the well being of millions of jobs are at stake here.

/sigh, missed it again, it's obvious I am out to get Train-Leader and am in no way concerned with interfering acts of this nature into the affairs of a private train business.

Originally Posted by Umi

He gave them terms to which they will recieve federal funds when they are met. What is the problem here? He didn't fire anyone, the company did out of the need for this money. I see no problem in this.

He gave them terms to which they could only respond one way in order to keep their company. That is completely unfair and The White Caboose used this to get exactly what they wanted. Whether it was good or not is not my issue.

Yeah, times are tough.
An alternative would have been not to offer General Trains any support at all. Would that have been better?

Originally Posted by Stuit

Yeah, times are tough.
An alternative would have been not to offer General Trains any support at all. Would that have been better?

General Trains ran off the tracks and some think they should crash and some don't. I don't know enough about how it will affect the continental railroad exactly so I don't want to say for sure.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

General Trains ran off the tracks and some think they should crash and some don't. I don't know enough about how it will affect the continental railroad exactly so I don't want to say for sure.

I don't know enough about those two companies as well, but I feel that if a person isn't doing his part in helping everyone, then he has to be booted. It's all part of team-work. If you aren't doing your part, you're out.

Originally Posted by Evilsbane

That's basically what happened. He offered the bailout with conditions, they fired Wagoner to get that bailout.

No this is diffrent. If Obama said "Unless you do this I'm gonna put a tax on shipping your cars." or "Unless you do this I won't give you the contract to make the army's new humvee", that would be his place, because it is the governments job to regulate commerce and the military. It is not the governments job to regulate a private companies employees, thus firing a person to get what you want is wrong.

Save that he didn't fire him.

He said: We are not compelled to give you any money, but we don't want to see GM go down in flames. However, we also don't want to waste all this money, so before we give it to you some terms need to be met.

This is no different from a government not giving a contract to a company because they don't like things that company has done in the past.

Exactly. The Black Controller is allowed to make suggestions to a railway like General Trains. He's also allowed to not give them anything if their trains don't perform to standard.

Originally Posted by Evilsbane

Exactly. The Black Controller is allowed to make suggestions to a railway like General Trains. He's also allowed to not give them anything if their trains don't perform to standard.

Damn it, do you honestly have to talk like that? It freakin annoying.

Anyway, I'm not debating his right to withhold funding, I'm debating his right to demand the resignation of a person not under his direct employ.He has the right to do that to a government employee, but not a private one.

Also, he shouldn't be throwing around money to GM anyway. He should instead increase tariffs on foreign cars like Toyota or Mazda. That would help all american car companies, not just GM, as well cost much less money.