White House forces Gm Ceo Rick Wagoner's resignation.

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.

White House Fires GM CEO

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

If he wasn't willing to make the necessary changes to his company, then I'm not surprised that they asked for his resignation. I'm not saying that's the reason, I don't know the reason behind it, and I frankly don't really care that some big wig with more millions of dollars than any man has any need for, and is only going to be getting more, has lost his job. Boohoo.

First of all, this is a marvelous decision. Fascist economics is where it's at. Mussolini lessened much of the Depression in Italy through his tactics of using governmental power over the private corporations, while letting them still BE private.

Originally Posted by Avalanchemike

If he wasn't willing to make the necessary changes to his company, then I'm not surprised that they asked for his resignation. I'm not saying that's the reason, I don't know the reason behind it, and I frankly don't really care that some big wig with more millions of dollars than any man has any need for, and is only going to be getting more, has lost his job. Boohoo.

This.

I think we have bigger things to get upset about than greedy CEO's getting the boot.

I love how all of you conveniently ignored the fact that the President just fired someone. Wtf.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

I love how all of you conveniently ignored the fact that the President just fired someone. Wtf.

That and the reason he fired him is because he doesn't agree with Obama.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

I love how all of you conveniently ignored the fact that the President just fired someone. Wtf.

MY MIGHTY HEART IS BREAKING. ;_;

Wait, no, no it isn't - how can an executive who has mismanaged a company for five years as CEO maintain his position for much longer? Don't poor employees get fired in all effective workplaces? I hope to god you never run a business if you believe otherwise because it's doomed from the start.

If this isn't a proactive step (Rather than simply tossing money at a haemorrage until it stops weeping for a bit) then I don't know what is; these companies are heinously mistructured, top heavy and static in marketing and design philosopy. These two companies would be doomed if the administration didn't do what it has just done.

Who knows? Maybe they are still doomed, just look at the 25% drop in share prices and lol!

Source;

Reuters News Agency

Scribe: Powerslide (Pelagias' fiance).

Originally Posted by Pelagias

MY MIGHTY HEART IS BREAKING. ;_;

Wait, no, no it isn't - how can an executive who has mismanaged a company for five years as CEO maintain his position for much longer? Don't poor employees get fired in all effective workplaces? I hope to god you never run a business if you believe otherwise because it's doomed from the start.

If this isn't a proactive step (Rather than simply tossing money at a haemorrage until it stops weeping for a bit) then I don't know what is; these companies are heinously mistructured, top heavy and static in marketing and design philosopy. These two companies would be doomed if the administration didn't do what it has just done.

Who knows? Maybe they are still doomed, just look at the 25% drop in share prices and lol!

Source;

Reuters News Agency

Scribe: Powerslide (Pelagias' fiance).

You missed it again. How can the President FIRE someone? What bull****. What a blatant abuse of power. Besides, the government knows nothing about cars.

Originally Posted by sugarpoultry

That and the reason he fired him is because he doesn't agree with Obama.

Sure, keep telling yourself that.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

I love how all of you conveniently ignored the fact that the President just fired someone. Wtf.

Uhh, no. You are conveinently mishandling the truth. The White House requested that a man, who had done nothing but played with himself while in executive office, be removed from that office so someone who was willing to make the necessary changes is put into his place. Even if it was Obama who directly asked for this, it wouldn't make a difference. He is being tough because lol, ecocomic troublsss.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

Besides, the government knows nothing about cars.

Apparently neither do you, and admittedly, I don't know much either. However, I do know what a business decision is and this happens to be one of them.

Originally Posted by sugarpoultry

That and the reason he fired him is because he doesn't agree with Obama.

facepalm.jpg

McCain's not in office. Get over it.

I say the CEO deserve the boot. Any greedy CEO who done nothing but fill their own pockets wiht money and doesn't do anything else for the little guy deserve to be fired. Isn't like he gonna lose all his money since I bet he might get a very nice retirement bonus.

The Whitehouse cannot, in fact, fire someone.

My understanding is that they...suggested that he should be removed.


While I'm not sure I agree with that, it's certainly better than the Canadian government strategy of nationalizing companies in similar situations.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

You missed it again. How can the President FIRE someone? What bull****. What a blatant abuse of power. Besides, the government knows nothing about cars.

What the hell are you talking about? Did you even read the article you linked to?

Originally Posted by MiamiHerald

President Barack Obama is expected to announce a plan Monday to prop up General Motors and Chrysler, offering them more money if the companies agree to shrink and refocus their businesses. Wagoner's resignation was one of the White House's conditions for more federal aid.

The government is under no obligation to offer this money. They are giving it at their own discretion, and they made GM aware that this free money would not be forthcoming if Wagoner didn't resign. No abuse of power. It's the same as when the UN imposes economic sanctions - they use financial pressure to encourage positive change. It's how politics is supposed to work. Stop treating Obama like the new Stalin, it's getting old.

Originally Posted by Evilsbane

What the hell are you talking about? Did you even read the article you linked to?

Yes.

The government is under no obligation to offer this money. They are giving it at their own discretion, and they made GM aware that this free money would not be forthcoming if Wagoner didn't resign. No abuse of power. It's the same as when the UN imposes economic sanctions - they use financial pressure to encourage positive change. It's how politics is supposed to work. Stop treating Obama like the new Stalin, it's getting old.

So they threatened the company, until he resigned. Woooow. Again, abuse of power.

Originally Posted by Miami Herald

The White House's insistence that Wagoner step down represents an extraordinary intervention of the federal government into the management of a private company. It also reflects that the president and his auto task force have taken a skeptical view of the companies' plans to restructure, which were submitted last month.

SO the company doesn't really control it's fate anymore.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

So they threatened the company, until he resigned. Woooow. Again, abuse of power.

As a point of fact, that White House didn't threaten GM with anything. They told them that a bailout of free money was conditional on Wagoner's resignation. I don't see a problem with government only giving money if it's confident the money will be properly used. Are you trying to tell me that the administration owes GM this money? Because if not, I hardly see how it has no right to set conditions to a financial transaction it's involved in.

SO the company doesn't really control it's fate anymore.

Sure it does. It could keep Wagoner and not take the money, couldn't it? I fail to see how the White House is obligated to give money without reservation.

I'll say it again: stop treating Obama like the new Stalin.

From what I understand, the government's gonna give him some compensation when he resigns. Obama's not leaving Wagoner out in the cold while he personally takes over the GM car company. (I know he's not personally taking over the companies btw)

Presidents have done things like this before where they become involved with private buisnesses. FDR anyone? The "Bank Holiday" anyone? He closed all the banks and had his agents go in there and inspect each and every bank book and offed those that were unsalvageable.

Ah, well, with more information then I can say that the Whitehouse hasn't done anything wrong.

They're blaming the CEO of GM for getting the company into the mess it's currently in, and they want someone else running it to ensure that they won't waste bailout money, hardly a bad idea.

Originally Posted by John

Ah, well, with more information then I can say that the Whitehouse hasn't done anything wrong.

They're blaming the CEO of GM for getting the company into the mess it's currently in, and they want someone else running it to ensure that they won't waste bailout money, hardly a bad idea.

And hardly an abuse of power.

Originally Posted by Evilsbane

As a point of fact, that White House didn't threaten GM with anything. They told them that a bailout of free money was conditional on Wagoner's resignation. I don't see a problem with government only giving money if it's confident the money will be properly used. Are you trying to tell me that the administration owes GM this money? Because if not, I hardly see how it has no right to set conditions to a financial transaction it's involved in.

Gm was in a bad situation as it was, getting rid of Wagoner was practically necessary to ensure the companies survival. The government put them in a compromising position, fire him or we won't help you, thats a threat.

Sure it does. It could keep Wagoner and not take the money, couldn't it? I fail to see how the White House is obligated to give money without reservation.

Well they didn't, because keeping him would cripple their company.

I'll say it again: stop treating Obama like the new Stalin.

I don't feel like I am treating him like Stalin, to be honest I don't know enough about Stalin to treat people like Stalin. All I know is he did horrible things in Russia. Just because you say I am doesn't mean I am.

They just want a guarantee that the money they're spending doesn't fall into the wrong hands. Nothing questionable about that in my mind, there's a reason this kind of support is being offered.