Interesting happenings with auto bailout

Superfreak said:
No, I think he should be fired. Don't give the idiot the dignity of resigning. He buried GM (along with his predecessors). Take him out and verbally flog the bastard to ensure no other company will hire his ignorant ass in a leadership role.
Click to expand...

I agree that the stockholders or whomever should fire him. The government, though, should not dictate that, IMO.
 
I think that possibly the government would want him out in order to insure the stability of the company.

But any shaming that goes on, however the populist sentiments may be, should only be from the stockholders, not the government.
 
This is very great news. Unfortunately, Congress can't mandate that GM fire anyone, and they've already expressed confidence in keeping the CEO, so I don't think he's going anywhere.

Still, the plans that the big 3 presented last week at least hold the promise of a dramatic new direction. I'm cautiously hopeful that we'll be able to retain at least a significant portion of that manufacturing output...
 
leaningright said:
I agree that the stockholders or whomever should fire him. The government, though, should not dictate that, IMO.
Click to expand...

If the government is going to provide this bailout with our tax dollars then they have every right to dictate a change in leadership as a condition of that bailout.
 
Superfreak said:
If the government is going to provide this bailout with our tax dollars then they have every right to dictate a change in leadership as a condition of that bailout.
Click to expand...

Do you have any idea how that would look?

They really cannot do that. I'm pretty surprised that you don't see that.
 
Onceler said:
This is very great news. Unfortunately, Congress can't mandate that GM fire anyone, and they've already expressed confidence in keeping the CEO, so I don't think he's going anywhere.

Still, the plans that the big 3 presented last week at least hold the promise of a dramatic new direction. I'm cautiously hopeful that we'll be able to retain at least a significant portion of that manufacturing output...
Click to expand...

Sure they can. They can say, we will not give you a bailout under your current leadership.

It would technically still be up to the board of directors and shareholders... but Congress can most certainly make that happen.
 
Onceler said:
Do you have any idea how that would look?

They really cannot do that. I'm pretty surprised that you don't see that.
Click to expand...

True, it would indeed look as though Congress had a clue and they certainly don't want to be getting that reputation.

Sarcasm aside.... it would look as if the government was being responsible with the tax payers money for a change. Giving money to a company under the same leadership that brought the company to its knees is not a good business decision.
 
Superfreak said:
Sure they can. They can say, we will not give you a bailout under your current leadership.

It would technically still be up to the board of directors and shareholders... but Congress can most certainly make that happen.
Click to expand...

Why don't you move to Venezuela, commie?
 
Darla said:
Why don't you move to Venezuela, commie?
Click to expand...

Lol... commie? I would prefer that they not give the loans to these failed companies at all. But right now they pretty much have to. So IF they are going to do it, why not do it in the most responsible way?

How exactly is that communistic?
 
Superfreak said:
True, it would indeed look as though Congress had a clue and they certainly don't want to be getting that reputation.

Sarcasm aside.... it would look as if the government was being responsible with the tax payers money for a change. Giving money to a company under the same leadership that brought the company to its knees is not a good business decision.
Click to expand...

No, it wouldn't. It would look like a gov't takeover of the auto industry. Conservatives throughout the country would scream bloody murder about it - the gov't essentially dictating who can & cannot run a company.

They get this; as much as I'm sure everyone in that Congress wants someone new at the helm of GM, they understand their limits on this.
 
The government cannot dictate that he be fired. But they can make the money conditional, and have one of the conditions be that he no longer works at GM.
 
Superfreak said:
Lol... commie? I would prefer that they not give the loans to these failed companies at all. But right now they pretty much have to. So IF they are going to do it, why not do it in the most responsible way?

How exactly is that communistic?
Click to expand...

Umm, controlling the means of production?

Do I really have to school you on this? There will be a charge.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top