Interesting happenings with auto bailout

Onceler said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm really sick and tired of this commie, Superfreak, defending labor unions and advocating the govt controlling the means of production.
 
Onceler said:
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.
Click to expand...

No, it wouldn't. The government would not be telling the companies who the new leadership would be. The government would simply be telling them that the companies would not get the bailout loans if the executives who put the big 3 in this position were still there.

That is a loan covenant. Nothing more. When the government provides a bailout package to a company, they have every right to dictate terms that are in the best interest of the tax payers who are funding this bailout. Their job is to protect the tax payer. Giving money to failed leaders does not protect the tax payer. If the companies do not like it, they do not have to accept the tax payers money. They can seek alternate funding.
 
Darla said:
Umm, controlling the means of production?

Do I really have to school you on this? There will be a charge.
Click to expand...

How are they controlling the means of production? Are they supposed to just give these loans out with no protection for the tax payer?
 
Darla said:
I'm really sick and tired of this commie, Superfreak, defending labor unions and advocating the govt controlling the means of production.
Click to expand...

I had no idea that he hated America so much. He's probably one of those Code Pinkers....
 
Darla said:
I'm really sick and tired of this commie, Superfreak, defending labor unions and advocating the govt controlling the means of production.
Click to expand...

While I believe the labor unions are a part of the problem, they at least have conceded some of the points I did not like and made arrangements to end the companies liability for the retirees pensions.

Management hasn't done shit to make me think they are going to do any better. Their complete lack of foresight makes me believe that they are just going to piss away my money. If the government lets them do so... they are not acting in our best interests.
 
Superfreak said:
Management hasn't done shit to make me think they are going to do any better. Their complete lack of foresight makes me believe that they are just going to piss away my money. If the government lets them do so... they are not acting in our best interests.
Click to expand...

You mean like the CEO of Merrill Lynch looking for a $10M bonus for this year? No lie, I just saw it on MSNBC! These people, I swear, live on an entirely different planet.
 
No bonus, you drove the company into the ground. No stock options, no bonus, you are lucky we don't sue for your salary back.
 
Thorn said:
You mean like the CEO of Merrill Lynch looking for a $10M bonus for this year? No lie, I just saw it on MSNBC! These people, I swear, live on an entirely different planet.
Click to expand...

I think requiring the resignation of the CEO of any bank or financial institution receiving bailout money would be an excellent idea.
 
Thorn said:
You mean like the CEO of Merrill Lynch looking for a $10M bonus for this year? No lie, I just saw it on MSNBC! These people, I swear, live on an entirely different planet.
Click to expand...

yes, he is trying to justify his request because he got shareholder's $50 billion for the company when it is now worth half that. Of course he is ignoring the fact that Merrill started the year around $90b.

They should give him ten million lashes.... definitely not $10mm
 
Superfreak said:
Are those companies requesting tax payer funding?
Click to expand...

Just because your company fails during a recession doesn't make you a bad CEO. It's a stupid litmus test that will get rid of more good CEO's than it gets rid of bad. The stockholders can decide whether or not he's good for the company, and they have more knowledge of it than your blanket firing.
 
Watermark said:
Just because your company fails during a recession doesn't make you a bad CEO. It's a stupid litmus test that will get rid of more good CEO's than it gets rid of bad. The stockholders can decide whether or not he's good for the company, and they have more knowledge of it than your blanket firing.
Click to expand...

sure they do. :D

History of late proves the stockholders are very intelligent :rolleyes:
 
Watermark said:
Just because your company fails during a recession doesn't make you a bad CEO. It's a stupid litmus test that will get rid of more good CEO's than it gets rid of bad. The stockholders can decide whether or not he's good for the company, and they have more knowledge of it than your blanket firing.
Click to expand...

1) I don't think any analyst believes the management of the Big three has done a good job for the past two decades. This isn't just about it being during a time of recession. This is about piss poor management who lacked the foresight to diversify their product line up enough to be able to adapt to changing markets.

2) No one is advocating the government going to companies at will and telling them to fire their executives due to poor performance. We are suggesting that those failed firms that are requesting money from tax payers not get a dime unless management changes. These firms did not fail just because of the recession.

3) I agree that stockholders and boards of directors are capable of making decisions. But AGAIN... NOT when MY tax dollars are being handed to them. If they want to make the decisions on their own... then no tax dollars should float their way. If the government is going to give them our money, then they are responsible to US, not to the shareholders of the big 3.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top