I have mixed feelings on this. On one hand, the stepping down of the GM CEO represents an unprecedented expansion of presidential authority - That is, on the surface. But only on the surface. Obama did not fire the GM CEO. He just said that, for GM to receive government money, he had to step down. It's not like he is going to be in the unemployment line either, like the workers are. He is getting a golden parachute worth about 128 million bucks.
But here is the conundrum - Everybody is jumping all over Obama for putting conditions on the money the government is giving out. My answer to that is why not? It's taxpayer money in government hands. Do GM and Chrysler executives somehow feel that they are entitled to that money?
Which brings me to my point - Those who scream "Socialism" the loudest are always the first to get in line ahead of everybody else, with their hands out for those wealth transfers. Who are the ones on their knees for all that Socialism? The corporate executives and the banksters, of course.
Fact is, the GM CEO could have given Obama the middle finger and said no to the money. He didn't. Obama did not put a gun to his head now, did he? But he took the money, and he should not be surprised that there were strings attached. The final decision was his, not Obama's. This was no firing. There is no choice in being fired. You are fired, and that is that. The man had a choice.
Last edited by danarhea; 04-02-09 at 05:09 PM.
The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016