• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

GM, Chrysler Get Ultimatum From Obama on Turnaround

Renae

Banned
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
50,241
Reaction score
19,243
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
President Obama asserted unprecedented government control over the auto industry Monday, rejecting turnaround plans from General Motors and Chrysler and raising the prospect of controlled bankruptcy for either ailing auto giant.

Eager to reassure consumers, Obama also announced the federal government would immediately begin backing the warranties that new car buyers receive _ a step designed to signal that it is safe to purchase U.S.-made autos and trucks despite the distress of the industry.
GM, Chrysler Get Ultimatum From Obama on Turnaround - Automotive * US * News * Story - CNBC.com

On what grounds, constitutional grounds does Obama have to make such a move, make the claim the US Government would back a private companies warranties?

People screamed bloody hell Bush was tapping phone lines to catch terrorist as Government out of control... what the hell do you call this bullsnot?
 
things like this worry me.
 
Obama firing GM CEO? Is that what I'm hearing? Unbelievable!!
 
Under no circumstances will I buy any GM or Chrysler product, ever again.

There's not constitutional authority for Obama's actions....not one bit.

So, Obie's got the taxpayer guaranteeing GM's uniongoons shoddy work, and the taxpayer is going to be soooo kind to make sure that no one who couldn't pay back their silly little mortgages will lose their homes, and just think of how kind the taxpayer is to volunteer to help those pooor widdle bankers and investment brokers on Wall Street, too.

I sure hope the taxpayer doesn't have a home to pay for, wife and kids to feed, or a life of his own, because it's just too bad for him. After all, look at all the things he's done wrong in his life. He's kept his mortgage up to date, he's made his car payments, and he's fed his own kids. Those nasty taxpayers, they should be punished.

The other interesting part is that Obie is promising to give Fiat six gigabucks if they'll hurry up and take Chrysler off his hands. I'd be happy with that plan if it was Obama's money, but it's not. It's our money. I don't see anything wrong with saving six gigabucks and letting Chrysler enjoy bankruptcy court if Fiat (Fiat! wtf, over?) doesn't want it as is. Obama doesn't have the Constitutional authority to make those deals, either.
 
Last edited:
I'm in the mood to say something harshly racist, but I will refrain per CC's wishes.
 
I'm in the mood to say something harshly racist, but I will refrain per CC's wishes.

Ya know I love ya, but is there a NICE way to say something racist?
 
The bottom line is Obama doesn't want to piss off the unions. They're the ones holding the whole process up.

GM execs are only going to be able to absorb so many paycuts before they flee.
 
GM, Chrysler Get Ultimatum From Obama on Turnaround - Automotive * US * News * Story - CNBC.com

On what grounds, constitutional grounds does Obama have to make such a move, make the claim the US Government would back a private companies warranties?

People screamed bloody hell Bush was tapping phone lines to catch terrorist as Government out of control... what the hell do you call this bullsnot?

If the government cannot constitutionally enter into an agreement to back domestic automaker's warrantees while they are in bankruptcy, then the FDIC is unconstitutional, as well as any and all federal loan guarantees. The fact is, the government has been doing this sort of thing practically since our founding.

Otherwise, its an absurd argument you are making.

The comparison you are making is absurd as well. You have a constitutional right to privacy which is why the Bush administration's wire tapping was called into constitutional question. You do not have a constitutional right to having a warrantee backed by the private sector only.
 
I'm not sure that President Obama actually fired GM's CEO. Rather, the Administration likely told GM that it would not provide any financing so long as Mr. Wagoner headed the company. Of course, GM was not entitled to government financing. Mr. Wagoner, seeing the handwriting on the wall, resigned.

Having said that, my first preference remains that the federal government should not be intervening where there is no systemic risk. The auto companies do not constitute systemic risk. However, the decision was made back in the fall that the federal government would intervene for various political, social, and even economic reasons.

Under the above circumstances in which the federal government will intervene, the most feasible route would be a prepackaged Chapter 11 filing with the federal financing for some or all of the debtor-in-possession financing. Such an approach probably offers the greatest possibility of producing the necessary restructuring to make one or more of the companies viable. Things may be evolving in that direction albeit in a very convoluted path.
 
Obama firing GM CEO? Is that what I'm hearing? Unbelievable!!

Things like this scare the crap out of me! What's next? There is no limit to what this narcissist will try next.

:sinking:
 
I honestly don't see how this whole thing isn't going to turn into a gigantic cluster**** and this is coming from someone who even voted for Obama. I'm trying to remain optimistic, but seeing the current administration strong-arming a corporation into getting rid of their CEO is rather disconcerting.
 
I honestly don't see how this whole thing isn't going to turn into a gigantic cluster**** and this is coming from someone who even voted for Obama. I'm trying to remain optimistic, but seeing the current administration strong-arming a corporation into getting rid of their CEO is rather disconcerting.

Lot of hyperbole being thrown around in this thread. The administration simply stated that as a condition of additional government assistance, the CEO would have to step down.

How is that any different then say if Warren Buffet bailed them out and made the same condition? If GM wanted to keep the guy, they could have just declined additional assistance.
 
Lot of hyperbole being thrown around in this thread. The administration simply stated that as a condition of additional government assistance, the CEO would have to step down.

And how is that not strong-arming?

How is that any different then say if Warren Buffet bailed them out and made the same condition? If GM wanted to keep the guy, they could have just declined additional assistance.

They shouldn't even be giving these companies assistance in the first place. That's my point.
 
I honestly don't see how this whole thing isn't going to turn into a gigantic cluster**** and this is coming from someone who even voted for Obama. I'm trying to remain optimistic, but seeing the current administration strong-arming a corporation into getting rid of their CEO is rather disconcerting.

I agree with you about the cluster****! I'm just about speechless! This type of government involvement isn't right on ANY level.

I've been against bailouts of any kind from the beginning because I believe nothing good ever comes from taking a hand-out. It's a position that I've not had to defend even once since all of the blowback started.

Oh well, tomorrow is another day.......
 
It is one thing to support in some manner private companies it is another thing entirely to be pseudo-nationalizing them like this.

Its inherently un-American.
 
This seems the lesser of two evils in my mind. I think it would have been much worse to have given all that bailout money to the auto industry without insisting they get their crap together as well. Then Obama would have been seen as pandering to humongous crappy industries and utterly spineless and ineffectual.

I would have been extremely disappointed if Obama had not done something like this.
 
And how is that not strong-arming?



They shouldn't even be giving these companies assistance in the first place. That's my point.

Thats all well and good. However, if your giving someone a ton of money, it's certainly not inappropriate to attach some conditions to it.
 
GM and Chrysler have no right to complain, they are failed businesses who shouldn't even still exist. The government has every right to dictate the terms under which they will give money, just like any investor does. Its a valid question whether money should be given at all, but if it is, its perfectly appropriate to create requirements for a bailout.
 
Thats all well and good. However, if your giving someone a ton of money, it's certainly not inappropriate to attach some conditions to it.

Except when it's the government giving money to private companies which they shouldn't be doing in the first place.
 
I'm not really seeing this as a big deal.

1) So they conditioned the provision of further funds on this CEO leaving. Big deal. This happens all the time with all sorts of conditions. Who's running AIG right now? What happened to Greenberg?

2) Nothing about this is even remotely unconstitutional, unless you want to complain about Wickard v. Filburn, in which case take it to one of the 500 threads where we've argued about that.

3) Not sure how it's at all analogous to wiretapping (which I thought was okay too, fwiw).

4) Not sure how this is a handout to the unions, when it's they and their retirees who will be taking the biggest hit (if I'm reading this correctly).

5) I'm glad that we're not needlessly bailing out Chrysler anymore. If Cerberus doesn't think it's worth saving, we shouldn't either.

6) If you can't express your opposition to this proposal without resorting to racism, that sounds like a personal shortcoming.
 
Lot of hyperbole being thrown around in this thread. The administration simply stated that as a condition of additional government assistance, the CEO would have to step down.
Government is not in the business of running industry
It is the rule making body.
Now the rule maker is the rule maker, funder and The Decider.
Just like in the USSR.

How is that any different then say if Warren Buffet bailed them out and made the same condition?
Warren Buffet would be investing his own or hos company's cash and as an investor that would buy enough of the company he would have bought that right; that power.

What do Obama, Biden, Geithner or any of his pointy headed staff know about designing, building and selling cars?
Nothing. Zero.

If GM wanted to keep the guy, they could have just declined additional assistance.
Bait and switch.

I'll NEVER buy a Goverment Motors car.
They'll be selling The Obama pretty soon; about as safe as a Trabant, as big as a Polski Fiat, and all the power of a mule on speed.

The arrogance of Obama, who knows nothing about cars... to tell GM to go back and make a new plan with his government pin heads.

GM is his now... like it or not.

.
 
Last edited:
More statism, more socialism.


if there is a problem. Obama's answer is more government.
 
Obama is now being criticized for NOT giving our money to a failing corporation? :roll:

I think this is one of the better moves he's made since taking office. I'm all for backing the warranties.

It is more cost effective than continuing to pump money into a failing corporation that is destined to fail if things are not radically overhauled.

Think of it this way:

If we don't back the warranties, then Joe Lunchbox will be the one who gets screwed in a hard economy.

But by only backing the warranties, we prevent harm to Joe Lunchbox while allowing GM to sink or swim on their own.

And I WANT Obama to say "There's no way we're bailing out this piece of **** company if there aren't some serious changes made in their corporate hierarchy"

If he's gonna be handing out money, give it to companies that show they want to work for it, instead of being handed it without having to fix the problems.

It's just like welfare. I don't mind it if it has caveats preventing people from abusing it. So it should also be with this bailout money.
 
More statism, more socialism.


if there is a problem. Obama's answer is more government.

Why does there have to be a problem? For Obama, there is only Government.... problems are convenient excuses for more of it.
 
Lot of hyperbole being thrown around in this thread. The administration simply stated that as a condition of additional government assistance, the CEO would have to step down.

How is that any different then say if Warren Buffet bailed them out and made the same condition? If GM wanted to keep the guy, they could have just declined additional assistance.

On what constitutional basis did the federal government draw its power to give money to private companies?

Answer: there is no constitutional authority for that act.
 
Back
Top Bottom