So much for the private sector. Let the socialist/communist society begin.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/gm_wagoner

 

 

GM CEO Wagoner to step down at White House request

 

DETROIT – General Motors Corp. Chairman and CEO Rick Wagoner will step down immediately at the request of the White House, administration officials said Sunday. The news comes as President Obama prepares to unveil additional restructuring efforts designed to save the domestic auto industry.

 

The officials asked not to be identified because details of the restructuring plan have not yet been made public. On Monday, Obama is to announce measures to restructure GM and Chrysler LLC in exchange for additional government loans. The companies have been living on $17.4 billion in government aid and have requested $21.6 billion more.

this must be the first time in our history that the White House has, more or less, ordered the CEO of a private corporation to resign.

 

I believe we are seeing far too many firsts. Who or what is next?

I suppose General Motors could also not request billions of dollars in federal money.

 

Let the socialist/communist society begin.

 

What does this mean?

Unless I'm mistaken the government cannot force the CEO to quit, right?

 

Also, what has Wagoner done to warrant keeping his job in light of the company he ran asking for $26B?

 

The GM board could have backed him and said no to the $$. That would not be wise because of the repercussions of bankruptcy.

So much for the private sector. Let the socialist/communist society begin.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/gm_wagoner

 

this must be the first time in our history that the White House has, more or less, ordered the CEO of a private corporation to resign.

 

I believe we are seeing far too many firsts. Who or what is next?

 

Do you think that the govt (and we taxpayers) does not have the right to request changes be made before we hand over billions of dollars?

 

You do realize that no one from the govt is actually taking over, correct?

I suppose General Motors could also not request billions of dollars in federal money.

 

 

 

What does this mean?

 

It means 52% of the people in this country voted for a man with a socialist agenda.

 

If you think it is a good thing for the POTUS to ask for the resignation of someone in the private sector, I don't know what to tell you. I don't care about the loans/bailout whatever you want to call it. This is a horrible president to start. This is government intervention in the worst way.

 

Barrack Obama = Ellsworth Toohey

It means 52% of the people in this country voted for a man with a socialist agenda.

 

The problem is that you have failed to explicate what exactly it is that comprises his "socialist agenda," or, rather, provided any meaning to the term socialist. Unless, of course, you want to define socialism as "anything Obama does," then it would only be fair to note you are disregarding the more accepted, common meaning of the term.

 

If you think it is a good thing for the POTUS to ask for the resignation of someone in the private sector, I don't know what to tell you. I don't care about the loans/bailout whatever you want to call it. This is a horrible president to start. This is government intervention in the worst way.

 

When the government acquiesces to the requests of the private sector for loans or money, you expect them to be unconditional? GM is neither compelled to accept the money nor is their CEO compelled to resign. In this case, they have voluntarily agreed to both.

The problem is that you have failed to explicate what exactly it is that comprises his "socialist agenda," or, rather, provided any meaning to the term socialist. Unless, of course, you want to define socialism as "anything Obama does,"...

You didn't get that memo, did you? :lol:

The problem is that you have failed to explicate what exactly it is that comprises his "socialist agenda," or, rather, provided any meaning to the term socialist. Unless, of course, you want to define socialism as "anything Obama does," then it would only be fair to note you are disregarding the more accepted, common meaning of the term.

 

 

 

When the government acquiesces to the requests of the private sector for loans or money, you expect them to be unconditional? GM is neither compelled to accept the money nor is their CEO compelled to resign. In this case, they have voluntarily agreed to both.

 

:thumb:

 

GM could have easily played the capitalist card and NOT accepted any money. They chose otherwise.

:thumb:

 

GM could have easily played the capitalist card and NOT accepted any money. They chose otherwise.

 

Then this is a sign of socialism that the elitists refuse to admit to, because of this is what they want. Government control. I know that I will not change minds on here, but those who support socialism will know they have opposition to their beliefs.

Then this is a sign of socialism that the elitists refuse to admit to, because of this is what they want. Government control. I know that I will not change minds on here, but those who support socialism will know they have opposition to their beliefs.

 

You still don't understand socialism, do you?

I at first bristled at this. But as Clyde pointed out, Wagoner has done nothing to improve the situation at GM. He's more or less continued on the same path. And again as Clyde and others stated, GM could have turned the money down.

 

Am I correct in that if Chrysler completes its merger with Fiat, the US Government with give them financial aid?

The only way to save General Motors is bankruptcy. Go ahead and file and begin to restructure.

Am I correct in that if Chrysler completes its merger with Fiat, the US Government with give them financial aid?

 

I believe that is the case. I think I saw $6B if they merge with Fiat.

Then this is a sign of socialism that the elitists refuse to admit to, because of this is what they want. Government control. I know that I will not change minds on here, but those who support socialism will know they have opposition to their beliefs.

 

First, let me say that I do not support a pure socialist society. BUT, one must recognize that the US has not been a pure capatalist society. Government control of money, regulation of the banking industry, the control of monopolies, unions (workers rights), free education, and even the end of slavery are traits of a socialist society. What I believe we must do is achieve some type of balance between the two.

 

Most people do not understand true socialism. They point at the failed policies of Russia, or other countries. They were not true socialists but state capitalists.

 

If there are wages and salaries, it is not socialism.

State ownership is not socialism.

Social programs are not socialism.

 

Socialism means democracy at all levels of society, including the workplace.

Socialism means a wageless, moneyless society.

Socialism means voluntary labour.

Socialism means free access to the goods produced by society.