Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics

Government taking over private businesses?

 Did you hear about General motors? How our government fored the president of General motors to force the CEO out. The Bail-out funds were denied, if the CEO did not resign. Crazy, We're supposed to be free,  having private businesses. When will the government back off, and take care of our security? I'd hate to be President, there's just too many problems to deal with, in & out of our country.

by on Apr. 2, 2009 at 1:08 PM
Replies (11-18):
WImom2
by Silver Member on Apr. 2, 2009 at 3:42 PM

YEP YEP YEP.

Quoting sassyandy124:

 

Quoting ddbz:

I guess another option would be to let let GM fail and let all those workers lose their jobs. 


    That's exactly what they should do. WHY? First to show Obama that he can not extort the private sector, and second those workers are a BIG part of the problem. The UAW has bled the big three dry for decades. When people are making $30 an hr to put a sticker on a windshield, $20 to sweep the floor, not even showing up for work and having a buddy punch them in and out, sleeping in the parking lot, etc.... I could go on and on, there is a HUGE problem. It's NOT every employee, but it's A LOT and the UAW is responsible. Obama wants to play 'scare' tactics, until they give him what they want, the CEO's (I am not saying that they aren't responsible as well) are still vacationing in Traverse City, and MI is dying. The average person can not find a job to save their life, and the whole state is going bankrupt. More people than just GM and Chrysler are at risk, there are all the people that work for the co.'s that make parts FOR the automakers, and all the other 'support' manufacturers. If the big three go under I will bet you that close to 40% of Mi will go on unemployment. (Factoring in those support jobs) Mi will essentially die, it could very likely send un into a depression that makes the Great one look like a mild recession, but it's more important to Obama to get his way.


Scorpio359
by on Apr. 2, 2009 at 4:10 PM

Govt cannot fire a CEO only a board of directors has this right. Obama is stepping out of bounds on this one too. Pretty soon it will be any business that the govt does not deem worthy according to their standards. Do not trust Geither. A man who had to pay $43,000  in back taxes and penalties cannot be trusted with your money.

TysMama6405
by Member on Apr. 2, 2009 at 4:12 PM

I don't feel too bad about the CEO just simply because GM is getting a huge bailout, all of which comes out of our pockets as taxpayers, so essentially the government pretty much owns them. They didn't withhold the pay off once the CEO resigned, so it wasn't exactly like they just pushed the guy out. It is their prerogative to ask whomever they please to leave as a stipulation of giving them the cash. That was a lot of cash!! Besides, who knows what business history is there? Maybe he is the one who drove GM to need the bailout in the first place. Who knows. In any case, I don't think it is about the government having control over jobs. JMO...

SunandMoonMom
by Member on Apr. 2, 2009 at 6:25 PM

I completely agree.  I found one of Obama's recent speeches about GM's former CEO very interesting...to sum up, Obama stated that the CEO had made beneficial progress in helped the the company to grow and improve, particularly in the hybrid/enviromentally friendly vehicle development department.  In the same breath of praise, however, he said the CEO's progress was not really working and was not good enough.  Obama is like a walking "bad news letter" (i.e. the letter you write in which you first flatter a business/person to butter them up, then complain to get what you want).

Also, notice how Toyota and Honda haven't requested government financial assistance?  One of my relatives works for Honda, and he explained it's because they make proactive and prioritized business decisions for the good of their company and their employees.  Of course, Honda's sales are suffering and they've had to lay off employees; but they are dealing with it on their own...Precisely as private businesses should.

IMO, both the government and GM are to blame...The government's "giving" (or should I say "unethically intrusive"?) hand should be smacked; as should the "taking" hand of GM or any other car company.  It's a disasterous situation for our economy from both ends of the spectrum.

Quoting Scorpio359:

Govt cannot fire a CEO only a board of directors has this right. Obama is stepping out of bounds on this one too. Pretty soon it will be any business that the govt does not deem worthy according to their standards. Do not trust Geither. A man who had to pay $43,000  in back taxes and penalties cannot be trusted with your money.


sweetie00
by on Apr. 2, 2009 at 6:31 PM


Quoting sassyandy124:

 

Quoting ddbz:

I guess another option would be to let let GM fail and let all those workers lose their jobs. 


    That's exactly what they should do. WHY? First to show Obama that he can not extort the private sector, and second those workers are a BIG part of the problem. The UAW has bled the big three dry for decades. When people are making $30 an hr to put a sticker on a windshield, $20 to sweep the floor, not even showing up for work and having a buddy punch them in and out, sleeping in the parking lot, etc.... I could go on and on, there is a HUGE problem. It's NOT every employee, but it's A LOT and the UAW is responsible. Obama wants to play 'scare' tactics, until they give him what they want, the CEO's (I am not saying that they aren't responsible as well) are still vacationing in Traverse City, and MI is dying. The average person can not find a job to save their life, and the whole state is going bankrupt. More people than just GM and Chrysler are at risk, there are all the people that work for the co.'s that make parts FOR the automakers, and all the other 'support' manufacturers. If the big three go under I will bet you that close to 40% of Mi will go on unemployment. (Factoring in those support jobs) Mi will essentially die, it could very likely send un into a depression that makes the Great one look like a mild recession, but it's more important to Obama to get his way.

I think THEY were the ones that came groveling for help, right???? Nice try, though.

spoiled_wife
by Member on Apr. 2, 2009 at 6:39 PM

The government didn't exactly "take over" these businesses.

These businesses went to the government with their hands out wanting money. They wanted the government to keep them from collapsing.

However.

The government had absolutely NO business giving any of these companies money. NONE OF THEM.. Not the auto industry, not the financial industry..

American is supposed to be have a "Free Market" economy. So, let the markets and industries either correct themselvs, restructure, or fail..  Just like any other buisness in a free market economy.

A nasty precedent has now been set by our government. Now any industry can, and if things get bad enough some will, be knocking on the governments door wanting their own bail out..  Years ago, when the government bailed out the airline industry due to being hit so hard after 9/11..  It opened up this box. Bail outs did not start with the banking industry. Our government has been bailing out various industries for several years now.

                                               

SunandMoonMom
by Member on Apr. 2, 2009 at 6:39 PM

I believe the "they" Sassy was referring to was both the Government and GM?  The government should not have intervened at all, but instead should have let GM fail despite job loss.  It's my understanding that's how capitalism works.  And GM should not have asked for help; both sides were wrong.  I think Sassy meant our capitalist economy should run its course...she wasn't making a one-sided argument.  (Please correct me if I'm wrong, Sassy. ;-))

Quoting sweetie00:


Quoting sassyandy124:


Quoting ddbz:

I guess another option would be to let let GM fail and let all those workers lose their jobs. 


    That's exactly what they should do. WHY? First to show Obama that he can not extort the private sector, and second those workers are a BIG part of the problem. The UAW has bled the big three dry for decades. When people are making $30 an hr to put a sticker on a windshield, $20 to sweep the floor, not even showing up for work and having a buddy punch them in and out, sleeping in the parking lot, etc.... I could go on and on, there is a HUGE problem. It's NOT every employee, but it's A LOT and the UAW is responsible. Obama wants to play 'scare' tactics, until they give him what they want, the CEO's (I am not saying that they aren't responsible as well) are still vacationing in Traverse City, and MI is dying. The average person can not find a job to save their life, and the whole state is going bankrupt. More people than just GM and Chrysler are at risk, there are all the people that work for the co.'s that make parts FOR the automakers, and all the other 'support' manufacturers. If the big three go under I will bet you that close to 40% of Mi will go on unemployment. (Factoring in those support jobs) Mi will essentially die, it could very likely send un into a depression that makes the Great one look like a mild recession, but it's more important to Obama to get his way.

I think THEY were the ones that came groveling for help, right???? Nice try, though.


SunandMoonMom
by Member on Apr. 2, 2009 at 6:41 PM

Thank you for a balanced, informative response that shows the precedents of these bail out practices;  A majority of people I know think the practice began very recently with banks only...

Quoting spoiled_wife:

The government didn't exactly "take over" these businesses.

These businesses went to the government with their hands out wanting money. They wanted the government to keep them from collapsing.

However.

The government had absolutely NO business giving any of these companies money. NONE OF THEM.. Not the auto industry, not the financial industry..

American is supposed to be have a "Free Market" economy. So, let the markets and industries either correct themselvs, restructure, or fail..  Just like any other buisness in a free market economy.

A nasty precedent has now been set by our government. Now any industry can, and if things get bad enough some will, be knocking on the governments door wanting their own bail out..  Years ago, when the government bailed out the airline industry due to being hit so hard after 9/11..  It opened up this box. Bail outs did not start with the banking industry. Our government has been bailing out various industries for several years now.


Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)