|
|
Post by mattahawk on Mar 30, 2009 12:12:21 GMT -6
Rick Wagoner was told to step aside by the White House. I think that is kind of a crock of shit. GM, IMO, has a nice selection of affordable and good selling vehicles. Most of them get pretty decent mpg upwards in the high 20's or 30's.
If anybody should resign it should have been the Chrysler CEO. I think I heard that they are closer to being "broke" than GM is and other than their MiniVans I won't buy a Dodge.
|
|
|
|
Post by lpcalihawk on Mar 30, 2009 12:13:50 GMT -6
Crock of shit? Don't accept government bailout money and the government can't tell you to resign. More CEOs who were in charge of these companies during their downfalls should be forced out. We need to stop rewarding incompetence.
|
|
|
|
Post by MoHawk on Mar 30, 2009 12:17:43 GMT -6
Crock of shit? Don't accept government bailout money and the government can't tell you to resign. More CEOs who were in charge of these companies during their downfalls should be forced out. We need to stop rewarding incompetence. +1 If you don't want the government in your business...don't accept the bailout check. It's that simple. Neither GM nor Chrysler is doing well and both CEO's should have gotten the axe IMHO. |
|
|
|
Post by iammrhawkeyes on Mar 30, 2009 12:45:10 GMT -6
Did the fine print state that The Government had the authority to fire anyone? In any case, this is madness. Thee CEO shouldn't be able to fire the CEO. The funny thing is that CEObama is saying no more bailouts to GM and Crysler and has actually used the B word. We could have saved multiple billions of taxpayer bailout dollars and had Wagoner gone if the dreaded B word would have been used six months ago. Thanks Barry (and Timmy G!). uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20090330/tbs-uk-autos-obama-remarks-sb-03c9bed.html"While Chrysler and GM are very different companies with very different paths forward, both need a fresh start to implement the restructuring plans they develop. That may mean using our bankruptcy code as a mechanism to help them restructure quickly and emerge stronger. Now, I know that when people even hear the word "bankruptcy" it can be a bit unsettling, so let me explain what I mean. What I am talking about is using our existing legal structure as a tool that, with the backing of the U.S. government, can make it easier for General Motors and Chrysler to quickly clear away old debts that are weighing them down so they can get back on their feet and onto a path to success; a tool that we can use, even as workers are staying on the job building cars that are being sold." |
|
|
|
Post by MoHawk on Mar 30, 2009 13:03:36 GMT -6
Again, If you don't want Uncle Sam interferring, don't take his money.
And fuck fear. Let these guys fail for all I care. You run a shitty business, you pay the price. Just like the guy in *insert small town in Iowa here*, or the family farmer or any other small business owner.
|
|
|
|
Post by NotMyKid on Mar 30, 2009 13:18:01 GMT -6
Crock of shit? Don't accept government bailout money and the government can't tell you to resign. More CEOs who were in charge of these companies during their downfalls should be forced out. We need to stop rewarding incompetence. Does that go for all companies that get money from the government? Where do you draw the line? A pretty scary precedent has been set if you ask me. |
|
|
|
Post by HawksStock on Mar 30, 2009 13:25:26 GMT -6
Crock of shit? Don't accept government bailout money and the government can't tell you to resign. More CEOs who were in charge of these companies during their downfalls should be forced out. We need to stop rewarding incompetence. Does that go for all companies that get money from the government? Where do you draw the line? A pretty scary precedent has been set if you ask me. Hoffa, you know my political views. The "scary precedent" is the bailout itself. The bankster's want full control, they control the money, thus they control our government, and I'm sure they are more than happy to dole out cash to control any industry they haven't already obtained. It's easier this way, otherwise they'd have to allow the industry to crash and rebuild, it's much easier to gain control if something that is economically nonviable. |
|
|
|
Post by thunderhawk on Mar 30, 2009 13:26:55 GMT -6
Bankruptcy is no panacea. There is the distinct possibility that suppliers will refuse to sell to a bankrupt company, especially if market conditions remain the same.
|
|
|
|
Post by lpcalihawk on Mar 30, 2009 13:27:55 GMT -6
Crock of shit? Don't accept government bailout money and the government can't tell you to resign. More CEOs who were in charge of these companies during their downfalls should be forced out. We need to stop rewarding incompetence. Does that go for all companies that get money from the government? Where do you draw the line? A pretty scary precedent has been set if you ask me. You might be scared of the precedent being set......but I'm more scared of companies being allowed taxpayer money without having any accountability. In a publicly traded company, shareholders decide on CEO compensation and such matters. Are we all not shareholders in GM now that they have received bailout money? |
|
|
|
Post by NotMyKid on Mar 30, 2009 13:29:25 GMT -6
Bankruptcy is no panacea. There is the distinct possibility that suppliers will refuse to sell to a bankrupt company, especially if market conditions remain the same. Most of those suppliers would find themselves going through the same thing if they didn't sell to them. Selling to a company that is in bankruptcy would be the least of their problems. |
|
|
|
Post by mattahawk on Mar 30, 2009 13:36:21 GMT -6
Crock of shit? Don't accept government bailout money and the government can't tell you to resign. More CEOs who were in charge of these companies during their downfalls should be forced out. We need to stop rewarding incompetence. [/quote Crock of shit might have been a little strong. It might very well be all fair and good, GM is after all failing badly, but Wagoner came on as CEO in the late 90's and I have read a couple of articles in the ntaional mags' like Newsweek etc that he is intent on turning them around and moving them into the 21st century. While I currently have no cash to look for a vehicle I do keep up pretty good on their product lines and I think GM is in far better shape than Chrysler. I agree with the above sentiments that if you don't want the govt' interference then keep your hands off the govt' money. I also could agree that both CEO's could/should be gone. I just think GM is in better shape and should be given more leeway. |
|
|
|
Post by HawksStock on Mar 30, 2009 13:37:57 GMT -6
Crock of shit? Don't accept government bailout money and the government can't tell you to resign. More CEOs who were in charge of these companies during their downfalls should be forced out. We need to stop rewarding incompetence. [/quote Crock of shit might have been a little strong. It might very well be all fair and good, GM is after all failing badly, but Wagoner came on as CEO in the late 90's and I have read a couple of articles in the ntaional mags' like Newsweek etc that he is intent on turning them around and moving them into the 21st century. While I currently have no cash to look for a vehicle I do keep up pretty good on their product lines and I think GM is in far better shape than Chrysler. I agree with the above sentiments that if you don't want the govt' interference then keep your hands off the govt' money. I also could agree that both CEO's could/should be gone. I just think GM is in better shape and should be given more leeway. True, but if we all had the cash, and were cash conscious we'd all be driving toyota's. |
|
|
|
Post by iammrhawkeyes on Mar 30, 2009 13:58:13 GMT -6
Are we all not shareholders in GM now that they have received bailout money? We sure are and we'll all be receiving those preferred share certifikits very soon. This doesn't sound so bad after all. |
|
|
|
Post by thunderhawk on Mar 30, 2009 14:25:05 GMT -6
Bankruptcy is no panacea. There is the distinct possibility that suppliers will refuse to sell to a bankrupt company, especially if market conditions remain the same. Most of those suppliers would find themselves going through the same thing if they didn't sell to them. Selling to a company that is in bankruptcy would be the least of their problems. That's true. Perhaps "selling" wasn't complete. "Selling on credit" is what I meant to convey. That and other lines of credit are a big "if." Doesn't really matter to me, though. Once you go jap you never go back. (My apologies to the Germans. Yes, your vehicles are a blast and superior driving experiences, but your repair costs are a nut-kicker.) |
|
|
|
Post by iammrhawkeyes on Mar 30, 2009 14:26:51 GMT -6
It doesn't appear that there is any language attached to the bailout money that would give Thee CEO the power to fire anyone. According to Carl Levin(D-Mich), Wagoner "voluntarily" resigned. I wonder if there will be any Presidential or Congressional outrage at the 20 million dollar retirement package Wagoner will be receiving? thehill.com/leading-the-news/senator-no-consultation-on-asking-wagoner-to-leave-2009-03-30.htmlPresident Obama didn’t want any advice from Congress on the decision to ask GM CEO Rick Wagoner to resign, according to Carl Levin (D), Michigan’s senior senator. “He didn’t ask us about it, he informed us,” Levin told reporters in a conference call Monday afternoon. “The president said he’d already decided.” Levin said he and three other lawmakers were informed of the decision in a phone call Obama made from the Oval Office. Obama told the members of Congress that Wagoner needed to resign so that the administration could show the public it was making an effort at a fresh start with helping the auto industry, according to Levin. Levin repeatedly described the decision as “sad,” and noted that Wagoner had given a lifetime of service to GM. He praised Wagner’s willingness to voluntarily “retire” from his post, and did not say whether he disagreed with Obama’s decision. Obama formally announced Monday morning that he was rejecting restructuring plans submitted by GM and Chrysler because they would not make the two automakers viable. He also made it clear that Wagoner was asked to resign as a condition for GM getting more aid. Levin did not directly criticize Obama’s decision, but did say there is a “double standard” in the treatment of U.S. automakers and the financial industry, which has received tens of billions more in aid from taxpayers. “It’s something we’ve got to fight and overcome,” he said of Michigan lawmakers. Obama suggested both companies might need to into a controlled bankruptcy to restructure, a suggestion Levin said could hurt Chrysler and GM by lowering consumer confidence. |
|
|
|
Post by thunderhawk on Mar 30, 2009 14:32:09 GMT -6
I'm pretty sure that I heard on NPR this morning that Wagoner isn't getting a severance package as part of his "resignation."
|
|
|
|
Post by iammrhawkeyes on Mar 30, 2009 14:34:28 GMT -6
I'm pretty sure that I heard on NPR this morning that Wagoner isn't getting a severance package as part of his "resignation." You're correct on the severance package. The retirement package is different. It doesn't count as a bonus or severance pay. P.S. You know, semantics. |
|
|
|
Post by mattahawk on Mar 30, 2009 15:06:43 GMT -6
They specified that also on CNN, they asked if there were any clauses in which Wagoner wouldn't be able to get his retirement packages and talked about the potential for public anger if he does. The way CNN said it, he has been working for $1 for 2 years. If he wants a multi-million dollar severance package, give it to him. You can bet the dude has been putting in some hellacious hours over the last couple of years fixing this mess.
|
|
|
|
Post by iammrhawkeyes on Mar 30, 2009 15:12:42 GMT -6
They specified that also on CNN, they asked if there were any clauses in which Wagoner wouldn't be able to get his retirement packages and talked about the potential for public anger if he does. The way CNN said it, he has been working for $1 for 2 years. If he wants a multi-million dollar severance package, give it to him. You can bet the dude has been putting in some hellacious hours over the last couple of years fixing this mess. One of the AIG executives(in one of the profitable divisions) also received $1 over the past year and his bonus cut after taxes was over $700k. Due to the public outcry(and threats) he's going to donate that to charity. BTW, he also quit. |
|
|
|
Post by Iowafan1 on Mar 30, 2009 16:52:18 GMT -6
As if it should not have already been common sense, this should be a huge red flag or shot across the bow that once you enter the arena of Government assistance or bailouts, the Government essentially owns you. This is just the corporate version of the guy down the street accepting a welfare check. The second you do this, Government dictates your life. Looking at the Government "stimulus" to GM, they have done everything from dictate executive compensation to firing the CEO. Where the Government (tax payers) is supposed to be on the hook for federal infrastructure and national defense only, they will now be guaranteeing maintenance and warranties. How bizarre is that? In the meantime, has anyone heard about UAW President Ron Gettelfinger getting the axe? Nope....didn't think so. What about Hussein advocating the UAW bring their pay and benefits in line with the non-domestic auto manufacturer's umbrella? Again....nope. For God's sake, his administration has already advocated union wages and benefits for his 3 1/2 million unskilled Government infrastructure employees when none of the jobs, job requirements or employees have even been identified yet.
The one decent good great thing to come out of the GM CEO firing is that every other company saw the President of the United States fire the CEO of a private company! No company will ever come to the Government for assistance now that they know full well that Hussein's gang will not hesitate to void contracts, dictate manpower, dictate compensation and fire executives.
|
|
|
|
Post by Norm "racerhawk" Parker on Mar 30, 2009 17:47:15 GMT -6
Did the fine print state that The Government had the authority to fire anyone? In any case, this is madness. Thee CEO shouldn't be able to fire the CEO. The funny thing is that CEObama is saying no more bailouts to GM and Crysler and has actually used the B word. We could have saved multiple billions of taxpayer bailout dollars and had Wagoner gone if the dreaded B word would have been used six months ago. Thanks Barry (and Timmy G!). uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20090330/tbs-uk-autos-obama-remarks-sb-03c9bed.html"While Chrysler and GM are very different companies with very different paths forward, both need a fresh start to implement the restructuring plans they develop. That may mean using our bankruptcy code as a mechanism to help them restructure quickly and emerge stronger. Now, I know that when people even hear the word "bankruptcy" it can be a bit unsettling, so let me explain what I mean. What I am talking about is using our existing legal structure as a tool that, with the backing of the U.S. government, can make it easier for General Motors and Chrysler to quickly clear away old debts that are weighing them down so they can get back on their feet and onto a path to success; a tool that we can use, even as workers are staying on the job building cars that are being sold." I'd have to agree with you. The president shouldn't be able to fire GM's CEO. Not good. |
|
|
|
Post by mattahawk on Mar 30, 2009 17:56:42 GMT -6
Obama has said several times that we are all going to take losses in this. Management, shareholders, Union workers, the public. Of course that doesn't mean that he will follow through on his threat to include the UAW but you can bet the public is watching.
On a sidenote Obama's public approval of how he is handling the GM/Chrysler mess is at 49% dissaproval, 46% approval, per CNN.
|
|
|
|
Post by thunderhawk on Mar 30, 2009 21:24:27 GMT -6
I'm pretty sure that I heard on NPR this morning that Wagoner isn't getting a severance package as part of his "resignation." You're correct on the severance package. The retirement package is different. It doesn't count as a bonus or severance pay. P.S. You know, semantics. Ah yes, semantics...I'm being serviced...no, I'm being fucked. Heh. Apparently he has 20M in "pension" money waiting for him. Shit, if I had that waiting for me, I'd have quit years ago. |
|
|
|
Post by mattahawk on Mar 31, 2009 7:02:51 GMT -6
You, me and anybody else with a shred of common sense.
That being said I think it is why the guy deserves some credit. He could have retired anytime he wants and sat back with his money and enjoy the good life. He didn't, he stuck with it for $1 per year and tried to change GM around.
On the flip side, CNN said yesterday part of the reason he is gone is because he killed the electric car. If he would have pushed and pushed hard for the electric car it is possible that their advantage over the other auto makers would be huge. Or maybe not so much, IDK.
|
|
|
|
Post by iammrhawkeyes on Mar 31, 2009 8:54:48 GMT -6
Damn. Talk about getting serviced. Timmy is now your boss, bitches. This is chilling shit. www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Beyond-AIG-A-Bill-to-let-Big-Government-Set-Your-Salary-42158597.html"But now, in a little-noticed move, the House Financial Services Committee, led by chairman Barney Frank, has approved a measure that would, in some key ways, go beyond the most draconian features of the original AIG bill. The new legislation, the "Pay for Performance Act of 2009," would impose government controls on the pay of all employees -- not just top executives -- of companies that have received a capital investment from the U.S. government. It would, like the tax measure, be retroactive, changing the terms of compensation agreements already in place. And it would give Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner extraordinary power to determine the pay of thousands of employees of American companies. The purpose of the legislation is to "prohibit unreasonable and excessive compensation and compensation not based on performance standards," according to the bill's language. That includes regular pay, bonuses -- everything -- paid to employees of companies in whom the government has a capital stake, including those that have received funds through the Troubled Assets Relief Program, or TARP, as well as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The measure is not limited just to those firms that received the largest sums of money, or just to the top 25 or 50 executives of those companies. It applies to all employees of all companies involved, for as long as the government is invested. And it would not only apply going forward, but also retroactively to existing contracts and pay arrangements of institutions that have already received funds. In addition, the bill gives Geithner the authority to decide what pay is "unreasonable" or "excessive." And it directs the Treasury Department to come up with a method to evaluate "the performance of the individual executive or employee to whom the payment relates." |
|
