Posts
Megan McArdle notes that the POTUS speaks, and GM CEO rolls. She concludes:
On the other hand, it can hardly hurt. And the symbolism, both to the taxpayer and the employees, is important. GM can't be given vast sums without some visible sign of serious change. Let's hope the new CEO actually brings some, rather than providing window dressing for a continuation of business as usual.<rant>It can hardly hurt? What? You have the POTUS interfering with nominally private corporations, and you think this can hardly hurt? Repeat after me, lady: precedent, precedent, precedent. This interference should strike fear in every capitalist heart. Oh, wait: you voted for this fellow. Never mind.</rant>
Baldilocks is equally queasy.
Eh? GM left capitalism when they crawled to Washington to suck the gov't tit. I don't recall the timeline, though - if they were forced to take gov money, then yeah, this is outrageous. If they went begging for it, then to hell with them.
ReplyDeleteif only Obama had 'persuaded' Rick Gettlefinger to quit instead.
ReplyDeleteI had the same thought upon reading that particular keyboard drooling of Megan's. I understand that she voted for Hope-along Change-ity, but I cannot fathom how she continues to call herself a libertarian while supporting pretty much everything that Barry does.
ReplyDeleteBack in Sept. 2008, the Bush administration required Robert Willumstad, then CEO of AIG, to step down as a condition for AIG to receive bail out money.
ReplyDeleteBush, that socialist, is the one who set precedent here. Obama is just following in his footsteps.
And what is to become of Ron Gettelfinger, the UAW counterpart? He is at least as intransigent as Wagoner.
ReplyDeleteI don't get it. Unlike that "libertarian socialist" moron you got into a flame war with, McArdle is actually smart enough to know what the word "libertarian" actually means. Maybe it was just a brain fart.
ReplyDeleteI called the White House to schedule a service appointment with Government Motors for my Tahoe, but they wouldn't put me down in the appointment book!
ReplyDeleteWH comment line: 1-202-456-1111
Heads should have rolled at the auto companies, but it should have come from the shareholders. It should ALWAYS come from the shareholders. Having the White House interfere in a company, and watching people who should know better think this is okay, is scary, scary stuff.
ReplyDeleteGM and Chrysler should get out of Washington right now, and declare bankruptcy. I'm sure they could refinance in Chapter 11 without the help of the Community Organizer in Chief.
hmmmm....
ReplyDeleteremember when Reagan broke the airline strikes by firing all those striking union members?
It occurs to me that, like the " intelligence" gathering leading up to the Iraq war, Republicans/Cons cherry-pick what they deem to be acceptable Government interference.
As Cody points out, Bush (and Reagan before him)
began this trend of "Big Govt." proactivity, yet it is that scary Obama character who we need to look out for.
Conservatism; no principles, no ideas, no hope.
"remember when Reagan broke the airline strikes by firing all those striking union members?"
ReplyDeleteReagan fired air traffic controllers, i.e. **federal government** employees, who just so happened to have a "no strike" clause in their contract. Here's more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_Air_Traffic_Controllers_Organization_(1968)#August_1981_strike
Oh, and try to know what the fck you are talking about before you comment next time.
As Cody points out, Bush (and Reagan before him)
ReplyDeletebegan this trend of "Big Govt." proactivity, yet it is that scary Obama character who we need to look out for.
I find it hysterical that all the progs can think to defend Obama with is, "But Bush did it first!"
Obama = Bush on Steroids
geez...
ReplyDelete13/28, do you not understand the context of this discussion?
Your ignorance proves my point. The abject hypocrisy of you Cons is staggering.
Reagan took some pretty radical steps to deal with the airline strike of 81.But it's OK with you wingnuts because of your knee-jerk opposition to labor unions.
Obama asks the GM CEO to step down in return for Govt. aid, and for you jaggoffs this is a sign of the forthcoming apocalypse.
We know there is no rhyme or reason to Conservative thinking. I just like pointing that out to the intellectually challenged.
And Rae, if you get your head out of your ass for a second you will see that I'm not defending Obama, I'm merely pointing out your lack of mental prowess and your petty hypocrisy.My dear, where was your outrage when Bush was running the show?
LMAO "pretty radical steps" is how we characterize the legal enforcement of contracts nowadays?
ReplyDeleteArticle 1 sections 9 and 10 of the constitution. Read them. Reagan was constitutionally mandated to fire them, because to do otherwise by asking congress for some legislative reach-around would have been an abrogation.
Yeah, we know, that whole sticking to the constitution thing when it comes to contracts is "radical," as evidenced by the AIG bonus faux-outrage... The constitution always seems to be "radical" to leftists, who then turn around and complain it was written by a bunch of plain-bread old dead white dudes.
But we don't really expect the "intellectually challenged" holders of such cognitive dissonance to understand the difference between a voluntary resignation as a condition of a bailout, and a coerced resignation as a RESULT of a bailout.
Just because you're unable to comprehend that a "principle" or an "idea" is in reality something OTHER than a "feeling" like liberal guilt... doesn't mean they don't exist as such... not that you're able to comprehend that point either.
"Reagan took some pretty radical steps to deal with the airline strike of 81.But it's OK with you wingnuts because of your knee-jerk opposition to labor unions."
ReplyDeleteThere's no point in debating you because you cannot even get the fundamental facts correct.
Reagan dealt with a strike of AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS. These AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS were EMPLOYEES OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT (not to be confused with employees of AIRLINES). Just to be clear, these EMPLOYEES OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT were not PRIVATE SECTOR employees (and please note, in case this is confusing, THE PRIVATE SECTOR is different from THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT).
By law, these EMPLOYEES OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT were PROHIBITED FROM STRIKING. Thus, when these FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES went ON STRIKE, Reagan ENFORCED THE LAW THAT PROHIBITED THEM FROM STRIKING, and thus fired them. Thus, it was a case of ONE FEDERAL EMPLOYEE (Reagan) firing other FEDERAL EMPLOYEES (i.e. Air Traffic Controllers, who are not employees of any airline, BTW ... you understand this don't you?).
Until you can grasp the fundamental differences between FEDERAL EMPLOYEES and PRIVATE SECTOR employees (even where govt. aid is involved) and the difference between AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS (who managed air traffic in and out of airports as well as en route from one locations to another) and AIR LINES (which are private sector companies that operate aircraft to carry passengers, and who were not in anyway part of the 1981 strike), than any other comment by you on this topic is null and void.
Well, I guess asking someone to step down is coercion.(?!?)
ReplyDeleteYou know, he didn't have to step down if he didn't want to. But don't let that get in the way of your blind faith and absolute defense of the executive class.
Are we going to agree on this issue anytime soon?
Nope.
Especially in light of a Conservative ideology that preaches a third-world approach to economics. How is it that you can ask the working class to make concessions in their wages while passionately defending the CEO's who're responsible for the fiscal health of the corporations they run into the ground?
Oh right. If the workers would settle for wages that are competitive with wage-earners of developing nations then we wouldn't be having these problems, would we?
What's the endgame here? Small Govt. in exchange for a new aristocracy?
When you deal with Govt. money you deal with the strings attached to that money. See Republican welfare reform.
If I bring up the 81 airline strike it is to highlight the disconnect in Conservative thinking when it comes to THE REAL productive class of America vs. the despots that are ruining the American economy and country as a whole.
You've chosen which side to defend.
Now live with it....
It's beyond me why Young 4 eyes wants people to suffer for Obama's policies.
ReplyDeletelike the poor and the hungry.
"If I bring up the ***81 airline strike*** it is to highlight the disconnect in Conservative thinking when it comes to THE REAL productive class of America vs. the despots that are ruining the American economy and country as a whole."
ReplyDeleteWow, you just don't get it do you, even after it has been completely and thoroughly spelled out for you.
Which AIRLINE(S) went on strike in 1981, and in which AIRLINE strike did President Reagan intervene. Answer that question first before you respond. If you cannot answer that question, then it's clear that you don't know what the fck you are talking about.
I'm not defending Obama. I'm pointing out that the bad things Obama is doing, those things which seem to animate True Conservatives, are the very things Bush did. The only difference is that True Conservatives were silent when the Bush administration was raping our economy. Now, however, they're here to inform and protect us from the evil socialist Obama. Keep it up, guys.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, I'm a conservative. Not one of those Obama bots McCain has been writing about lately. But a conservative who wants conservatives to, you know, act like conservatives.
ReplyDeletePointing out the fact that Bush did exactly what Obama is doing does not make one a progressive. I'm sorry to disappoint you on that front. Life would be much easier if everything conformed to our modes of thinking.
Cody--
ReplyDeleteyou do not follow Michelle Malkin, do you?
any number of conservative blogs have been calling out the expansion of Bush for some time.
Note to self--type slower.
ReplyDelete"I'm not defending Obama. I'm pointing out that the bad things Obama is doing, those things which seem to animate True Conservatives, are the very things Bush did. The only difference is that True Conservatives were silent when the Bush administration was raping our economy."
ReplyDeleteWith the exception of the host of this blog, Michelle Malkin, a large number of other conservative bloggers, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, various writers at National Review and The American Spectator, thousands upon thousands of commenters on conservative blogs and millions of conservatives that stayed home on election day 2006, who blasted Bush for not using his veto pen and letting spending run rampant and ripped him for the prescription drug benefit and the No Child Left Behind Act and the steel tariffs and his amnesty for illegal aliens push and his support of Michael Brown post-Katrina and his cowardly signing of CFR and the Dubai Ports deal and all those other things that earned him the ire of conservatives, you're exactly right.
@Y4E,
ReplyDeleteBut it's OK with you wingnuts because of your knee-jerk opposition to labor unions.
To oppose labor unions outright is to ignore pre-OSHA history, and the valuable role played by unions at that time.
However, they were felled by Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy, like anything else, like the Federal government when the Tenth Amendment became more honored in the breech.
Modern labor unions are a de-facto employment agency, renting employees back to companies under the mistaken impression they retain employees.
The silent remark was hyperbole on my part. I'll give credit where credit is due.
ReplyDelete