THE BOSS: OBAMA DEMANDS GM CEO RESIGN

THE BOSS: OBAMA DEMANDS GM CEO RESIGN
Sunday, March 29, 2009
DRUDGE REPORT ^ | 3/29/2009 | DRUDGE

The Obama administration asked Rick Wagoner, the chairman and CEO of General Motors, to step down and he agreed, a White House official said.

The is Der Communisty Organizer going to run all American Corporations?

He probalby should have resigned years ago but it should have been the stockholders who demanded he step down.

Wait. It was.

Socialism at it's finest. Now let's see where it takes us.

Wonder why O didn't fire the prez of AIG?

Spitzer got him. Liddy is the price AIG paid. He's appointed by Obama.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/default.aspx

It turns out that Wagoner is the fourth CEO the Obama administration has replaced. The others have been the heads of AIG, Fannie, Freddie, and (some claim) Citi.

I'm getting the feeling the media's love affair with Obama may be coming to an earlier than expected (by me) end.

So, my question is, given the O's demands for all these resignations of CEO's of companies riddled with debt, can "we" demand his resignation for sending America into deepest debt in recorded history?

At our first opportunity - along about November, 2012.

Zeobama, "'Starting today, the United States government will stand behind your warrantee'..."

Personal pronouns in the GM policy speech per Victor Davis Hanson:

My Auto Task Force

And so today, I am announcing that my administration will...

In this context, my administration will offer General Motors adequate working capital over the next 60 days. During this time, my team will be working closely with GM to produce a better business plan.

I am committed to doing all I can to see if a deal can be struck...

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..

What I am not talking about is a process where a company is broken up, sold off, and no longer exists. And what I am not talking about is having a company stuck in court for years...

It is my hope that the steps I am announcing...

let me say it as plainly as I can ...

I'm directing my team to take several steps.

I want to work with Congress to identify parts of the Recovery Act..

I am designating a new Director of Recovery for Auto Communities and Workers...

The departure of Rick Wagoner under apparent presidential pressure offers a new perspective on the old adage that what is good for GM is good for America.

On if you think the government controlling production is good for America.

Considering you're a marxist, you do.

Being a capitalist, I don't.

Government has been controlling production to some degree or other since the very first corporation was chartered by government.

Name one example.

I saw a revisionist history yesterday that made that very case. It threw out everything we believe about governments and markets. It took two Roosevelts to ruin capitalism, right? No. This guy (and I'll see if I can find it again) made the case that all the antitrust activity of the first Roosevelt was actually done to save the existing trusts and to limit competition. Most of what we think of as strengthening competition is actually done to make it rougher on smaller upstart competitors.

SamCogar wrote:Name one example.

He won't because he can't, just like he can't answer the question about what we should do with corporations and the reason is simple.

If Ziggy tells the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help him nature, then he reveals just how Marxist he truly is and for some reason, he's scared to admit what we already know.

ziggy wrote:The departure of Rick Wagoner under apparent presidential pressure offers a new perspective on the old adage that what is good for GM is good for America.

Aaron wrote:On if you think the government controlling production is good for America.

Considering you're a marxist, you do.

Being a capitalist, I don't.

Aaron, I am not the one who invented the phrase about what's good for GM is good for America and vice versa.

At one point GM had become the largest corporation registered in the United States, in terms of its revenues as a percent of GDP. In 1953, Charles Erwin Wilson, then GM president, was named by Eisenhower as Secretary of Defense. When he was asked during the hearings before the Senate Armed Services Committee if as secretary of defense he could make a decision adverse to the interests of General Motors, Wilson answered affirmatively but added that he could not conceive of such a situation "because for years I thought what was good for the country was good for General Motors and vice versa".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_General_Motors

SamCogar wrote:Name one example.

Our Hidden History of Corporations in the United States
First published February, 2000

When American colonists declared independence from England in 1776, they also freed themselves from control by English corporations that extracted their wealth and dominated trade. After fighting a revolution to end this exploitation, our country's founders retained a healthy fear of corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a business role. Corporations were forbidden from attempting to influence elections, public policy, and other realms of civic society.

Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end.

The states also imposed conditions (some of which remain on the books, though unused) like these:

* Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.

* Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.

* Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.

* Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.

* Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.

* Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.
For 100 years after the American Revolution, legislators maintained tight controll of the corporate chartering process. Because of widespread public opposition, early legislators granted very few corporate charters, and only after debate. Citizens governed corporations by detailing operating conditions not just in charters but also in state constitutions and state laws. Incorporated businesses were prohibited from taking any action that legislators did not specifically allow.

States also limited corporate charters to a set number of years. Unless a legislature renewed an expiring charter, the corporation was dissolved and its assets were divided among shareholders. Citizen authority clauses limited capitalization, debts, land holdings, and sometimes, even profits. They required a company's accounting books to be turned over to a legislature upon request. The power of large shareholders was limited by scaled voting, so that large and small investors had equal voting rights. Interlocking directorates were outlawed. Shareholders had the right to remove directors at will.

In Europe, charters protected directors and stockholders from liability for debts and harms caused by their corporations. American legislators explicitly rejected this corporate shield. The penalty for abuse or misuse of the charter was not a plea bargain and a fine, but dissolution of the corporation.

In 1819 the U.S. Supreme Court tried to strip states of this sovereign right by overruling a lower court's decision that allowed New Hampshire to revoke a charter granted to Dartmouth College by King George III. The Court claimed that since the charter contained no revocation clause, it could not be withdrawn. The Supreme Court's attack on state sovereignty outraged citizens. Laws were written or re-written and new state constitutional amendments passed to circumvent the Dartmouth ruling. Over several decades starting in 1844, nineteen states amended their constitutions to make corporate charters subject to alteration or revocation by their legislatures. As late as 1855 it seemed that the Supreme Court had gotten the people's message when in Dodge v. Woolsey it reaffirmed state's powers over "artificial bodies."

But the men running corporations pressed on. Contests over charter were battles to control labor, resources, community rights, and political sovereignty. More and more frequently, corporations were abusing their charters to become conglomerates and trusts. They converted the nation's resources and treasures into private fortunes, creating factory systems and company towns. Political power began flowing to absentee owners, rather than community-rooted enterprises. .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate_accountability/history_corporations_us.html

After fighting a revolution to end this exploitation, our country's founders retained a healthy fear of corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a business role.

WOW, ....... to end the exploitation by the corporations.

So that's why the colonists fought the Revolutionary War.

I learn something new everyday.

.

So do you deny that for nearly a century after the American revolution the states imposed conditions- some of which remain on the books, though unused- like these:

* Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.

* Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.

* Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.

* Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.

* Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.

* Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.

There is no conversation until you man up, stop being a pussy and answer the question put forth to you.

I again refer my honorable friend to the anwsers I gave some hours- and some days- ago.

And I offer the same resonse.

You're a loud mouth coward.

Boo hoo hoo. Let's all have a pitty party for Aaron- 'cause his vocabulary is reduced to the blubbering whines he is famous for accusing others of when he has no substantive words to offer.