Comments on: GM CEO Resigns at Obama’s Behest

By: baki

baki — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 00:44:02 +0000

Bankrupcy is NOT nationalization. It is the common stock being canceled and reliquishing their ownership and the debtholders become the shareholders. This is what happened in KMart where Eddie Lampert bought senior debt in bankrupcy and became the largest shareholder.

By: mark levin

mark levin — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 15:11:06 +0000

Obama = Chavez
Obama = Socialism
Hugo does the same thing in Venezuela.

Lets hope the midterm election bring about TRUE change from this socialist regime of Obama, Pelosi, Ried, Frank, etc. There is a groundswell of people who “suddenly” woke up after the election and said, “OH MY GOSH WHAT DID WE DO!!??” We hope they remember that in 2010 so vote many of the do nothing Congress people OUT.

By: americaisover

americaisover — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 14:50:36 +0000

why not fire the people at AIG?

By: akuperma

akuperma — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 12:53:33 +0000

Mark (#1)
When a private industry runs out of money and can no longer meets its financial obligations, it is NORMAL and ROUTINE that a bunch of civil servantgs take it over. Usually these are civil servants in the judiciary branch and the Justice Department who work in the BANKRUPTCY COURT (note: these are not “Judges” – at most they are magistrates appointed for a fixed term). Since GM is bigger than anything that has ever gone bust before, the powers that be going back to the Bush administration thought the bankruptcy bureaucracy would be overwhelmed.

If you object to the government taking over dead corporations, perhaps you object to all bankruptcy? Should we go back to the system of throwing exectuives of bankrupt countries in jail (or selling their kids as slaves)????

BANKRUPTCY is NATIONALIZATION, and by announcing it was unable to pay its creditors, GM requested to be taken over (as opposed to having the sheriff start auctioning off its assets for pennies on the dollars).

By: thinkingclearly

thinkingclearly — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 02:05:03 +0000

I think it’s a little suspicious that this ceo is out but not the ceo’s in the bank. Somethings up. This is a power grab and more. The ceo may be terrible but the president shouldn’t be firing him.

By: baki

baki — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 00:45:56 +0000

It is unneccesary for Obama to forcefully nationalize our corporations as the unions are just gradually forcing them over time. With Obama’s union proposal just wait for the rest of them to do the same. Thats what they want anyhow.

By: mrjones

mrjones — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 22:42:33 +0000

Next step in the nationalization of private industry. His heroes Marx, Lenin and Stalin (not to mantion Chavez) would be proud. Hold on to your wallets folks, it may already be too late. A bolt of lightning may be the only solution. Moshiach anybody?

By: tina18

tina18 — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 22:24:41 +0000

Big chidush. What exactly is he saying dofferant then bush or anyone else?

By: akuperma

akuperma — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 22:20:12 +0000

Just because he took one of America’s most important companies and bankrupted it, destroyed the shareholder’s investment, and meanwhile made off with a humongous salary and bonuses.

By: mark levin

mark levin — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 21:58:54 +0000

since when does a sitting president get involved with private industry? the fact that he is even remotely involved adds to the pathetic state of this administration.

2010 & 2012 can’t come fast enough!