News: GM's Rick Wagoner to step down ASAP

[ken mohr]

I see. So if you borrow money from a bank to (take your pick: start up a business, expand a business, consolidate debt, whatever), and after the initial loan package is written, if suddenly the bank decides it doesn't like your business model, or finds a flaw in your business plan, the bank can demand your removal from the business?

And don't go saying the difference is this was public money. The principal still stands that in this case, the lender decided on regime change at the business because the lender didn't like the business model.

100% correct. They come and take over you company as soon as you can't pay your bills. GM already can't pay their bills. Which is even worse.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com<img src=" /><o></o>
Show me in the constitution where it says when the Government loans money to a business they are not allowed to put restrictions on them to insure they get the peoples money back. Show me in any laws that state you can't demand a resignation on a officer of the company before you will grant them a loan<o></o>

 

[Yoda]

"Show me in the constitution where it says when the Government loans money to a business .... "


A better question would be:
"Show me in the constitution where it says the Government can loan money to a business .... "

Bud

 

[ken mohr]

"Show me in the constitution where it says when the Government loans money to a business .... "


A better question would be:
"Show me in the constitution where it says the Government can loan money to a business .... "

Bud

Show me in the constitution where it says the Government can't loan money to a business

Which goes back to my statement the constitution has nothing to do with this.

 

[Yoda]

Show me in the constitution where it says the Government can't loan money to a business

Which goes back to my statement the constitution has nothing to do with this.

GREAT response, wouldn't have expected anything other than a Straw Man... you were the one that brought up the "Constitution"

Bud Dougherty
Amarillo, TEXAS

 

[ken mohr]

you were the one that brought up the "Constitution"

Bud Dougherty
Amarillo, TEXAS

Not really Patrick did a post or two before my reply

 

[njlouc]

"not for nothing"(I love that):
If a republican admin had tried these tricks we'd never hear the end of it and impeachment proceedings would start immediately.
It's too bad that these forums of wisdom aren't more widely read.

 

[Yoda]

Not really Patrick did a post or two before my reply

You are correct, I stand corrected. Thank you

Before it became Jar Jar's decision to remove someone from a "Private Corporation" maybe he should review Article II (United States Constitution)
Power vested in the office of the President.

I don’t believe the Constitution should be considered a Business Plan or Company Mission Statement for the President, Congress or any other branch of our government!

Bud

 

[ken mohr]

"not for nothing"(I love that):
If a republican admin had tried these tricks we'd never hear the end of it and impeachment proceedings would start immediately.
It's too bad that these forums of wisdom aren't more widely read.

There is no diff on parties.

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com<img src=" /><o></o>
Bush had Dan Rather fired, no WMDs, Wire taps, etc. Had Dan Rather fired for a oversight or mistake (like he didn't make any) If you are a civilian you can be fired. A politician not

 

[ken mohr]

You are correct, I stand corrected. Thank you

Before it became Jar Jar's decision to remove someone from a "Private Corporation" maybe he should review Article II (United States Constitution)
Power vested in the office of the President.

I don’t believe the Constitution should be considered a Business Plan or Company Mission Statement for the President, Congress or any other branch of our government!

Bud

I don't believe the constitution was designed to have anything to do with business. Just running the country. There would have to be 1 mil laws to govern business. I do believe he had the right to make demands before loaning our money to them.

God wrote ten commandments and man has written thousands of laws trying to enforce them.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com<img src=" /><o></o>

 

[Achilles]

I see. So if you borrow money from a bank to (take your pick: start up a business, expand a business, consolidate debt, whatever), and after the initial loan package is written, if suddenly the bank decides it doesn't like your business model, or finds a flaw in your business plan, the bank can demand your removal from the business?

I respect your opinion Patrick, but you're seeing this issue only from the surface. The Feds aren't imposing anything on GM or Chrysler, except for the fact that the automakers are asking the government for a financial bailout for the mess they created themselves.

It's a yes or no answer. We all have to answer to someone if we're asking for a handout. If you want the money, you have to do this or that. Just as Ken stated, if I walk into a bank to get a loan, there are conditions the bank wants to know about how I run my business. If I'm a dork without a clue, the bank is'nt going to loan me any money, nor will they loan me anymore after I've used up the my reserves unless some serious changes are made in the way I run my operation. The other side of the coin is that the bank just says NO!, and sends me on my way to figure things out for myself. Which is exactly what Obama could have told GM.

Since the money that the Feds is shelling out to these nuckleheads is our money to begin with, I as a taxpayer would demand some changes be made and changes always start at the top. Any business owner knows that.

 

[Patrick]

100% correct. They come and take over you company as soon as you can't pay your bills. GM already can't pay their bills. Which is even worse.

No, Ken, that is not what would happen.

Two points:
First, if a company defaults on a loan made by a bank, the bank's legal remedy would be to sieze assets secured as collateral. This can be land, land with a building, equipment, cash reserves in various accounts, etc. Now, that action may force the business to close, but that's a far cry from the bank president coming in, firing the CEO, and picking his replacement himself.

Second, in GM's case, we aren't talking about a default on a loan. The money they received came with the stipulation that by the end of March, both GM and Chrysler were to submit plans for the restructure of their company. GM did that. The problem is that Obama didn't like the plans. And on that basis, he fired Wagoner.

Now, I'm not defending Wagoner. The shareholders should have forced him out some time ago. What I'm claiming as an issue is the broad, and probably unconstitutional, expansion of power being exhibited by the Executive Branch of government. The precedent being set by this is a very, very bad one.

Bush had Dan Rather fired

Had Dan Rather fired for a oversight or mistake (like he didn't make any) If you are a civilian you can be fired. A politician not

Ken, I have a question to ask you, and I'm serious about this. What planet do you live on?

Rather reported on a story put together by his producer, Mary Mapes, had fabricated. Even when the fabrication was exposed, Rather refused to retract the story. CBS fired him in order to salvage its already declining reputation.

Honestly, this is fact. The only other person on planet Earth I know of who seriously believed Bush fired Rather was Vladimir Putin, and Putin at least had the sense to allow his staff to explain the facts to him before he continued to make a fool of himself.

 

[Patrick]

I respect your opinion Patrick, but you're seeing this issue only from the surface. The Feds aren't imposing anything on GM or Chrysler, except for the fact that the automakers are asking the government for a financial bailout for the mess they created themselves.

How do we know what the Feds may or may not be imposing on GM and Chrysler? For being promised the most 'transparent' administration in history, the only information I've been able to discover about what was said vis-a-vis Wagoner's firing was this bit from a transcript of a press briefing by White House Press Secretary Gibbs:

Q Following up on that, when did the President decide that Wagoner had to go, and who specifically asked him to go?

MR. GIBBS: I'm not going to get into a tick-tock.

Q Why not?

MR. GIBBS: Because I'm not.

[SOURCE: The Weekly Standard]

Transparency you can believe in.

It's a yes or no answer. We all have to answer to someone if we're asking for a handout. If you want the money, you have to do this or that. Just as Ken stated, if I walk into a bank to get a loan, there are conditions the bank wants to know about how I run my business. If I'm a dork without a clue, the bank is'nt going to loan me any money, nor will they loan me anymore after I've used up the my reserves unless some serious changes are made in the way I run my operation. The other side of the coin is that the bank just says NO!, and sends me on my way to figure things out for myself. Which is exactly what Obama could have told GM.

Banks have remedies in the event of default: collaterialized assets.

If the possible termination of Wagoner was ever to have been a possible outcome, why wasn't that made clear as one of the conditions of receiving bailout funds? Why didn't Obama consult anyone in the Legislative branch of the government- like, perhaps, representatives and senators from Michigan- before he pulled the trigger?

Since the money that the Feds is shelling out to these nuckleheads is our money to begin with, I as a taxpayer would demand some changes be made and changes always start at the top. Any business owner knows that.

What happens if you don't like the changes Obama requires GM to make? What if Obama decides that the Cadillac division will, from now on, only make vehicles for government usage. Everyone else can chose from electric Chevy Malibus or some Saturn hybrid product.

What happens if the business model Obama forces GM to use is the same one Amtrak uses? Or the Post Office?

What happens then?

 

[ken mohr]

How do we know what the Feds may or may not be imposing on GM and Chrysler? For being promised the most 'transparent' administration in history, the only information I've been able to discover about what was said vis-a-vis Wagoner's firing was this bit from a transcript of a press briefing by White House Press Secretary Gibbs:

Q Following up on that, when did the President decide that Wagoner had to go, and who specifically asked him to go?

MR. GIBBS: I'm not going to get into a tick-tock.

Q Why not?

MR. GIBBS: Because I'm not.

[SOURCE: The Weekly Standard]

Transparency you can believe in.



Banks have remedies in the event of default: collaterialized assets.

If the possible termination of Wagoner was ever to have been a possible outcome, why wasn't that made clear as one of the conditions of receiving bailout funds? Why didn't Obama consult anyone in the Legislative branch of the government- like, perhaps, representatives and senators from Michigan- before he pulled the trigger?



What happens if you don't like the changes Obama requires GM to make? What if Obama decides that the Cadillac division will, from now on, only make vehicles for government usage. Everyone else can chose from electric Chevy Malibus or some Saturn hybrid product.

What happens if the business model Obama forces GM to use is the same one Amtrak uses? Or the Post Office?

What happens then?

No Pat you miss the point. If you go to the bank borrow money they want your plan to repay. No plan no money.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o></o>
<o></o>
GM went to <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comffice:smarttags" /><st1:State w:st="on"><st1lace w:st="on">Washington</st1lace></st1:State> to borrow money with no viable plan. Government said don't like your plan, When Wagner is gone and you have a better plan TRY AGAIN. No money as of now.<o></o>
<o></o>
Don't know for sure but imagine he was suggesting. I decipher as "Doesn't matter. Obama said he is gone and that’s that."<o></o>
<o></o>
Don't look now but GM has no collateral. Just their plants. If it was my money I would look at the no profit areas and say they're gone including Wagner.<o></o>
<o></o>
Obama is not a business man he is the man who says yes or no to the loan. He is not making a business decision but a loan decision.<o></o>

 

[Patrick]

No Pat you miss the point. If you go to the bank borrow money they want your plan to repay. No plan no money.fficeffice" /><?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com

<st1lace w:st="on">Washington</st1lace></st1:State> to borrow money with no viable plan. Government said don't like your plan, When Wagner is gone and you have a better plan TRY AGAIN. No money as of now.<o></o>
<o></o>
Don't know for sure but imagine he was suggesting. I decipher as "Doesn't matter. Obama said he is gone and that’s that."<o></o>
<o></o>
Don't look now but GM has no collateral. Just their plants. If it was my money I would look at the no profit areas and say they're gone including Wagner.<o></o>
<o></o>
Obama is not a business man he is the man who says yes or no to the loan. He is not making a business decision but a loan decision.<o></o>

With all due respect, Ken, I'm still waiting for you to answer my question about what planet you live on.

And I'd apreciate it if you used my given name: Patrick.

 

[ken mohr]

No,





Ken, I have a question to ask you, and I'm serious about this. What planet do you live on?

Rather reported on a story put together by his producer, Mary Mapes, had fabricated. Even when the fabrication was exposed, Rather refused to retract the story. CBS fired him in order to salvage its already declining reputation.

Honestly, this is fact. The only other person on planet Earth I know of who seriously believed Bush fired Rather was Vladimir Putin, and Putin at least had the sense to allow his staff to explain the facts to him before he continued to make a fool of himself.

I am from EARTH you are the space cadet. The Pubs went after Rather Bush Chaney and the rest said we are not involved it is the public. He also could have asked pardon for the shoe thrower. He didn't. His attitude got him the disrespect he earned overseas. He could have walked away from that as a hero instead of an azz.

Now lets get back to GM

 

[Patrick]

Now lets get back to GM

Hey, you brought up Rather.

But if you plan to continue on a discussion about Wagoner's firing with the same firm command of the facts you had regarding Rather's dismissal, I'm all in favor returning to the principal subject here.

 

[Mac]

Bush had Dan Rather fired, no WMDs, Wire taps, etc. Had Dan Rather fired for a oversight or mistake (like he didn't make any)

Ken, take a moment and read this brief overview of the situation which resulted in the resignation of Dan Rather but this is an aside...

For all those involved in this thread, let's keep the focus on the issues rather than on planetary origins. I've never had to move a thread from the Industry News Forum to the Edge before but I won't hesitate to do. In fact, it might be a good idea regardless.

The warning on the Edge to "keep it civil" isn't exclusive to the Edge. A great number of people, including folks in the automotive industry, read the GM & Auto Industry News section of the CAC Forums. We would prefer for them to enjoy the experience and to find factual points rather than heated opinions.

-Mac

 

[Achilles]

How do we know what the Feds may or may not be imposing on GM and Chrysler? For being promised the most 'transparent' administration in history, the only information I've been able to discover about what was said vis-a-vis Wagoner's firing was this bit from a transcript of a press briefing by White House Press Secretary Gibbs:

Q Following up on that, when did the President decide that Wagoner had to go, and who specifically asked him to go?

MR. GIBBS: I'm not going to get into a tick-tock.

Q Why not?

MR. GIBBS: Because I'm not.

[SOURCE: The Weekly Standard]

Transparency you can believe in.

If I understand Mr. Wagoner's letter correctly, he was asked to step aside. was he forced into it? Of course he was. If he hadn't stepped aside, guess what - no money for you. The BOD at GM would have eventually fired Wagoner in order to save their corporation. End result is still the same.

The government is not obligated to help out the automakers, or anybody else. Somehow I get the impression that you believe they have to help out these companies that are begging for financial help with no questions asked. That is exactly why this country is in the mess that it's in now. Banks loaned out mortgages to people who had little or no qualifications for getting a loan. Sure they collected their collateral. Alot of good that is doing for them now. They can't sell the houses now that they have in inventory. What houses are being sold are being sold at a loss.




Collateral is only worth something if you can sell it. If you have a Benz in your garage and you can't sell it - It's not worth anything. If you sell it for half it's value, what did you gain?


If[/quote] the possible termination of Wagoner was ever to have been a possible outcome, why wasn't that made clear as one of the conditions of receiving bailout funds? Why didn't Obama consult anyone in the Legislative branch of the government- like, perhaps, representatives and senators from Michigan- before he pulled the trigger?[/quote]

How does anyone know for sure that Obama didn't consult anyone in the Legislature? Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. We only know what we're told by the media. Bottom line - GM submitted a restructuring package that Obama felt wasn't accepable. He could have immediately turned his back on GM and said, "Sorry you had your chance and that was the best you could do?" I think he is willing to give GM and Chrysler a chance to regroup, but obviousely felt that Wagoner wasn't making a great enough effort, or maybe he wasn't thinking "outside the box." So an ultimatum was given - "Step aside or I won't help you out." Any ruthless business person that has a clue how a business is run would do the same thing.



I live under the rule that I take care of my own business. If I screw up, I have to live with my mistakes. As long as I take the necessary steps to keep my ducks in a row, I don't have to ask anyone else for help nor do I have to adhere to their demands. Simply - Don't screw up! Obviousely GM screwed up somewhere along the way or they wouldn't be in the mess they are in. Maybe they need a lesson from FORD.

Is no one accountable for their actions anymore? When will people learn to take responsibility for themselves?

 

[Mac]

Is no one accountable for their actions anymore? When will people learn to take responsibility for themselves?

Sadly, personal responsibility isn't common, especially when it comes to politicians, 'lords' of industry and the politically correct crowd. It's easier to blame others and helps to cut down on the lawsuits in an increasingly litigious society.

As Wagoner carefully guided GM into bankruptcy, the Board of Directors did precisely nothing. Is anyone calling for their heads? Nope... it's far easier to blame a scapegoat like Wagoner. It helps that Wagoner makes such a great target of himself by declaring GM isn't suited for bankruptcy and he (Wagoner) is best suited to guide the company back into solvency.

At the end of the day, no-one has covered themselves with glory at GM and the continued pattern of underperformance at the executive level is equally culpable with the unions' continual pressure for more and greater compensation without any guarantee of performance.

-Mac

 

[Patrick]

If I understand Mr. Wagoner's letter correctly, he was asked to step aside. was he forced into it? Of course he was. If he hadn't stepped aside, guess what - no money for you. The BOD at GM would have eventually fired Wagoner in order to save their corporation. End result is still the same.

The government is not obligated to help out the automakers, or anybody else. Somehow I get the impression that you believe they have to help out these companies that are begging for financial help with no questions asked. That is exactly why this country is in the mess that it's in now. Banks loaned out mortgages to people who had little or no qualifications for getting a loan. Sure they collected their collateral. Alot of good that is doing for them now. They can't sell the houses now that they have in inventory. What houses are being sold are being sold at a loss.

Not true. I have been advocating for a pre-packed Chapter 11 re-organization for the automakers since December, when they first went to Capitol Hill. A court could have forced the bondholders and the UAW to make due with less. A court could have not only forced out Wagoner, it could have severely limited his 'parachute.'

And we got lame reasons from Wagoner why the option of a Chapter 11 re-organization was off the table.

Collateral is only worth something if you can sell it. If you have a Benz in your garage and you can't sell it - It's not worth anything. If you sell it for half it's value, what did you gain?

Isn't that called "liquidated damages?" Assets that are sold for cents on the dollar to at least recover some of the debt owed.

How does anyone know for sure that Obama didn't consult anyone in the Legislature? Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. We only know what we're told by the media. Bottom line - GM submitted a restructuring package that Obama felt wasn't accepable. He could have immediately turned his back on GM and said, "Sorry you had your chance and that was the best you could do?" I think he is willing to give GM and Chrysler a chance to regroup, but obviousely felt that Wagoner wasn't making a great enough effort, or maybe he wasn't thinking "outside the box."

Not according to this article from The Hill:

Michigan’s senior Democratic senator, Carl Levin, said Obama didn’t ask for advice when he told lawmakers of the move in a Sunday call from the Oval Office to force GM CEO Rick Wagoner to resign, which caught Washington and Detroit by surprise. “He didn’t ask us about it, he informed us,” Levin said.

Read the whole article to see other comments from legislators who were similarly caught off guard by the move.

So an ultimatum was given - "Step aside or I won't help you out." Any ruthless business person that has a clue how a business is run would do the same thing.

And it was the wrong ultimatum. The ultimatum should have been, "Sorry, Wagoner, GM's days of going through public funds like they're water are over. Here's the number of a good bankruptcy attorney who specializes in Chapter 11. I recommend you give him a call."

I live under the rule that I take care of my own business. If I screw up, I have to live with my mistakes. As long as I take the necessary steps to keep my ducks in a row, I don't have to ask anyone else for help nor do I have to adhere to their demands. Simply - Don't screw up! Obviousely GM screwed up somewhere along the way or they wouldn't be in the mess they are in. Maybe they need a lesson from FORD.

Is no one accountable for their actions anymore? When will people learn to take responsibility for themselves?

You'll get no argument about any of the lack of accountability points you raise from me. GM got themselves into this mess, and rather than engage in the standard business practice (and free market capitalism solution) of a Chapter 11 re-organization, they went begging for taxpayer dollars. And more shameful than that, Congress actually gave it to them.