There are questions in legal cases as to whether or not he can get rid of appointees without the approval of the Senate.

If it’s not in his delegated powers, maybe it can be pointed out in legislation but if it is in such legislation, please point out which of Congress 25 enumerated powers provides the authority to give the President such power.

Or maybe it;s just another violation of the Constitution, you know, that set of explicit, extremely limited rules for the operation of the government of our country that no one seems to understand and fewer want functioning. If it ain’t there in writing, it ain’t given and anyone exercising a power that is not delegated has violated the oath of office.

Tiochfaidh ar la!

Interestingly enough, Ford isn’t pissing and moaning about the situation — possibly because they know that if GM and Chrysler go down, the supply chain that provides all of the Big Three with their parts goes down with them.

What a horrible situation our government creates!

Seriously, do your best to be profitable…then see your competition get a hand-out from the government.

The state has effectively taken money from us all (including Ford) and given it to Ford’s rival (because they sucked).

Honestly, it’d be very hard to refuse the money (even with the strings attached).

I don’t think there can be a libertarian position, since the situation is completely unlibertarian from the get-go. It’s sort of like starting a hypothetical with the statement, “Let’s say Jesus never existed…” and then asking what the Christian position would be. We can debate which is the least crappy scenario given the circumstances we find ourselves in, but I don’t know if we can answer the debate based on libertarian principles.

Now that the same conditions are being put on rich people, it’s suddenly wrong.

Obama didn’t fire anyone. He told them what the conditions were to get on welfare. They could have said no. By saying yes, then complaining anyway, they are acting like every other welfare queen.

AIG sold insurance against an event that they didn’t have the resources to cover, making huge profit on the upside when their bets paid off, and leaving the taxpayer stuck holding the bag when their bets finally went bad. They’re thieves in this sense: Every dime of profit they collected in premiums on their bogus insurance properly belongs to the taxpayers who are now paying off their policyholders.

The key is that they privatized the upside, while sticking the treasury with the downside.

And now, GM.

Just like AIG, they took positions that in the long term spelled certain disaster, but in the near term boosted their profits. Simply put, they bargained for lower wages, and in return offered their workers more generous pension and health care benefits than they company could actually pay. In the short term, the company reaped the benefits of a cheaper workforce and higher profits. In the long term, their size ensures that when their bets go bad, as they inevitably must, the taxpayer is left covering their bets.

Much the same as AIG, GM collected the benefits in the short term, leaving the long-term costs as a mess for someone else to clean up.

Looks to me like two variations of the same scam.

I can only explain my position, and though I consider myself
(l)ibertarian I don’t speak for the great unwashed masses of us, or them.

My view is that the strings attached to bailout monies are politically aimed. They do nothing to return the company to profitability (presumably the purpose of any company). The strings are pointless unless they are simple and only serve the end goal of profitability. Also I like conditions to be fully stated before hand, and not moving goalposts. An acceptable condition to me would be. “Return to profitability in 4 quarters, or we call our loans and can force you to liquidate assets.”

Just ask yourself, why would Geithner who’s never worked in any industry but government be better at running a for profit business?

lesswish?

I wish we had no bailouts. I lesswish to get bailout cash for your car company you had to huff jenkum.

According to Wikipedia, the state of Lower Saxony has a 20.1% stake in VW. So yea, probably.

I guess I don’t understand the libertarian position on this.

There is no libertarian position yet. That’s why we come here…to debate and hash it out. :)

And you are exactly right in stating the dilemma. Either we stick to our guns and get in bed with evil dudes at the auto company who are ripping us off, or we be pragmatic and get in bed with evil dudes in the government. Supporting our beliefs will put us in a worse position (more bailout requests), while bending them will promote the policies we want to see (less bailout requests). Giant douche and a turd sandwich, dude.

Personally, I wish Obama had never given out the cash. But when he did, I wish he had insisted on even tougher terms.

I think I see it just like you do. When you dance with the devil…

@#4 | Michael Pack
#1,That means there are no private grain farms or pro sports teams in your view.

Well, yea, kinda. Avoiding handing out government money is by far the optimal solution.

Attaching strings to the government cash, as to make the cash more expensive and less desirable, is treating the symptoms, not the disease.

Sometimes you gotta’ work the system. This situation would be a lot worse if the government assumes a permanent position in the auto companies. I don’t think that’s the plan though…I’m under the impression we are loan-holders, not share holders. The loan came with strings attached, which may discourage more loan-seeking from the other auto companies.

I could be wrong. One can only dream.

Unless I missed something the “consessions” the UAW made were for the 2007 contract. Nothing has been mentioned about renegotiating, now that we the people are footing the bill.

When common workers get the shaft, it’s all part of the bailout process. When a CEO is booted, then it’s all “OMFG, the Preznit is taking over a private company”.