Cougarpower Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 On Friday I was in Washington for a meeting with Administration officials. In the course of that meeting, they requested that I “step aside” as CEO of GM, and so I have. Fritz Henderson is an excellent choice to be the next CEO of GM. Having worked closely with Fritz for many years, I know that he is the ideal person to lead the company through the completion of our restructuring efforts. His knowledge of the global industry and the company are exceptional, and he has the intellect, energy, and support among GM’ers worldwide to succeed. I wish him well, and I stand ready to support him, and interim Non-Executive Chairman Kent Kresa, in every way possible. I also want to extend my sincerest thanks to everyone who supported GM and me during my time as CEO. I deeply appreciate the excellent counsel and commitment of the GM Board and the strong support of our many partners including our terrific dealers, suppliers, and community leaders. I am grateful as well to the union leaders with whom I have had the chance to work closely to implement numerous tough but necessary restructuring agreements. Most important of all I want to express my deepest appreciation to the extraordinary team of GM employees around the world. You have been a tremendous source of inspiration and pride to me, and I will be forever grateful for the courage and commitment you have shown as we have confronted the unprecedented challenges of the past few years. GM is a great company with a storied history. Ignore the doubters because I know it is also a company with a great future. http://www.media.gm.com/servlet/GatewaySer...amp;docid=53290 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ovaltine Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 (edited) In response to the thread's topic, I know what to say! And that would be: "Please tread carefully Mr. Mulally, and keep up the good work you've been doing, ELSE Obama & Co. will come hunting for you, and install a hand-chosen replacement REGARDLESS of whether FoMoCo takes bailout money or not." The article below states that it only deals with "financial firms", but with the topic of this thread ringing in our ears, coupled with this broader statement in the article: "We need the private sector to take risk," and so the rules need to be clear, Geithner said Wednesday. "But the financial and business community also needs to recognize and demonstrate that they need to make changes and sacrifices alongside those the American people are making.", I suspect that the legislation will encompass ALL large economy-threatening corps. Geithner details plan for 'too big to fail' companies - MarketWatch http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/geit...iteid=bulletrss -Ovaltine Edited March 30, 2009 by Ovaltine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 In response to the thread's topic, I know what to say! And that would be: "Please tread carefully Mr. Mulally, and keep up the good work you've been doing, ELSE Obama & Co. will come hunting for you, and install a hand-chosen replacement REGARDLESS of whether FoMoCo takes bailout money or not." You have to be kidding me....the Government isn't going to intervene with Ford, just because GM and Chrysler are going down the tubes. This isn't a two-bit country like Venezuela Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 This isn't a two-bit country like Venezuela ...yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twintornados Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 "Please tread carefully Mr. Mulally, and keep up the good work you've been doing, ELSE Obama & Co. will come hunting for you, and install a hand-chosen replacement REGARDLESS of whether FoMoCo takes bailout money or not."-Ovaltine President Obama would need to wrest control from the Ford family first....good luck trying that!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guesswhoscomingtodinner Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 You have to be kidding me....the Government isn't going to intervene with Ford, just because GM and Chrysler are going down the tubes. This isn't a two-bit country like Venezuela Just give Obama and Nanzi Pelosi a few more months. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old_fairmont_wagon Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 The Obama administration have already stated publicly that they are seeking to have the power to take over or at least heavily influence the executive operations of any company that they consider large enough to cause great harm to the US Economy by failing. It is a stated goal of their party to transform the auto industry into a batch of companies that produce highly efficient vehicles, no matter the cost to the consumers or the employees of said companies. I am sure that it p*ss*ed off the Obama administration / democrat party when Ford was able to walk p to the table, plead the case of their competition, then walk away with a finger in the air to the government instead of taking a loan and handing over control of the company to the gov't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
probeGT Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 the Obama administration / democrat party That's democratIC party. . . stop watching Fox. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bored of Pisteon Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 The Obama administration have already stated publicly that they are seeking to have the power to take over or at least heavily influence the executive operations of any company that they consider large enough to cause great harm to the US Economy by failing. It is a stated goal of their party to transform the auto industry into a batch of companies that produce highly efficient vehicles, no matter the cost to the consumers or the employees of said companies. I am sure that it p*ss*ed off the Obama administration / democrat party when Ford was able to walk p to the table, plead the case of their competition, then walk away with a finger in the air to the government instead of taking a loan and handing over control of the company to the gov't. What's the next industry or business sector in this country the OBAMANAZI'S will try to take over next? You tell me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 That's democratIC party. . . stop watching Fox. What are members of the Democratic party called? Democrats? Is it now insulting to call a Democrat a Democrat? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bored of Pisteon Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 What are members of the Democratic party called? Democrats? Is it now insulting to call a Democrat a Democrat? I call them DEMOCRAPS, DEMORATS, DEMONCRATS, FEMICRATS. Did I miss a variation here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
napoleon Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 I call them DEMOCRAPS, DEMORATS, DEMONCRATS, FEMICRATS. Did I miss a variation here? Dummycrats Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 I call them DEMOCRAPS, DEMORATS, DEMONCRATS, FEMICRATS. Did I miss a variation here? Well that's another issue altogether. Just didn't see what was somehow offensive about using the term "Democrat party". :shrug: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
probeGT Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 What are members of the Democratic party called? Democrats? Is it now insulting to call a Democrat a Democrat? It's really not that difficult, although it may be for Hannity fans. . . When used as an ADJECTIVE, the proper term is "Democratic". . . when used as a noun, it is "Democrat" So. . . "Karl is a Democrat" "Karl is a member of the Democratic party." Get it? So, it is not insulting to call a Democrat a Democrat, that's not what he did. . . he referred to a democrat party, which doesn't exist as far as I know. For whatever reason, Republicans have been drilling the "democrat party" misnomer as an insult. . . it's really getting to the point that people who use the improper terminology just look stupid and illiterate. . . which they seem to be building as their base. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 It's really not that difficult, although it may be for Hannity fans. . . When used as an ADJECTIVE, the proper term is "Democratic". . . when used as a noun, it is "Democrat" So. . . "Karl is a Democrat" "Karl is a member of the Democratic party." Get it? So, it is not insulting to call a Democrat a Democrat, that's not what he did. . . he referred to a democrat party, which doesn't exist as far as I know. For whatever reason, Republicans have been drilling the "democrat party" misnomer as an insult. . . it's really getting to the point that people who use the improper terminology just look stupid and illiterate. . . which they seem to be building as their base. :shrug: Semantics. A party of Democrats could be called a Democrat party, no? How come they don't call members of the Republican party "Republics"? :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Critic Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 Well that's another issue altogether. Just didn't see what was somehow offensive about using the term "Democrat party". :shrug: I feel the same for the GOP, Grand Old Pedophiles, nothing offense about it if it fits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
probeGT Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 How come they don't call members of the Republican party "Republics"? :P Because obviously being able to keep track of the proper usage of two forms of the same word is too difficult for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 Because obviously being able to keep track of the proper usage of two forms of the same word is too difficult for them. I like how this has been turned into an "us vs them" issue. I'm sure there are plenty of Democrats who would claim they are part of the "Democrat party". :rolleyes: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
97svtgoin05gt Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 Rick did the right thing stepping aside at the democrat ( ) request. The problem is they put his cement shoed sidekick in charge. The fact that Rick believes Henderson is the "right" man for the job speaks volumes about how he probably isn't the right guy. Just my opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
probeGT Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 I like how this has been turned into an "us vs them" issue. I'm sure there are plenty of Democrats who would claim they are part of the "Democrat party". :rolleyes: There may be isolated instances of that, but let's put it this way: there are no Democrats who run cable networks, are elected to the House or Senate from the South, or who host three-hour radio shows heard on hundreds of stations who use the improper terminology. We'll do a drinking game while watching Fox News. . . you drink every time you hear a Democrat self-refer that way, and I'll drink every time I hear a Republican refer derisively to them that way. . . after about four hours, you'll be good to drive and I'll be John Bonham. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ovaltine Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 (edited) President Obama would need to wrest control from the Ford family first....good luck trying that!! Read this part of the Marketwatch article again: "Under a federal takeover, those responsible for the losses -- shareholders, management and creditors - would pay for the losses. The proposal "would fill a significant void" in the regulatory structure. Current law allows the government to take over and sell only companies with federally guaranteed deposits, such as banks and thrifts. Geithner also said the legislation would include measures to make sure the companies didn't take on too many risks and would increase capital requirements to make sure the companies have the foundation to weather any storm. The proposal would "help ensure that this country is never again confronted with the untenable choice between meltdown and massive taxpayer bailouts," Geithner said in a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations in New York." Now, to answer your question: (1.) Ford Family = Shareholders (Yes their shares have special voting privileges in relation to standard traded shares, but they do NOT have "superpowers" that stand up in the face of the Federal Government) (2.) Geithner Legislation = Feds have right to take over any company that's "too big to fail" and force shareholders to pay for losses. Ford probably qualifies for that moniker, bail out loans, or not. See (1.) above And interestingly enough, I just noticed when re-reading the Marketwatch article, that Geithner proclaimed this at a meeting of the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR). That's why I highlighted it as well. Who are they? Why is that significant? I suggest that you read my other post on here about this same topic - click here . Be sure to watch the video for at least the first 20-30 minutes, and then click on the provided Google links at the bottom of it. As the Doors once put it...... "Strange days indeed. Most peculiar Mama!" -Ovaltine Edited March 30, 2009 by Ovaltine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-150 Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 Read this part of the Marketwatch article again: "Under a federal takeover, those responsible for the losses -- shareholders, management and creditors - would pay for the losses. The proposal "would fill a significant void" in the regulatory structure. Current law allows the government to take over and sell only companies with federally guaranteed deposits, such as banks and thrifts. Geithner also said the legislation would include measures to make sure the companies didn't take on too many risks and would increase capital requirements to make sure the companies have the foundation to weather any storm. The proposal would "help ensure that this country is never again confronted with the untenable choice between meltdown and massive taxpayer bailouts," Geithner said in a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations in New York." Now, to answer your question: (1.) Ford Family = Shareholders (Yes their shares have special voting privileges in relation to standard traded shares, but they do NOT have "superpowers" that stand up in the face of the Federal Government) (2.) Geithner Legislation = Feds have right to take over any company that's "too big to fail" and force shareholders to pay for losses. Ford probably qualifies for that moniker, bail out loans, or not. See (1.) above And interestingly enough, I just noticed when re-reading the Marketwatch article, that Geithner proclaimed this at a meeting of the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR). That's why I highlighted it as well. Who are they? Why is that significant? I suggest that you read my other post on here about this same topic here . Be sure to watch the video for at least the first 20-30 minutes, and then click on the provided Google links at the bottom of it. As the Doors once put it...... "Strange days indeed. Most peculiar Mama!" -Ovaltine that'll last until the first court challenge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ovaltine Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 that'll last until the first court challenge. Which might work IF the courts are not part of the scheme. -Ovaltine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 There may be isolated instances of that, but let's put it this way: there are no Democrats who run cable networks, are elected to the House or Senate from the South, or who host three-hour radio shows heard on hundreds of stations who use the improper terminology. We'll do a drinking game while watching Fox News. . . you drink every time you hear a Democrat self-refer that way, and I'll drink every time I hear a Republican refer derisively to them that way. . . after about four hours, you'll be good to drive and I'll be John Bonham. :rolleyes: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 Pretty sure that legislation won't make it through the Senate. You'd need a straight party-line vote to get cloture on it, and no way Carl Levin would vote for it, so it's not going anywhere. --- As to the question of Wagoner & GM, let's face it people. The administration did no more than carry out the GM board of directors' fiduciary responsibilities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.