Comments on: Open Court Topic #6: Powers Reserved Only For Kings? http://www.thirstyquill.com/2009/04/03/open-court-topic-6-powers-reserved-only-for-kings Thu, 09 Feb 2012 19:46:53 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: Steven Forbis http://www.thirstyquill.com/2009/04/03/open-court-topic-6-powers-reserved-only-for-kings#comment-365 Steven Forbis Fri, 03 Apr 2009 19:44:41 +0000 http://www.thirstyquill.com/?p=1015#comment-365 The companies knew that by taking Government money that the government would have power over said companies. Now that the Federal Government has a stake in the coorporations, they have considerable sway in the goings-on of these coorporations, as their success or failure would be a detriment/boost to the economy. Since GM decided to take a considerable sum of Government money, should the Government not be able to influence these companies, especially with GM's 85 billion dollar deficit? In his defence, Rick Wagoner wasn't the worst CEO in GM's history and he did make many cuts over the last few years to try to reduce spending. He kinda inherited a mess 9 years ago. In my opinion, Wagoner was a scapegoat. Sort of a "sacrificial lamb", if you see what I'm saying. He went so that others would sit up and say "Hey, this money wasn't free after all. These people are going to be looking for returns on this stuff. We better straighten up or we'll be next". Or at least I think the administration is looking for that effect. The companies knew that by taking Government money that the government would have power over said companies. Now that the Federal Government has a stake in the coorporations, they have considerable sway in the goings-on of these coorporations, as their success or failure would be a detriment/boost to the economy.

Since GM decided to take a considerable sum of Government money, should the Government not be able to influence these companies, especially with GM’s 85 billion dollar deficit?

In his defence, Rick Wagoner wasn’t the worst CEO in GM’s history and he did make many cuts over the last few years to try to reduce spending. He kinda inherited a mess 9 years ago.

In my opinion, Wagoner was a scapegoat. Sort of a “sacrificial lamb”, if you see what I’m saying. He went so that others would sit up and say “Hey, this money wasn’t free after all. These people are going to be looking for returns on this stuff. We better straighten up or we’ll be next”. Or at least I think the administration is looking for that effect.

]]>