GM came first to Bush and then Obama because of shitty management. Ford and Chrysler have unions too but management learned how to negotiate and push them.
If GM wants government off its back, they need to do what Ford has done and deny any bailout money but they can’t. They’ve spent the last 10 years running their company into the floor and can’t survive without it.
I am against this bailout and think in any capitalist system if you suck, you fail, you get bankruptcy. But so long as any tax money is being handed to shitty companies I sure as hell want conditions with it.
Now if Obama seeks the Ford CEO’s resignation when no bailout money goes to Ford, that would be facism.
But for GM to lose 95 percent of its total value under Wagoner, over 80 billion in losses in three years, taking 25 billion in bailout money and another 40 billion in loans, then people come in here and call this facism that Wagoner is being fired just sounds like complete idiocy if not down right lunacy.
It’s lunacy to think that Wagoner or anyone could turn around GM in this economy in a matter of months regardless of any bailout funds.
Are you a lunatic? Obama supported the intial Bush bailout.
I dislike the action of zero firing Wagoner, but I don't disagree with your sentiment (that if the taxpayers are funding GM, then the taxpayers should have a say in it's running). But I do disagree with you in that I see this clearly as a fascist act.
However, it's not THIS action that established the nature of the relationship as fascist. The action that more clearly established the fascist nature of the relationship was the original giving of the billions of taxpayer dollars to the corporation.
(One aspect) of fascism is the marriage of state and corporate power. So while firing Wagoner wasn't the act that ESTABLISHED fascism, it's just an act consistent with where we are, which is in a (still somewhat soft but increasingly growing more powerful under zero) semi-fascist state.