He didn't. He said that if GM wanted federal funds, they needed to get rid of their incompetent CEO.
Which is well within his rights. He is handing out money, he can give conditions to giving that money out. He decided that the best condition in this case was to simply remove the person/people who caused the company to fail so heavily that it required governmental assistance in the first place.
Again--he said that if you want federal funds, THIS has to happen. It was then up to the company to decide whether it was a better idea to keep the CEO that had been in charge the entire time GM's stock plummeted to three dollars or to take bailout money. They decided on the latter.
This is a common government practice of telling people getting government grants and loans that they have to do x, y, and z or they can't have them. The only difference here is the exact request.
Oh dear. I am of the opinion that the government is getting way too involved in the business of business lately. No government funds should have been given out to begin with, I think. Yes, if federal money is given to a business, then the government should have the right to give suggestions to that company as to how the money should be *spent.* That does not include telling a business who should be responsible for their business and how their business should be run. The US is veering way to close to becoming a left-wing nation, like European countries, which isn't exactly bad, but I take pride in being from the country whose economy is the closest thing the world has to a free-market system.
The current government needs to take another look at the Constitution if you ask me.
The government is too uninvolved. It was deregulation that lead to the current economic crisis. We used to have laws against banks taking out the kinds of loans which they took out. Those laws were lobbied against and repealed or simply had loopholes written into them. Banks took out these dangerous loans. The loans didn't work out right. The economy went to shit.
Had the government still had their hands in business like they used to after the great depression--when all these laws were created to ensure the safety of banks--this would have never happened.
Actually, I believe it was government that was giving each other high-fives for increasing the number of homeowners by pushing the banks into allowing these loans without proper verification and down payment. All of these bubbles (housing, .com, etc) were created by the government, and when the free market began to correct itself, they burst
Let the free market do its job and stop trying to manipulate it with subsidies. Stop trying to shield people from failures and let them learn from mistakes. Don't worry, they'll find a way to survive.
If the government gets involved we will cease to Capitalism.
What about the small business man? If capitalism ends he ends. Even now major corporations are getting bailouts while our small business owners are left to fend for them selves against corporations that are being piggybacked with our tax dollars. I plan to own a small business someday. I don't want to be shoved out by bigger businesses. The odds are already against me!
I understand your worry about the economy going to (or already being at) shit. But that's the natural ebb and flow of capitalism. Think of a volcano that's surrounded by a jungle. In jungles their is high competition for sunlight among plants. There are huge trees that cut the light off for those below, their are vines that use these trees to get to the top (and hurt the tree doing so), and there are the resilient few who, despite the odds, are able to grow on the little sunlight they get. But in the volcano pressure is building. Little bursts happen everyone in a while, but they're not that major. Then boom, finally it blows to it's full capacity. It destroys the majority of the jungle. But out of this destruction, an even playing field is created. All plants are on the same level, who get's ahead is who puts roots down first.
I hope that was easy to follow.