Fox Business' Varney mischaracterizes Wagoner's departure
SUMMARY: On America's Newsroom, Stuart Varney asserted that Rick Wagoner's departure is "the first time in modern history that the government has fired the chief executive of a private corporation." In fact, the government did not "fire[]" Wagoner, but made his departure a condition of further government aid for the company.
During the March 30 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom, co-host Martha MacCallum claimed that President Obama "told [Rick Wagoner,] the boss of General Motors: You are fired," and Fox Business Network contributor Stuart Varney claimed that "it's the first time in modern history that the government has fired the chief executive of a private corporation." In fact, the government did not fire Wagoner, but made his resignation a condition under which the federal government will extend further aid to GM. Moreover, Varney's claim that the decision lacked precedent ignored similar decisions at American International Group (AIG) and at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, where chief executives were removed in September 2008 as part of agreements to accept government aid.
In announcing his resignation, Wagoner stated, "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." While MacCallum claimed that Obama "fired" Wagoner, she did not point out that Wagoner's resignation was a condition of additional government assistance. Indeed, a March 30 New York Times article reported, "The White House on Sunday pushed out the chairman of General motors and instructed Chrysler to form a partnership with the Italian automaker Fiat within 30 days as conditions for receiving another much-needed round of government aid" [emphasis added]. The Times continued:
The decision to ask G.M.'s chairman and chief executive, Rick Wagoner, to resign caught Detroit and Washington by surprise, and it underscored the Obama administration's determination to keep a tight rein on the companies it is bailing out -- a level of government involvement in business perhaps not seen since the Great Depression.
President Obama is scheduled to announce details of the auto package at the White House on Monday, but two senior officials, offering a preview on condition of anonymity, made clear that some form of bankruptcy -- a quick, court-supervised restructuring, as they described it -- could still be an option for one or both companies.
Mr. Obama's auto industry task force, in a report released Sunday night assessing the viability of both companies and detailing the administration's new plans for them, concluded that Chrysler could not survive as a stand-alone company.
The report said the company would get no more help from the government unless it can finalize a proposed alliance with the Italian automaker Fiat by April 30. It must also reduce its debt and health-care obligations.
If a deal is reached between Chrysler and Fiat, the administration says it would consider another loan of $6 billion to Chrysler.
G.M., on the other hand, has made considerable progress in developing new energy-efficient cars and could survive if it can cut costs sharply, the task force reported. The administration is giving G.M. 60 days to present a cost-cutting plan and will provide taxpayer assistance to keep it afloat during that time.
Along with Mr. Wagoner's ouster, the task force said most of the company's board would be replaced over the next few months. In a statement Monday, Mr. Wagoner said he had been urged to "step aside" by administration officials, "and so I have."
His resignation is the latest example of the government taking a hands-on role in making major decisions at companies it is bailing out. The government has already pushed banks to make management changes and sharply reduce or eliminate their dividends, and it also is directing many of the decisions at the troubled insurance giant American International Group, which is nearly 80 percent owned by the government after its rescue.
In deciding to urge Mr. Wagoner to step down, the Obama administration seemed mindful of the public's growing outrage over bailouts of private companies, as well as the bonuses paid to employees of A.I.G.
Mr. Obama is well aware that he cannot afford to give the appearance of using tax dollars to reward executives who have done a poor job, and he began signaling as early as last week that he would take a tough stance with the automakers.
Moreover, contrary to Varney's claim that the decision to ask for Wagoner's resignation as a condition for further government aid was "historic," several executives have been asked to resign as a condition for receiving government aid since September:
- In a September 7, 2008, jointly released statement, then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and then-Federal Housing Finance Agency director Jim Lockhart announced that as part of the government's decision to take Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into conservatorship, "New CEOs supported by new non-executive Chairmen have taken over management of the enterprises."
- A September 17, 2008, Washington Post article reported of the Bush administration's decision to bail out AIG, "The terms of the rescue package allow the government to replace [chief executive Robert] Willumstad, and a source familiar with the matter said last night that Willumstad would be succeded [sic] by Edward Liddy, former chief executive of Allstate." Likewise, a September 17, 2008, Associated Press article reported:
In the most far-reaching intervention into the private sector ever for the Federal Reserve, the government stepped in Tuesday to rescue American International Group Inc. with an $85 billion injection of taxpayer money. Under the deal, the government will get a 79.9 percent stake in one of the world's largest insurers and the right to remove senior management.
AIG's chief executive, Robert Willumstad, is expected to be replaced by Edward Liddy, the former head of insurer Allstate Corp., according to The Wall Street Journal, citing a person it did not name. Willumstad had been at the helm of AIG since June.
[...]
Under the deal, the Federal Reserve will provide a two-year $85 billion emergency loan at an interest rate of about 11.5 percent to AIG, which teetered on the edge of failure because of stresses caused by the collapse of the subprime mortgage market and the credit crunch that ensued. In return, the government will get a 79.9 percent stake in AIG and the right to remove senior management.
AIG shares sank $1.34, or 36 percent, to $2.41 in morning trading Wednesday. They traded as high as $70.13 in the past year.
The government's move was similar to its bailout of Sept. 7 of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, where the Treasury Department said it was prepared to put up as much as $100 billion over time in each of the companies if needed to keep them from going broke.
From the March 30 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom:
BILL HEMMER (co-host): Good morning, everybody, on a Monday -- Fox News Alert now. We are awaiting news from the White House on the future of America's auto industry, and the president will step to the cameras this morning to tell the country how Detroit has come up short on plans to restructure. Chrysler is all but history. GM is on life support. More than a million jobs hang in the balance. That is where we start this morning. And good morning -- whole new week here in America's Newsroom. Hello.
MacCALLUM: I'm Martha MacCallum. Good morning, everybody. Good morning, Bill. I'm in for Megyn Kelly today. Even before the president speaks this morning, he sent a message that was heard loud and clear from coast to coast. He told the boss of General Motors: You are fired.
HEMMER: Rick Wagoner, the man on your screen, had almost four decades with GM, and now he is out. Our man Stu Varney, out of FBN, says welcome to the new America, where elected officials can hire and fire folks who work in what was previously called the private sector. That man leads our coverage. Stu Varney, good morning to you. What do you make of this?
VARNEY: Good morning, Bill.
HEMMER: How do we understand it?
VARNEY: OK. This makes history -- makes history for two reasons. Number one, it's the first time in modern history that the government has fired the chief executive of a private corporation. The government does not own General Motors, but it totally controls it.
Second, it's the first time that I can remember that the American government has forced the sale of an American private corporation to a foreign company. Chrysler is being forced into a deal to be taken over by Fiat of Italy. More than that, if they got a deal after 30 days, the new deal -- the Fiat-Chrysler organization -- gets $6 billion of taxpayer money.
Bill, the writing is on the wall for any private company that takes government money. The government is going to tell you who you can fire -- who you can fire, how much you can pay them, the perks that they can receive, their business practices, and basically what product you can put out. History.
HEMMER: Sounds like oversight a hundred percent of the way.
VARNEY: Yeah, it's full control.
HEMMER: When you think about it, too, the White House sending its own team to Detroit to oversee the new restructuring. These companies are not going to make a move unless the White House gives them the thumbs up.
VARNEY: No. The government now controls the car industry in the United States.
what a recipe for disaster? The US automakers run their company into the ground, and now the government is going to run it. 6 of one, half a dozen of the other. No wonder the markets are tanking today.
DISASTER! Run, james, run for the hills with Glenn Beck and Michelle Malkin!!
Of course, if the govt continued bailing out Chrylser and GM as they are today, that would be a recipe for Socialist disaster, am I right?
BTW, Bush & Co decided on this in 2008, so I am certain you would have said the same thing last year? Or do you just repeat whatever you see on Fox News verbatim?
Bush is gone, I don't watch Fox, and I never mentioned socialism. the government can't run much of anything with any efficiency, so I am not so warm and fuzzy on them running GM or Chrylser any better.
they aren't running either company, just twisting their arms to get them to do what they promised to do. BIG DIFFERENCE
when they demand the ceo be fired, they are running the company.
They didn't demand, just suggested. I suggest you stop commenting on this board. But it's up to you to do anything about your commenting. See the difference
oh please, either fire the ceo or you don't get anymore money, some suggestion. Look, if they want govt. money then they shouldn't complain, it's just that the idea of the govt running private companies that are teetering on bankruptcy now is hardly reassuring.
My point remains
Your problem is you have been separated from the founding American principle of a government of the people by decades of good government killing conservative mismanagement.
perhaps, but considering the Democrast controlled Congree for over 40 years up until the mid 90's, their track record is no better than REpublicans. and that's because govt works best when it is small, not meddlesome, pared down. Inefficiency breeds more the bigger and more bureacratic it becomes, common sense.
There is no proof that government only works best when small, just like there is no proof that government only works best when big either.
the bigger it gets the more waste, hence the more inefficiency, that isn't some eye opening declaration. and who do you think is going to pay for this big government? The rich?
If there is justice... yes they will finally be subject to tax fairness.
Once again there is no basis for your assertion. I could easily say that the more government regulation there is, the less corporate shenanigans and wasteful spending there will be. Hence more government involvement and regulation is good.
Your wires are crossing, brother. Common sense is clear. You are not being clear. You can take a breath and try again if you wish because I can barely make heads or tails of that post.
your problem then. because you seem to make the case that government inefficiency started with Republicans in control, or because conservatives can't run it - now with Bush you are absolutely correct, granted. But don't tell me liberals run it better, because I just told you they had over 40 years to do it. I was not impressed.
Interesting. So the the guiding New Deal principles of effective government, mutual responsibility, broad prosperity, smarter defense and better future that oversaw the greatest expansion of the middle class in the history of the world did not impress you?
Go figure.
read New Deal or Raw Deal by Burton Folsom, you will get some much needed insight into FDR's time. it's not so cut and dried the way liberals and the media make it out to be.
Ask anyone who lived through the Great Depression/New Deal era. And they'll tell you that you need to choose your books to read more carefully.
Word.
They have to rewrite the New Deal or they will be done for good. Their whole premise is that government can't do anything, so if government affects positive change in people's lives, as it did when FDR was alive, people will experience, first hand, the big Con.
"But don't tell me liberals run it better, because I just told you they had over 40 years to do it. I was not impressed."
Were you more impressed with the fact that Clinton left office with a budget SURPLUS - while the federal debt INCREASED EVERY YEAR under Reagan and both Bushes?
Gotta love conservo-bots . . . until this past January, Repubs have held the White House for 26 of the past 38 years - not to mention Congress from '94-'06 - yet, everything wrong is the Dems' fault . . .
.
they said....hey you want any more of our money then this guy should think about going?
that may be a bit of a gray area in terms of running the company.....but GM could have easily said no to that condition. and they probably would have had to go into chapter 11. but again they had a CHOICE.
having a choice does not denote the government owns it.
of course they had a choice, and they made the choice to take our money. and with that choice came conditions and control, which it should I guess. I am not arguing that, I am merely saying it is not comforting to know our govt is in charge of such a financially shaky company.
and should GM turn around and become strong because of their choice? what will you say then?
" the government can't run much of anything with any efficiency"
Not so, friend.
really, well I don't even have to go near all the social spending waste for you, how about the 15 billion dollars unaccounted for by the defense dept in Iraq, how do you feel about your govt's efficiency there?
Which dovetails perfectly into conservative mismanagement.
The pentagon sucks, no way around it.
But how about the fact that government runs medicare at 2% overhead, while the private insurance companies operate at a 15% overhead because they are not a corporation of the people. It's because the me-first private companies are more concerned about profit than the welfare of communities.
and Medicare and Social Security are in need of overhaul or they will run out of money.
Really? Prove it.
At any rate, the current health insurance industry needs an overhaul too, or none but the super rich will enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
prove it? you think medicare and SS are solvent, healthy and vibrant govt entities running on all cylinders with a rosy future ahead. you are naive when it comes to govt.
And you are evasive when it comes time to pony up the meat of your argument.
And apparently you think the free market has done a swell job of providing affordable, comprehensive healthcare for every man, woman and child.
There are at least 50 million reasons that prove you misinformed.
given that the wastefull iraq spending was done by neo cons, i can't see how you are accusing the current administration on waste
the government can't run much of anything with any efficiency
Liar.
do you expect me to wait for agreement on that from liberals? uh, no. I don't care if you think it's a lie or not. the bigger the better for you, I get that.
I guess you missed the point that the government IS the people. Why do you hate Americans so much?
great argument.
Thank you. Foiled by logic once again.
Gets 'em every time, foghorn.
JimmyB thinks the gov't can't run anything with any efficiently . . . how long has the gov't been running the Armed Forces?
.
the Armed Forces are the govt's job, social engineering is not.
social engineering...
I'll take a little social engineering if it results in a better quality of life. How about you?
Uh oh - the goal posts just moved.
huh? ya, I think the govt. should stop being in charge of our national defense.
Silly jimmy - you stated "the government can't run much of anything with any efficiency"
And now you are saying it's the government's job to run certain things. See, your argument changed.
"the Armed Forces are the govt's job, social engineering is not."
So military men and women shouldn't have their lives interfered with through all that socialized, socially engineered, health care and retirement they are forced to accept? Why shouldn't any given citizen be provided healthcare and a retirement with dignity in exchange for their hard work and contribution to maintaining a healthy, productive society?
And for Pete's sake, Tommy/James, defending our country from attack is the most elemental form of social engineering.
What's more, JamesB voted for Obama. Perhaps he was not paying close attention to his speeches.
isn't the lie you told about who I voted for the other day enough for you? you must be purposefully out to make yourself look foolish, with no help from anyone.
Didn't you vote for Obama?
you said I did, and I have never said. So, you lied again. The next time you opine on Fox's lying, I suggest you clean up your own act.
Wait a minute, are you saying you didn't vote for Obama? Feel free to correct me....
Why don't you leave the country. If the government can't do anything with efficiency whats the point. Renounce all your benefits and move out. You repugs are a sorry bunch.
Of course, as MMFA shows, PLENTY of other CEOs have had to depart as a condition of their fims receiving government assistance. Wagoner is hardly the first, and won't be the last.
Exactly. Oh, I'm soooooo sure Fox News & Fox Biz were HIGHLY critical of AIG's CEO stepping down during the Bush admin or Freddie & Fannie for that matter.
This whole 'private company' meme is soon going the way of the dodo. All major companies receive tax breaks, monies to advertise from the fed, special offers by local governments to stay in a town, etc. I can't think of a single company that has done it all on their own with NO government help.
perhaps Ford maybe.........
I worked at the Big Kite Kompany when Mullally was chief engineer. He understands well the role the federal government plays in industry. The other two don't. When you get a smart savvy guy running the show, you get smart savvy things being decided.
there is an excellent book done by Doug Brinkley.....usually his stuff is about presidents but he went off the beaten track on this one.
"Wheels for the World" (its about Henry Ford I and Ford all the way up to Bill Ford II)
it was one of my text books for a college course i took, excellent book.
Why all the compassion for the CEO but none for the assembly line workers?
A recipe for disaster? I believe we're already in one.
noted. perhaps you're right, how can things get much worse.
You all have to excuse both JamesB and the Fox Comedy Channel.
They're both used to an incompetent Chief Executive {Dumbya} putting incompetent people in place.
Thus, when a competent Chief Executive {Obama} makes it a CONDITION that a certain company must EITHER get rid of someone who is not performing up to snuff {Wagoner}, or cease receiving continued funds from the gov't {that they BEGGED for} . . . well, that's something called ACCOUNTABILITY - which is hard for them to get used to, after 8 years of the Bush malAdministration.
Personal responsibility is only a bludgeon conservatives pull out to distract people from their true agenda of distributing as much income as possible to the wealthy and corporations.
personal responsibility, a cornerstone of every healthy philosphy that is taught by every responsible parent from birth, is only trashed by those who don't have it, or those that want to be taken care of by someone else.
Personal responsibility is tarnished by those who accuse people of something that they themselves are guilty of.
Oh - you mean, like whenever the wingnuts say that Clinton was responsible for 9/11?
.
or those that want to be taken care of by someone else.
Who exactly wants to be taken care of? To whom are you referring?
i just said, those who trash it as some conservative bludgeon, which is ridiculous.
You're so dishonest. You know better than anyone that nobody has disparaged responsibility but you. It was phony conservatism I was trashing. Meanwhile, you have throttled the ethic of personal responsibility by acting in bad faith by willfully mischaracterizing my argument.
if you don't like to be reminded about the importance of personal responsbility don't get all defensive when someone else does.
I assume you're personally responsible for your postings, yet they don't seem to have any basis in fact. How come you don't have any personal respsonsibility for what you post on this site?
your arguments are so idiotic they make no sense. I don't have personal responsibility for what I post? talk about flailing.
your insults are so redundant they appear redundant.
and by the way, I never even mentioned personal responsibility, you were the one who brought it up and now you act all whiny when it's back at you.
You are flailing, friend.
dodge
ford
"personal responsibility, a cornerstone of every healthy philosphy that is taught by every responsible parent from birth, is only trashed by those who don't have it, or those that want to be taken care of by someone else."
Yeah, I brought it up. But you never mentioned it. Ok.
You never change, Tommy. Your buttons are so easy to push. The topic of responsibility never failed to spin your head around, nor did you ever fail to resort to personal insult and muddied characterizations when cornered.
The truth is, as mjh pointed out, accountability (personal responsibility) is not important to conservatives until their agenda of distributing as much largesse upward is threatened by the ethic of economic fairness.
thank you for the Tommy comment, I am always flattered by the comparison. my buttons? too funny. You are the one who defensively brought up personal responsibility when it wasn't even mentioned, you must have been accused of dismissing it as some conservative political ploy before and that has you all paranoid. deal with it. Personal responsibility is important to anyone who believes we are accountable for our actions and should be held responsible for them. do you really need the tenets of it pointed out to you? Is is that foreign to you? Those who look to others to clean up their messes, or as you like to put it, shared responsibility or now it's economic fairness, don't much like the whole concept, so you try and marginalize it into political right vs left ideology, or something. Wake up and start working to take care of yourself and you will understand how liberating personal responsibility really is. it's far more rewarding than looking to the government for handouts, that is what real conservatives believe.
"Wake up and start working to take care of yourself and you will understand how liberating personal responsibility really is. it's far more rewarding than looking to the government for handouts"
Real nice. Personal attack. Way to deal honestly with the premise that modern cons have betrayed their foundational marketing slogan.
No. You have no idea how hard I work to take care of my family and you can kiss my ass, and the collective ass of every hard working man who has been bankrupted by an insufficient social safety net, for implying I'm (we are) some kind of lazy loser.
getting a scolding from you on personal attacks is a gem, considering the vitriol you spew here towards different opinions, so save your victicrat mentality. anyone that is self sufficient would never disrespect the concept or the importance of being accountable for one's actions, it would completely at odds with such self reliance. So I only go by what you say with regards to that, don't blame me if I come to that conclusion based on your contempt for personal responsibility. You try and worm out of it by saying conservatives bludgeon it over everyone's head, which is so damn ridiculous it's amazing. It is what it is, despite your attempts to pervert it to fit your liberal ideology.
anyone that is self sufficient would never disrespect the concept or the importance of being accountable for one's actions
Which is why I have trouble with your railing against the very government you yourself voted into power.
Screw that. Your self righteous piety is disgusting and is the kind of conservative strawman sophistry the right has been using for decades. Nobody but you has made an argument against responsibility. We have, to a man, called out phony conservatism and its manipulation of responsibility to hide its real agenda (an agenda you have not addressed once), it's as if you are using this feigned indignity to avoid an unpleasant truth.
You know it's true and aren't you the slippery one? You want to move our attention from the fact that we have a society, that more often than not failure is systemic. You want to blame individuals for being shafted. There has to be two sides in every struggle, so you blame, for example, the impoverished individual for the housing crisis instead of the predatory, conservative laissez-faire culture that made it legal to swindle at will. No, your conservative brand of personal responsibility has been used to great effect in pushing your me first agenda at the expense of many hard-working, responsible Americans.
Go away with your hard right, "you're on your own," ideology before you destroy the remaining social fabric of our good country.
" . . . don't blame me if I come to that conclusion based on your contempt for personal responsibility. You try and worm out of it by saying conservatives bludgeon it over everyone's head, which is so damn ridiculous it's amazing."
But Jimmy - nobody has any contempt for personal responsibility . . . we just don't like it when neoKKKons constantly PREACH it but can't PRACTICE it themselves, such as
• Sarah Palin on abstinence
• Ann Coulter on voter fraud
• Karl Rove on transparency in the White House
• Tom DeLay on clean politics
Considering all their actions, to hear them yap about personal responsibility isn't so "damn ridiculous" . . . but it is damn funny!
Just noticed. The hits keep on rolling.
"considering the vitriol you spew here towards different opinions"
Another classic tommy maneuver. Deliberately confuse subjective opinion with objective fact.
The more thing change, the more they stay the same.
"Wake up and start working to take care of yourself and you will understand how liberating personal responsibility really is. it's far more rewarding than looking to the government for handouts, that is what real conservatives believe. "
Really?
Is that what "real conservatives" believed after Bush bailed out Wall Street to the tune of $700 billion last October?
.
"Personal responsibility is important to anyone who believes we are accountable for our actions and should be held responsible for them." Precisely and Rick Wagoner ran GM to the brink of bankruptcy and then begged for a bail out. He is feeling the consequences of his actions.
Did Tommy get booted off here? I don't see Jeter the repug any longer. Both of them are gone?
Jeter is on hiatus or ihatus, something. Tommy was booted.
I'm surprised about Tommy, I know he had copied someones work and passed it off as his own, but that was a while ago.
I'm not sure what happened, I was taking a break from posting. When I returned, no more Tommy. From what I could reconstruct from others is his ouster was probably less to do with his plagiarism and more to do with his racism.
you would be correct as i flagged at least three posts of his for that very reason. now im not sure if that was what got him booted but im sure it was part of it.
Sorry, my absence is voluntary. Just to cut the knees off your lie I thought I'd set the record straight, one last time. You're right though, some things never change.
Happy Spring.......
I stand corrected. I hope you are well.
My apologies to JamesB.
You and he must work from the same talking point memo, because the similarities seem more than coincidental.
Anyway, you have good spring, too, and don't get too comfy in your hiatus.
Edward Liddy just testified before Congress little more than a week ago. Bush appointed him to take over AIG as a condition for TARP funds. Does Stuart Varney not own a television? Can he not read?
What is surprising is the misdirection going on. Who cares whether Waggoner was fired or asked to leave or left on his own? What puzzles me is why anyone thinks the people in our government know anything at all about running a company, small, medium or large. None of the key players has any experience in the private sector. Does any of them even know what a profit is or what the "profit" earnings ratio is? For that reason, it is somewhat comical to listen to them put conditions on more money for GM. What conditions, pray tell? GM is going to fail. Who do we go to to get our money back? Does anyone here think that GM will have a plan for success in 60 days?
On what basis would the plan be judged? Would we have our Secretary of Treasury judge it? How about our economic advisors? How about the chairman of the Fed? How about the President? Does any of them understand corporate finance, policies and market dynamics well enough to say anything intelligent? I have seen no evidence. Please show me some.
So just let them fail because we're too stupid as a people to retool GM for success?
Let them fail and watch unemployment jump another ten percent nationwide? Good idea, that wouldn't be more expensive in the long run. Go to Hell America is your answer. But hey, at least you get to bust another union.
Let them fail because we are a capitalist nation, roundhouse. So far we are still a free country. We’re still the most powerful economic force the world has ever seen by a long shot. That is BECAUSE we are a capitalist nation. Companies fail and it's painful for us all, but we rebuild based on capitalist principals and we continue to succeed. For the first time in our history we are in danger of losing the system that has been the source of our success since our founding, and it won’t be because of Waggoner or any of the other CEO’s the government has sent packing. It will because of the government. We have to wake up before we find ourselves under the thumb of some dictator!
Spare me the rightwing mularkey. This is about real people losing their livelihood. This is about the same people you would call feckless losers if they were forced onto the welfare roles if their jobs vanished overnight. So spare me, please.
Besides, we have done this before. We have nationalized the banks, FDIC style, as well as other corporations.
Today we subsidize big pharma and the agri-giants alongside Blackwater and many others. So get over your market fundie teeth gnashing. We have been down this road before and despite all the hard right screeches of socialism, dictatorship and blah, blah, blah business thrived as we became the most powerful economic force in the world.
Did not Reagan in the 80's think he could single handely land airplanes. Government takeover? I think so. How some people on the right tend to "forget" these little things.
Paulson understood corporate finance real well.
going further back. FDR threatened to have Ford Motor Co. taken over in 1942. Henry Ford hammered out a deal with FDR that if he built bombers for the USAAF, then he would not be taken over.
"Is there anyone else out there who is scared $^!+\#$$ over this? This is the Untied States of America. The government here doesn't run private companies . . . We listened to four years of bitching about how George Bush was the next Hitler, where is the outrage over the president overstepping his bounds now?"
Well CityDC, lemme put it this way:
I'm LESS concerned about a president telling a major corporation to get their house in order - which may include removing their CEO - in order to receive the gov't funds they THEMSELVES asked for . . .
. . . than I am about a president who REALLY "oversteps his bounds" by wiretapping citizens without a warrant, suspending the writ of habeas corpus, or determining that ANYBODY he THINKS is "an enemy" can be sent away without trial anytime.
That's what REALLY scares the $^!+ out of me . . .
.