Gee he really needed to go a long time ago due to his lack of performance. Allowing a failure to continue would be a bad idea in my opinion.

The first commenter proves the point of the editorial. Far too many of our so-called citizens have bought the lies that the end justifies the means and that the government is better able to determine what is best for us than we are.

The critical point here is that in a FREE (look up the word in a dictionary - you need the education) society, it is the shareholders, owners, and board of directors of GM, and ONLY they, who are entitled to determine who should run the company. If they choose poorly, someone else will come along who will make better choices and thus be more competitive. If GM dies, a free economy will not allow the company's resources (plants, equipment, and especially labor) to remain idle for long. All would be put to good use in more efficient, better managed endeavors, with the result that overall wealth in our country would be increased.

I am terrified of living in a country where the government can determine how much money a worker can earn (AIG) or who can have which job (GM). I agree with the writer that America's days as a free country are rapidly drawing to a close, and people who think (if they think at all) like the commenter above are a primary reason why.

Sieg Heil! (May as well get used to saying it, because that is how we will soon be living).

Funny. When I read the first comment, I thought he was talking about Obama. :) Guess that shows where we're both coming from.

GM was asking for government assistance. The president asked, but did not require, that the CEO who was responsible for their woes, step down. He did.

Where, pray tell, is the problem? There is no coercion here. At least, none that would not come with the terms of any extremely large loan. Same with AIG and their bonuses. They got a 165 billion dollar loan from an agent. That agent can attach strings to that loan, including "Yeah, don't give 165 million in bonuses to the people who caused your problems." Were this a private equity fund, you'd applaud the move. But there is no equity fund that large that is willing to take a risk with that much money. So they asked the government. The government agreed, and, like any agent loaning money to any other entity, put restrictions and conditions on it. For this, you compare them to Nazis.

Are you that ignorant? Is your understanding of reality, let alone economics, that distorted? Do you actually understand what capitalism and socialism are, or do you use the neo-conservative definitions of "what we want" and "anything else"?

gm voluntary accepted public funds (requested them, in fact) with the understanding that it would make them beholden to the tax payers. this would only be a problem if it wasnt an entirely voluntary process from the beginning. once a company uses the treasury as its life support, the government's first duty isnt to let it do whatever it wants, but to make sure that we the people get a return on our investment, essentially playing the role of the stockholders in our place

It is not the role of government to support failing businesses.

When it does so, it fundamentally transforms the relationship between the government and the people.

If I wanted to start my own auto company, just like Henry Ford did, why should I have to compete against a Federal Government controlled GM?

Your quote says the administration "asked" the CEO to step down. We'll never know the details of the situation, but asking and doing are rather different actions. It's not as if they installed an official in the office. This post sounds very over-reactionary.