Do you think the federal government should have to authority to remove business executives?

the government should only get involved when the companies is getting tax payers bailouts.Do we really want the government in the private sectors.Not me.This is america not Cuba....

ABSOLUTELY NOT. Matter of fact I'm having serious problems with the Obama Administration's decision to not allow Banks to pay back TARP money. They are using the Treasury's "Stress Test" as a reason to keep it's power in Banks (that never wanted the TARP in the first place). The Government has manipulated the use of "preferred shares" to include warrants - it's sort of complicated to go into but I find it disgusting.

I believe we, as a nation, really need to start applying pressure on the Obama Administration to leave business alone. The bottom line is, that Banks that issued bad loans, and the Banks that invested in bad loans have paid a price - some no longer exist. I do understand that Gov't had to be active in making sure the economy doesn't collapse but it has not right to go after Banks and Financial Institutions who did the right thing. Many Banks didn't give out mortgages that people could pay for and other firms didn't get highly vested in Mortgaged Back Securities - yet they are not pawns of the government,

Well if your business is receiving the government money, then you lose control of your business its real simple. If you don't want to the government to control your business don't take their loans or beg them to save you.

Under normal circumstances no, but you have to remember these companies have received billions from the government in the last 30 years, and the government is really the majority share holder of this business so they can do what they want.

The constitution does not allow the government to intervene in the private sector or tell the states what to do with the money.

And the thought that since this is the tax payers money u own the company is just plain false. How would you like to get a car loan to buy yourself a brand new car but the government told u you have to buy a prius otherwise there is no loan. You probably wouldn't like it, but hey guess what, it's my money in the bank that I put there to gain interest therefore it's my money that they are loaning to you to buy a car so I get to choose what kind a car you buy. Now doesn't that just sound stupid.

They already can if the executives are in breach of any rules that govern their role. Any decisions like this should not be based on subjective hearsay that is open to abuse, but on the cold hard facts of law that apply to everyone else.

Maybe the legislation does need some cleaning up to cut out some of the loop holes that are being exploited.

Yes, when said business have received billions in federal bailouts. There's an old Scottish saying, "It's him that pays the piper that gets to call the tune." right now, in the case of many bank and two of the three Big Three car makers, it's the US government that is paying the piper.

No, I do not,but I do hope that the day comes before I die when we return this government to operate under the rules of the original constitution or by the law that is based on the law and the order.

Aside from protecting the country via an army, try thinking of something you'd want to be run by the federal government.

It's MY money they are getting, THEREFORE ...WE THE PEOPLE are their BOSSES by DEFAULT !.... and if these CEO's can't use the funds appropriately and keep their greedy little hands off.., then YES... fired !

Wouldn't a secretary get fired for stealing $100 of petty cash !?????.....now multiply that by 1 million !

Not only should they be fired, they should be publicly humiliated !!

The government shouldn't be bailing out ANYONE in the first place and shouldn't be removing executives either.