Was President Obama's Take Over the Auto Industry a Suspicious Move?

Robbie Cooper is the author of the "UrbanGrounds" forum and in his post, from March 30th, 2009, he states that Obama's take over the auto industry was a bit hostile. He says that it is a clear example of socialism, since the Government's take over the GM company is "the state ownership of the means of production." President Obama has fired the CEOs of the company and is making all tax payers pay for the warranties of all GM vehicles. Cooper makes it clear that although he does not own a GM vehicle he should not have to pay for the warranties. I totally agree with Robbie that we should not have to pay for warranties of vehicles some of us do not own. Yet, I do think he is exaggerating about President Obama being a socialist. It is clear that the past attempts to save the auto industry have not helped at all. So when the country is in such bad shape the President will go to extremes to help the situation get better. As far as President Obama firing the CEOs of the company I believe that is a step that definitely had to be taken. The CEOs were doing things completely wrong and lavishing in luxurious things when really they did not even have the money for those types of expenses. The CEOs needed to be fired because when you have people like in charge of a huge company it will be more difficult for things to get better, or remain well. I think Robbie is exaggerating on the whole socialist topic, and it is clear that his intended audience is for strong conservative republicans. I really think he should read more over the whole auto industry topic and really take in all the details of it, not just the ones that could make President Obama's actions seem suspicious.  This paper is mainly based on his views and opinions of the President, if he had actual facts and events that proved Obama could possibly be a socialist I would maybe then think more highly of this author's credibility.