I think outsourcing the Post Office is a huge mistake. Don't we condemn spys. So, now we are going to allow another country to read our mail? I don't think I can be so trusting, not yet anyway. We need the Post Office for when all the computers crash and cyberspace is no longer available for people. Who knows there may come a time when using the computer will prove to be too costly for the average Joe. Cable TV is already becoming too expensive, add to that airplane travel, etc...The less fortunate also are less informed therefore narrowing ideas and limiting only rich people to participate in the future of our World. I'm not a fortunate son. I didn't have to go to war but, nonetheless those less fortunate had to. They were also uninformed and lied to as to what the hell they were fighting for. They were fighting for the fortunate ones.

Managed bankruptcy? Oh, yeah that's right, the employees that they interviewed were talking alot about how they were happy their steel plant went through "Managed Bankruptcy" . Everything is ok now, thank you for pointing that out , So, the answer to all our problems is "Managed Bankruptcy"? It was also nice of Romney to re-locate all these hard workers to new manufacturing plants, where they could then be able to feed their children. Nice guy. Unions have helped people to survive in an otherwise abusive slave driven work environment which was and is still taking risks with peoples lives everyday. I think your forte might be Coal Mining. Try that for a time and then let us know at that point how you feel about safety measures being taken by Employers. Workers are just a dime a dozen to some Big Fat Cats. We're not scraping by just yet, so why not give U.S. manufacturing another shot. People are still looking for work. Romney is looking to take that from the American People. The proof is in the pudding. The proof is Romney's broken record of success.

You shouldn't believe everything you read/hear. Managed bankruptcy is when the company keeps on going. The steel mill went out of business... two years after Romney left. In addition at least one of the guys in the ad turned down a buyout offer previously.

What you may not be aware of is that most businesses fail. Most. The steel company was not up for sale because it was making too much money. Those guys actually had their jobs longer because of Bain. Don't believe me either, do some homework.

Romney called for managed bankruptcy, where the company continues. Obama did just that

You're being as disingenuous as Mitt Romney.

Apology from "The Economist" (Who agreed with Romney at the time):

http://www.economist.com/node/16846494

"Government Motors no more" - Aug 19th 2010

An apology is due to Barack Obama: his takeover of GM could have gone horribly wrong, but it has not

AND they trashed Romney for being as disingenuous as you:

Feb. 14th 2012

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/02/mitt-romney-and-car-industry

The course I recommended was eventually followed", Mr Romney writes.

As with much of Mr Romney's excessive rhetoric, there is some truth to this statement. Following the bail-outs, the president eventually forced Chrysler and GM into bankruptcy, a step Mr Romney thought should occur naturally. And the government oversaw painful restructurings at both companies, which were largely in line with Mr Romney's broad suggestions. But the course Mr Romney recommended in 2008 began with the government stepping back, and it is unlikely things would've turned out so well had this happened.

Free-marketeers that we are, The Economist agreed with Mr Romney at the time. But we later apologised for that position. "Had the government not stepped in, GM might have restructured under normal bankruptcy procedures, without putting public money at risk", we said. But "given the panic that gripped private purse-strings...it is more likely that GM would have been liquidated, sending a cascade of destruction through the supply chain on which its rivals, too, depended." Even Ford, which avoided bankruptcy, feared the industry would collapse if GM went down. At the time that seemed like a real possibility. The credit markets were bone-dry, making the privately financed bankruptcy that Mr Romney favoured improbable. He conveniently ignores this bit of history in claiming to have been right all along.

In other areas of his op-ed Mr Romney is more accurate. Unions did win some special favours in the bail-out deals, though they are not as egregious as the candidate claims. For example, a health fund for retired workers was unfairly favoured over secured bondholders at Chrysler. But an issue like that is unlikely to resonate in Detroit. So Mr Romney must find a way to re-write history . . .

I understand why Romney is lying The question is why are you?

Apparantally, the shootist has read something different than I did. He believed what he read and I don't believe people who make it a habit of lieing as in Romney (Pinnochio). I can also read people and you are not capable of changing any minds here.

I said Obama went to a managed bankruptcy and you just agreed.

Following the bail-outs, the president eventually forced Chrysler and GM into bankruptcy, a step Mr Romney thought should occur naturally. And the government oversaw painful restructurings at both companies, which were largely in line with Mr Romney's broad suggestions.

What part of your own cite are you disagreeing with? My point still stands the only difference between Romney and Obama was that Obama usurped the bankruptcy process to reward cronies and abrogate the rights of bondholders. Govt could have provided DIP financing and let the process unfold, but no. Obama had to take advantage of a crisis to reward the UAW.

Throwing around the word "lie" isn't making you credible.

Bankruptcy would have been an "oopsie" for them - though they would still make money if they did it correctly.

Bankruptcy gets them out of any inconvenient contracts, such as pension liabilities. The looting that leads to bankruptcy, since it provides immediate returns, may well be of greater net present value than staying in business.

Between those two considerations, planning to run a company into bankruptcy can be a very good business move. It's also illegal, but proving it is pretty much impossible unless the management is very, very foolish. Between Mitt's MBA and law degree, I am willing to give him credit for knowing better than to leave any evidence of those particular crimes.

And, who, exactly, has lost their jobs because of Obama? I challenge you to find some. He's reversed the plunge that Bush left office during.

Here's a quote from a 2010 NY Times article regarding the topic:

President Obama’s auto task force pressed General Motors and Chrysler to close scores of dealerships without adequately considering the jobs that would be lost or having a firm idea of the cost savings that would be achieved, an audit of the process has concluded.

So as not to be misunderstood again, let me explain. My comments are regarding the above post of comparing the auto bailout to Bain's attempt as saving failing companies. When attempting to save a company in financial trouble it is often necessary to cut jobs and real people pay that cost. Sometimes the effort is successful, some times it is not.

The auto bailout cost real people their jobs, I know one personally. His family eventually lost their home because of it. So I know from what I speak.

Did I meet your challenge?

That's what I asked for, yes. See, sourcing your assertions is useful. It also shows the complete difference of scale that we're talking about here. Bain (and Romney) destroyed whole towns and companies, while the auto rescue hurt a small percentage of Bain's victims. Also, the auto bailout was a one-time deal, while Bain has spread its destruction over many states and many years, with no positive effect except to the bank statements of those who controlled it. So, it's very much a difference of scale, both in numbers and scope.

Grumpy, would you mind sourcing the towns destroyed by Bain and that they had "no positive effect except to the bank statements of those who controlled it?"

My prediction - no reliable source coming.

I don't need to; the Obama campaign has put out a nice bit on it, and so did Newt Gingrich. They have victim testimony. Hell, even Ted Kennedy had some. It's all over.

Grumpy, you are buying into talking points instead of facts. If it is "all over" then it shouldn't be hard to name 2 or 3 of the towns you say Romney destroyed.

My prediction - again, no names coming.

Alright, if you're not going to take the actual attestations of those affected, like your nameless faceless friend that you used as your "proof", I give. I can't meet your ever-increasing requirements for what you will accept. Interesting how you never lose these discussions, you just disappear from them when your assertions don't have anything behind them.

I can't meet your ever-increasing requirements for what you will accept.

What? All I've asked for is some reliable source or even the names of the towns Romney supposedly "destroyed."

My friend was not offered as "proof" but as an anecdotal aside. Note that before mentioning my "nameless faceless friend" I offered a source to the loss jobs.

You've offered NO source for the towns you assert that were destroyed. I'm not leaving, back up your words or admit you were mistaken.

Interesting how you never lose these discussions, you just disappear from them when your assertions don't have anything behind them.

Hellooooo...anyone there???? Ironic, huh?

Rollo, I thought others were smart enough to recognize I was pulling only a "sound byte" from the posting since it was just a simple scroll up. But, for your benefit, here is the bulk of what was said in the posting above as it refers to the specifics between Romney's actions at Bain causing layoffs and President Obama's actions causing layoffs (not it is 3 paragraphs in the heart of the posting):

But a closer look reveals how deeply foolish the comparison really is. Romney's leveraged buyouts and mass layoffs were intended to do one thing: make a profit for investors. The fate of the companies, the workers, and the surrounding communities was irrelevant. Period. Full stop.

Obama, meanwhile, wasn't motivated by profit; he was trying to save the American auto industry, the backbone of the nation's manufacturing sector, millions of American jobs, and the economy in the Midwest.

Romney exploited the companies he gutted to line his pockets and those of his investors. That isn't the same as what Obama did for GM and Chrysler; it's the opposite.

Motive: that was the difference according to the posting. Romney was trying to make a profit and President Obama was trying to "save the world" thus those without jobs because it should be thankful, glad, happy...

Strange, you didn't try and address my point, you simply just tried to dismiss it. That speaks volumes.