Mark Levin hit the nail on the head during his 1st monologue ~it’s all I heard~ Romney is NOT a capitalist; he’s a corporatist.  Rush also talked about how Romney is NOT a conservative; he supported TARP and TARP was the biggest corporate bailout in US History.  TARP was not capitalism.  If free markets and capitalism were being allowed to work, there wouldn’t have “needed” a bailout.  Rush also mentioned that Newt was in opposition to TARP also.

This is the problem with Romney, and one that Romney supporters are failing to recognize.   Romney is a corporatist.   Part of his resume’ includes deconstructing an Ohio steel manufacturer, among others, and then putting the burden of the pension on the backs of the taxpayers who were forced to step in and fund the defaulted pension.   This is not capitalism at work.   This is a vulture process that gains wealth for the corporatist, at the expense of the employees, and then takes the profit while placing the burden of the pension on the taxpayer.

How is this any different from bailing out an underfunded or defaulted state public pension with funds from a fiscally prudent state?    Short answer, it’s not.

If you want to advocate to support the decisions of Mitt Romney at Bain Capital then you better be prepared to answer the question:  “why was Romney inc. more entitled to the assests of the company than the people who worked there for their lifetime expecting a pension”?    In a truly free market based on capitalism shouldn’t the assests be used to pay for the companies liabilities, all of them, including their pension promises?   Why should a deconstructing venture firm be allowed to sell off the assets, take their profit, and then require the government to care for the workers?

Go ahead.   Flog me and tell me where I’m wrong on principle.