He just wants the entire world economy to flow through facebook, that's all:

We hope to improve how people connect to businesses and the economy.

We think a more open and connected world will help create a stronger economy with more authentic businesses that build better products and services.

As people share more, they have access to more opinions from the people they trust about the products and services they use. This makes it easier to discover the best products and improve the quality and efficiency of their lives.

One result of making it easier to find better products is that businesses will be rewarded for building better products ? ones that are personalized and designed around people. We have found that products that are ?social by design? tend to be more engaging than their traditional counterparts, and we look forward to seeing more of the world?s products move in this direction.

Our developer platform has already enabled hundreds of thousands of businesses to build higher-quality and more social products. We have seen disruptive new approaches in industries like games, music and news, and we expect to see similar disruption in more industries by new approaches that are social by design.

In addition to building better products, a more open world will also encourage businesses to engage with their customers directly and authentically. More than four million businesses have Pages on Facebook that they use to have a dialogue with their customers. We expect this trend to grow as well.

In other words, he's in it for the power, not the money. So if all those businesses decided to use social technology besides facebook, such as Elgg for instance, well that might not be good for FB stock:

Our Mission and Our Business

As I said above, Facebook was not originally founded to be a company. We?ve always cared primarily about our social mission, the services we?re building and the people who use them. This is a different approach for a public company to take, so I want to explain why I think it works.

I started off by writing the first version of Facebook myself because it was something I wanted to exist. Since then, most of the ideas and code that have gone into Facebook have come from the great people we?ve attracted to our team.

Most great people care primarily about building and being a part of great things, but they also want to make money. Through the process of building a team ? and also building a developer community, advertising market and investor base ? I?ve developed a deep appreciation for how building a strong company with a strong economic engine and strong growth can be the best way to align many people to solve important problems.

Simply put: we don?t build services to make money; we make money to build better services.

And we think this is a good way to build something. These days I think more and more people want to use services from companies that believe in something beyond simply maximizing profits.

By focusing on our mission and building great services, we believe we will create the most value for our shareholders and partners over the long term ? and this in turn will enable us to keep attracting the best people and building more great services. We don?t wake up in the morning with the primary goal of making money, but we understand that the best way to achieve our mission is to build a strong and valuable company.

This is how we think about our IPO as well. We?re going public for our employees and our investors. We made a commitment to them when we gave them equity that we?d work hard to make it worth a lot and make it liquid, and this IPO is fulfilling our commitment. As we become a public company, we?re making a similar commitment to our new investors and we will work just as hard to fulfill it.

UPDATE: This sentence in particular just seems kind of odd to me.

Most great people care primarily about building and being a part of great things, but they also want to make money.

Really? That sounds like a sort of narrow, elitist perspective to me.

From CNN today:

O'BRIEN: Let me ask you a final question. And there's a poll that came out a few that says, understanding the needs of average Americans. And President Obama rates at 55 percent in this polling. You come in at 39 percent.

And the Conservative Writer, Kathleen Parker, wrote about, you know, it's that Romney can't connect with the people as has been - it isn't that Romney can't connect with the people has been pronounced repeatedly. It's that the people cannot connect with him. This also explains why the far less perfect Newt Gingrich can attract support against all reason. How do you fix that?

ROMNEY: You know, just let people get to know you better. The nice thing about what happened here in Florida is I got a chance to go across the state, meet with people. They heard what I am concerned about. They understand how I will be able to make things better.

I think people want someone who not just throws an incendiary bomb from time to time but someone who actually knows how it takes to improve their life, get home values rising again, to get jobs again in this country, and to make sure when soldiers come home they have a job waiting for them. And make sure people who are retired don't have to worry about what's going to happen at the end of the week.

This is a time people are worried. They're frightened. They want someone who they have confidence in. And I believe I will be able to instill that confidence in the American people. And, by the way, I'm in this race because I care about Americans. I'm not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I'll fix it.

I'm not concerned about the very rich, they're doing just fine. I'm concerned about the very heart of the America, the 90, 95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling and I'll continue to take that message across the nation.

O'BRIEN: All right. So I know I said last question, but I've got to ask you. You just said I'm not concerned about the very poor because they have a safety net. And I think there are lots of very poor Americans who are struggling who would say that sounds odd. Can you explain that?

ROMNEY: Well, you had to finish the sentence, Soledad. I said I'm not concerned about the very poor that have the safety net, but if it has holes in it, I will repair them.

O'BRIEN: Got it. OK.

ROMNEY: The - the challenge right now - we will hear from the Democrat Party the plight of the poor, and - and there's no question, it's not good being poor and we have a safety net to help those that are very poor.

But my campaign is focused on middle income Americans. My campaign - you can choose where to focus. You can focus on the rich. That's not my focus. You can focus on the very poor. That's not my focus.

My focus is on middle income Americans, retirees living on social security, people who cannot find work, folks who have kids that are getting ready to go to college. That - these are the people who've been most badly hurt during the Obama years.

We have a very ample safety net, and we can talk about whether it needs to be strengthened or whether there are holes in it. But we have food stamps, we have Medicaid, we have housing vouchers, we have programs to help the poor. But the middle income Americans, they're the folks that are really struggling right now, and they need someone that can help get this economy going for them.

O'BRIEN: All right. Mitt Romney, congratulations to you on your big victory last night. Thanks for talking with us. appreciate it.

Peggy Noonan:

We all know politics ain't beanbag, but it's not supposed to be a clown-car Indy 500 with cars hitting the wall and guys in wigs littering the track!

No not that one, the other one:

Perry - who went to a steel manufacturer in Georgetown, SC, and a photo album company in Gaffney that he says gutted jobs as a result of Bain's actions - said that residents of those communities would be stunned by the remarks of "the son of a multi-millionaire."

"There's something inherently wrong when getting rich off failure and sticking it to someone else is how you do your business. I happen to think that is indefensible," he told the breakfast crowd of about 75 at Mama Penn's restaurant here in Anderson. "If you're a victim of Bain Capital's downsizing, it's the ultimate insult for Mitt Romney to come to South Carolina and tell you he feels your pain. Because he caused it."

More details here:

22 percent of the money Bain Capital raised from 1987 to 1995 was invested in five businesses ? Stage Stores, American Pad & Paper, GS Indusries, Dade, and Details. These five made Bain $578 million in profit, even as all five eventually went bankrupt.

As the New York Post?s Josh Koshman wrote, ?there?s little question [Romney] made a fortune from businesses he helped destroy.? Travis Waldron noted today that Romney?s company also boosted its profits ? and thus enriched Romney ? by abusing offshore tax havens.

From Politico.com:

Standard & Poor?s director said for the first time Thursday that one reason the United States lost its triple-A credit rating was that several lawmakers expressed skepticism about the serious consequences of a credit default ? a position put forth by some Republicans.

Without specifically mentioning Republicans, S&P senior director Joydeep Mukherji said the stability and effectiveness of American political institutions were undermined by the fact that ?people in the political arena were even talking about a potential default,? Mukherji said.

?That a country even has such voices, albeit a minority, is something notable,? he added. ?This kind of rhetoric is not common amongst AAA sovereigns.?

Or at least the debt committee:

WASHINGTON -- Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, announced on Wednesday that she will introduce a progressive-minded budget outline aimed at putting more than two million people to work.

Titled the ?Emergency Jobs to Restore the American Dream Act,? the plan would cost $227 billion and would be implemented over two years. It would be financed by separate legislation introduced by Schakowsky called the "Fairness in Taxation Act," which would raise taxes for Americans who earn more than $1 million and $1 billion. It would also eliminate subsidies for big oil companies while closing loopholes for corporations that send American jobs overseas.

The congresswoman said that her plan would create 2.2 million jobs and decrease the unemployment rate by 1.3 percent.

"If we want to create jobs, then create jobs," Schakowsky said in a press release. "I?m not talking about "incentivizing" companies in the hopes they?ll hire someone, or cutting taxes for the so-called job creators who have done nothing of the sort. My plan creates actual new jobs."

Proving there are still much worse places to live than the US:

Mission Accomplished! From the Wall Street Journal:

Standard & Poor?s took the unprecedented step of downgrading the U.S. government?s ?AAA? sovereign credit rating Friday in a move that could send shock waves through global markets. The following is a press release from Standard & Poor?s:

? We have lowered our long-term sovereign credit rating on the United States of America to ?AA+? from ?AAA? and affirmed the ?A-1+? short-term rating.

? We have also removed both the short- and long-term ratings from CreditWatch negative.

? The downgrade reflects our opinion that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration recently agreed to falls short of what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government?s medium-term debt dynamics.

? More broadly, the downgrade reflects our view that the effectiveness, stability, and predictability of American policymaking and political institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic challenges to a degree more than we envisioned when we assigned a negative outlook to the rating on April 18, 2011.

? Since then, we have changed our view of the difficulties in bridging the gulf between the political parties over fiscal policy, which makes us pessimistic about the capacity of Congress and the Administration to be able to leverage their agreement this week into a broader fiscal consolidation plan that stabilizes the government?s debt dynamics any time soon.

? The outlook on the long-term rating is negative. We could lower the long-term rating to ?AA? within the next two years if we see that less reduction in spending than agreed to, higher interest rates, or new fiscal pressures during the period result in a higher general government debt trajectory than we currently assume in our base case.

TORONTO (Standard & Poor?s) Aug. 5, 2011?Standard & Poor?s Ratings Services said today that it lowered its long-term sovereign credit rating on the United States of America to ?AA+? from ?AAA?. Standard & Poor?s also said that the outlook on the long-term rating is negative. At the same time, Standard & Poor?s affirmed its ?A-1+? short-term rating on the U.S. In addition, Standard & Poor?s removed both ratings from CreditWatch, where they were placed on July 14, 2011, with negative implications.

The transfer and convertibility (T&C) assessment of the U.S.?our assessment of the likelihood of official interference in the ability of U.S.-based public- and private-sector issuers to secure foreign exchange for debt service?remains ?AAA?.

We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and will remain a contentious and fitful process. We also believe that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration agreed to this week falls short of the amount that we believe is necessary to stabilize the general government debt burden by the middle of the decade.

Our lowering of the rating was prompted by our view on the rising public debt burden and our perception of greater policymaking uncertainty, consistent with our criteria (see ?Sovereign Government Rating Methodology and Assumptions,? June 30, 2011, especially Paragraphs 36-41). Nevertheless, we view the U.S. federal government?s other economic, external, and monetary credit attributes, which form the basis for the sovereign rating, as broadly unchanged.

We have taken the ratings off CreditWatch because the Aug. 2 passage of the Budget Control Act Amendment of 2011 has removed any perceived immediate threat of payment default posed by delays to raising the government?s debt ceiling. In addition, we believe that the act provides sufficient clarity to allow us to evaluate the likely course of U.S. fiscal policy for the next few years.

The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as America?s governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective, and less predictable than what we previously believed. The statutory debt ceiling and the threat of default have become political bargaining chips in the debate over fiscal policy. Despite this year?s wide-ranging debate, in our view, the differences between political parties have proven to be extraordinarily difficult to bridge, and, as we see it, the resulting agreement fell well short of the comprehensive fiscal consolidation program that some proponents had envisaged until quite recently. Republicans and Democrats have only been able to agree to relatively modest savings on discretionary spending while delegating to the Select Committee decisions on more comprehensive measures. It appears that for now, new revenues have dropped down on the menu of policy options. In addition, the plan envisions only minor policy changes on Medicare and little change in other entitlements, the containment of which we and most other independent observers regard as key to long-term fiscal sustainability.

Our opinion is that elected officials remain wary of tackling the structural issues required to effectively address the rising U.S. public debt burden in a manner consistent with a ?AAA? rating and with ?AAA? rated sovereign peers (see Sovereign Government Rating Methodology and Assumptions,? June 30, 2011, especially Paragraphs 36-41). In our view, the difficulty in framing a consensus on fiscal policy weakens the government?s ability to manage public finances and diverts attention from the debate over how to achieve more balanced and dynamic economic growth in an era of fiscal stringency and private-sector deleveraging (ibid). A new political consensus might (or might not) emerge after the 2012 elections, but we believe that by then, the government debt burden will likely be higher, the needed medium-term fiscal adjustment potentially greater, and the inflection point on the U.S. population?s demographics and other age-related spending drivers closer at hand (see ?Global Aging 2011: In The U.S., Going Gray Will Likely Cost Even More Green, Now,? June 21, 2011).

Standard & Poor?s takes no position on the mix of spending and revenue measures that Congress and the Administration might conclude is appropriate for putting the U.S.?s finances on a sustainable footing.

The act calls for as much as $2.4 trillion of reductions in expenditure growth over the 10 years through 2021. These cuts will be implemented in two steps: the $917 billion agreed to initially, followed by an additional $1.5 trillion that the newly formed Congressional Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction is supposed to recommend by November 2011. The act contains no measures to raise taxes or otherwise enhance revenues, though the committee could recommend them.

The act further provides that if Congress does not enact the committee?s recommendations, cuts of $1.2 trillion will be implemented over the same time period. The reductions would mainly affect outlays for civilian discretionary spending, defense, and Medicare. We understand that this fall-back mechanism is designed to encourage Congress to embrace a more balanced mix of expenditure savings, as the committee might recommend.

We note that in a letter to Congress on Aug. 1, 2011, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated total budgetary savings under the act to be at least $2.1 trillion over the next 10 years relative to its baseline assumptions. In updating our own fiscal projections, with certain modifications outlined below, we have relied on the CBO?s latest ?Alternate Fiscal Scenario? of June 2011, updated to include the CBO assumptions contained in its Aug. 1 letter to Congress. In general, the CBO?s ?Alternate Fiscal Scenario? assumes a continuation of recent Congressional action overriding existing law.

We view the act?s measures as a step toward fiscal consolidation. However, this is within the framework of a legislative mechanism that leaves open the details of what is finally agreed to until the end of 2011, and Congress and the Administration could modify any agreement in the future. Even assuming that at least $2.1 trillion of the spending reductions the act envisages are implemented, we maintain our view that the U.S. net general government debt burden (all levels of government combined, excluding liquid financial assets) will likely continue to grow. Under our revised base case fiscal scenario?which we consider to be consistent with a ?AA+? long-term rating and a negative outlook?we now project that net general government debt would rise from an estimated 74% of GDP by the end of 2011 to 79% in 2015 and 85% by 2021. Even the projected 2015 ratio of sovereign indebtedness is high in relation to those of peer credits and, as noted, would continue to rise under the act?s revised policy settings.

Compared with previous projections, our revised base case scenario now assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, due to expire by the end of 2012, remain in place. We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act. Key macroeconomic assumptions in the base case scenario include trend real GDP growth of 3% and consumer price inflation near 2% annually over the decade.

Our revised upside scenario?which, other things being equal, we view as consistent with the outlook on the ?AA+? long-term rating being revised to stable?retains these same macroeconomic assumptions. In addition, it incorporates $950 billion of new revenues on the assumption that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for high earners lapse from 2013 onwards, as the Administration is advocating. In this scenario, we project that the net general government debt would rise from an estimated 74% of GDP by the end of 2011 to 77% in 2015 and to 78% by 2021.

Our revised downside scenario?which, other things being equal, we view as being consistent with a possible further downgrade to a ?AA? long-term rating?features less-favorable macroeconomic assumptions, as outlined below and also assumes that the second round of spending cuts (at least $1.2 trillion) that the act calls for does not occur. This scenario also assumes somewhat higher nominal interest rates for U.S. Treasuries. We still believe that the role of the U.S. dollar as the key reserve currency confers a government funding advantage, one that could change only slowly over time, and that Fed policy might lean toward continued loose monetary policy at a time of fiscal tightening. Nonetheless, it is possible that interest rates could rise if investors re-price relative risks. As a result, our alternate scenario factors in a 50 basis point (bp)-75 bp rise in 10-year bond yields relative to the base and upside cases from 2013 onwards. In this scenario, we project the net public debt burden would rise from 74% of GDP in 2011 to 90% in 2015 and to 101% by 2021.

Our revised scenarios also take into account the significant negative revisions to historical GDP data that the Bureau of Economic Analysis announced on July 29. From our perspective, the effect of these revisions underscores two related points when evaluating the likely debt trajectory of the U.S. government. First, the revisions show that the recent recession was deeper than previously assumed, so the GDP this year is lower than previously thought in both nominal and real terms. Consequently, the debt burden is slightly higher. Second, the revised data highlight the sub-par path of the current economic recovery when compared with rebounds following previous post-war recessions. We believe the sluggish pace of the current economic recovery could be consistent with the experiences of countries that have had financial crises in which the slow process of debt deleveraging in the private sector leads to a persistent drag on demand. As a result, our downside case scenario assumes relatively modest real trend GDP growth of 2.5% and inflation of near 1.5% annually going forward.

When comparing the U.S. to sovereigns with ?AAA? long-term ratings that we view as relevant peers?Canada, France, Germany, and the U.K.?we also observe, based on our base case scenarios for each, that the trajectory of the U.S.?s net public debt is diverging from the others. Including the U.S., we estimate that these five sovereigns will have net general government debt to GDP ratios this year ranging from 34% (Canada) to 80% (the U.K.), with the U.S. debt burden at 74%. By 2015, we project that their net public debt to GDP ratios will range between 30% (lowest, Canada) and 83% (highest, France), with the U.S. debt burden at 79%. However, in contrast with the U.S., we project that the net public debt burdens of these other sovereigns will begin to decline, either before or by 2015.

Standard & Poor?s transfer T&C assessment of the U.S. remains ?AAA?. Our T&C assessment reflects our view of the likelihood of the sovereign restricting other public and private issuers? access to foreign exchange needed to meet debt service. Although in our view the credit standing of the U.S. government has deteriorated modestly, we see little indication that official interference of this kind is entering onto the policy agenda of either Congress or the Administration. Consequently, we continue to view this risk as being highly remote.

The outlook on the long-term rating is negative. As our downside alternate fiscal scenario illustrates, a higher public debt trajectory than we currently assume could lead us to lower the long-term rating again. On the other hand, as our upside scenario highlights, if the recommendations of the Congressional Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction?independently or coupled with other initiatives, such as the lapsing of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for high earners?lead to fiscal consolidation measures beyond the minimum mandated, and we believe they are likely to slow the deterioration of the government?s debt dynamics, the long-term rating could stabilize at ?AA+?.

On Monday, we will issue separate releases concerning affected ratings in the funds, government-related entities, financial institutions, insurance, public finance, and structured finance sectors.

From Yahoo News:

Former President Bill Clinton said Monday he wouldn't hesitate to raise the debt ceiling without congressional approval--a fraught political course that President Obama has been reluctant to follow as he seeks to broker a deal on spending with Republican leaders.

Clinton told The National Memo he would invoke the constitutional option "without hesitation, and force the courts to stop [him]" if Congress and the White House fail to reach an agreement to raise the debt ceiling by the Aug. 2 deadline when the U.S. Treasury says the government will begin to default on its debts.

That's much stronger language than anything we've heard from the sitting president during the grinding debate over whether and how the debt ceiling can be raised. Some legal thinkers--including, quite clearly, Clinton himself--take the view that the Constitution grants the president the authority to raise the limit by executive order without Congress's approval. The Fourteenth Amendment states: "the validity of the public debt of the United States ... shall not be questioned."

"I think the Constitution is clear," Clinton said.

Agree on the $2 trillion deal, get the debt limit increased by enough to last through the presidential election without a default, then run on a promise to veto any extension of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, which would go a long way - okay maybe half way with the $250,000 cap - toward achieving his goal of $4 trillion.