grammie, I ditto your comment!!! mittnocchio does not care about we ordinary citizens struggling to make ends meet. rummy has absolutely no idea the struggles we face every day. his comment about his disgust with the 47% were his true feelings from which he is now flip flopping again! the 47% include seniors, disabled, veterans, nursing home patients and r&r expect them to all go out and get a job! our previous "president" bush looked directly at the camera and lied to us so he could start a war in Iraq (unfunded of course). tommy thompson made sure the unfunded medicare part d did not allow negotiated drug prices--my medicare part d does not pay for my medications because one has to be name brand (cannot take the generic), a rescue asthma inhaler is not a necessary medication and the formulary keeps changing to avoid covering other medications. the gop has done nothing but obstruct and avoid doing their elected job to represent we the people--isn't this just short of dereliction of job yet they take their check while nearly preventing the military from getting theirs in the last deficit debate. the gop caused our credit rating to suffer. paul ryan continues to run for his congressional seat BUT refuses to debate his opponents while in Wisconsin but does have time to attend fund raising events! anyone voting for a rethuglican this year is voting against their own self interests and the good of our country.

You're the liar, not your fault though, you just don't remember (purposefully?) the facts. Obama took over a financial debacle left behind by Republican thugs Bush and Cheney, whose misunderstanding of economics put all of us in deep do-do. The President has been doing a GREAT job digging us out of that hole, fighting for help in Congress every step of the way. If the Republicans had not dug in their heels and refused to be helpful, we'd have been growing the economy faster and with better results. Given what he has been up against, Obama is a GREAT President, not just a good one, and he well deserves a second term with a cooperating Congress. Moreover, the American people deserve a second term with a cooperating Congress. Fair is fair. The Repubs have had their way for two years, now it's time for the Democrats to implement the real plans that they've had on the table for the last two years. It's time for the Republicans to apologize BIG TIME to the middle class and to sit down and legislate with their Democratic counterparts, including the President. Then we'll see the nation grow faster and get more done. Romney's plan to gut Social Security and Medicare so that rich people can have better tax breaks is a pathetic plan for America. We need the kind of growth that the President has described, from the lower class up, from the middle class outwards. We can do that. IF people like you will remember the facts and vote accordingly. I know that Obama will get my vote. I hope you change your mind and vote for Obama, too.

Thank you, Mr. Mullen, for your insight and eloquence. And a big thank you, as always, to the hard work and brilliance of Rachel and your staff.

I share your disgust. There are no longer any honest Republicans, just these shape shifters who sell themselves for votes.

metoo: You need a serious U.S. history lesson. The only way we can have a modern high tech society is through a strong partnership between government and industry. Government has a hugely important role in promoting infrastructure, public education, higher education, research and development, plus the huge military-industrial-government complex. The government-military-industrial complex was started during the Civil War. The steam boats, the Erie Canal, the transcontinental railroad, the telegraph were all major 19th century developments made first by the military, the Army Corps of Engineers, and with contractors who relied on government contracts, and the engineering expertise of U.S. military officers trained at Annapolis and West Point. The U.S. Army also surveyed the western frontier and built infrastructure, forts, wells, and dredged rivers for barges and steam boats. The railroads was almost built exclusively to support the needs of the military to rapidly move troops and supplies from one place to the next rapidly. The U.S. Navy built battleships that pushed the edge of metallurgy and steam boiler technology to the limits giving us the oil turbine electric driven propeller battleship in the early 1900's. The Army Corps of Engineers dug the Panama Canal.

The 20th century saw the development of the motor truck industry. The U.S. Army during the 1916 Pershing Expedition pushed motor truck transport for the first time for Army units in the field. The developments of WW I saw the Army refine motor transport even more with the widespread use of trucks for moving men quickly behind tanks and aircraft. A new industrial revolution occurred during the 1920's that involved the widespread use of electricity. The military was at the forefront of the developments of these new technologies. During WW II aviation, jet engines, radar, rockets, navigation aids, improved electronics and computers, and a whole range of things such as synthetic rubber were developed for vehicles all pushed by the needs of the military.

The Cold war and the Space Race all were won because of the partnership of academia, the military, the government, and industry. The interstate highway system and airports were all built with government money during the Eisenhower administration. I don't recall anyone calling Ike a "socialist" and I have been reading history for 30 years. In fact the idea for the interstate highway system came from Dwight Eisenhower's trek across America in 1920 across the U.S. in an Army truck convoy. Ike got the idea for the interstate system from this truck convoy plus his WW II experience of driving down the German autobahn.

Entrepreneurs can only bring new products to market when there is a partnership between government and industry. New businesses can only thrive once the rule of law, infrastructure, and government and other institutions are in place. Most of the time an entrepreneur is taking advantage of a product or good first used by a soldier, sailor, or airman as prototypes years before. Soldiers in Afghanistan are using drone aircraft and robotic devices to investigate caves, buildings, and rooms. Soon the military will have ever greater numbers of robots and drone planes. We also can say the same about green energy products the U.S. Army and the other services are working at a feverish pitch to develop green energy products. The Air Force and the Navy are developing biomass fuels and coal to liquid fuels for aviation fuels. Army posts are investing heavily in solar and wind energy. The military is also investing heavily to introduce electric hybrid vehicles on a large scale. The military desperately wants to reduce the fuel it consumes because oil costs are taking every larger pieces of the budget.

So the entrepreneurship that follows the lead of the military is made possible by the partnership between government, the military, industry, and academia. Entrepreneurs that develop robotics and new green energy applications will be following in the footsteps of soldiers, sailors, or airman who used that technology in a combat zone overseas years or decades before. Without this public partnership our modern high tech society could not possibly exist. President Obama understands this but I am afraid Mitt Romney is a poor history student. He should have been a soldier for a while too. Then maybe Mitt would be a whole lot smarter in understand how critically important the partnership between the government, the military, the public sector are for business growth and for our modern capitalist state.

Moe'sToe! What it is it? More right wing wall paper? Will we see it posted over and over again and again like propaganda?

What is fascism?

Fascism embodied corporatism, in which political representation was based on trade and industry rather than on geography and democracy. In this, fascism revealed its roots in syndicalism. The government cartelized firms of the same industry, with representatives of management serving on myriad local, regional, and national boards—subject always to the final authority of the dictator’s economic plan. Corporatism was intended to avert unsettling divisions within the nation, such as lockouts and union strikes. The price of such forced “harmony” was the loss of the ability to bargain and move about freely.

To maintain high employment and minimize popular discontent, fascist governments also undertook massive public-works projects financed by steep taxes, borrowing, and fiat money creation. While many of these projects were domestic—roads, buildings, stadiums—the largest project of all was militarism, with huge armies and arms production.

Why do conservatives want fascism? They believe that corporations can better decide what the government should do and how the government should spend money. They do not believe that the people should have a say. They do not believe in democracy.

and this is what Romney believes.

Quick political science lesson.

There are 2 primary areas of emphasis when it comes to domestic policy: social emphasis and economic emphasis. Now usually speaking a secondary effect of changes to social policy will be economic impact. Likewise a secondary effect of changes to economic policy will be social impact. However when we refer to these terms in political science we dictate them on the basis of their immediate impact and their primary area of focus.

An example to help you understand: marijuana laws are considered social policy and laws regarding taxation are considered economic policy. Why? Because the main emphasis of legalizing or illegalizing the consumption of pot has to do with your behavior. If pot is illegal that will change how you behave: either a. you will break the law (and therefore become a criminal) to consume the drug or b. you will not consume the drug. Would legalization provide an economic benefit? Yes, of course. If people are allowed to smoke marijuana as they deem then they will control their own behavior and consume the product as they see fit- the government will merely gain the tax benefit. In both cases the emphasis is on how the person is behaving and regulating their behavior; the economic benefit is a secondary issue. In the case of taxation it is definitely true that if you increase taxes on certain products that may stop people from purchasing those products. However the tax itself does not guarantee this: for instance consumption of tobacco, alcohol, and oil products hasn't lessened despite the fact that prices on these products continually change (both the base rate and the adjustments in taxation). In this case while there may be the secondary effect of adjusting a person's purchasing habits, the primary focus is on taxing the product or service being sold/provided for the purpose of funding the government.

The further left you go the more emphasis is placed on government involvement in economic policies, but less government involvement in social policies. The exception with this is after you pass communism in which case you then weirdly move towards anarchy which then emphasizes no government involvement in anything.

The further right you go the more emphasis is placed on government involvement in social policies, but less government involvement in economic policies. The exception with this is after you pass economic-libertarianism in which case you then weirdly move towards authoritarianism and the merging of (and lack of distinction between) government, religion, and economic and social policies. The furthest left you can go is anarchist; the furthest right you can go is fascist.

A social-liberal, as you put it, is considered to be a centrist in America (please note: a centrist and a moderate are NOT necessarily the same thing). Social-liberals emphasize the idea of there being a social safety net in case something happens to prevent people from bottoming out. Examples of social-liberal policies would be the provision of food stamps and yes the implementation of a social security and medicare tax. In the case of social-liberals they take taxation from the entire populace in order to give benefits to the entire populace (so, in other words, it's an entirely economic based policy platform). It has nothing to do with re-distribution of wealth: all US citizens are entitled to the benefits given out by the government. It is also not about taking from one and giving to another: all US citizens, including those that were "taken" from are entitled to the benefits given out (those who are doing the "taking" are also required to pay into the system; the requirements are universal for both).

I think you are confusing the fact that the term social is thrown in there before liberal with the idea of social policy and economic policy.

For the record:

A. Virtually every single modern democracy in the world is classified as 'social-liberal'

B. 'Social-liberal' is considered centrist in American politics and has been since the early 1900's

C. 'Social-liberal' is not, nor has it ever been, socialist. The two are wildly different philosophies with socialist being way further on the political spectrum to the left than social-liberal

D. To define oneself as being something other than social-liberal, at least in America and every modern democracy in the world, would be to define oneself as politically extreme

E. Most of the time US presidents govern either as moderates or centrists: by stating the President Obama is a social-liberal you are stating that he is a centrist and is governing from a centrist position....I am not at all sure what's sensational about this since virtually every president has governed as a centrist in US history. That's like saying "President Obama is a man" or "President Obama is a Christian" and meaning it as controversial. Since everyone else who has been president has been both of those things it doesn't seem all that controversial

For the record there is nothing in liberal ideology, social-liberal ideology, democratic-socialist ideology, or socialist ideology that negates there being private enterprise. It is only communism that believes that there should be no private enterprise.

To be more precise regarding your first example regarding legalization of pot. Right now our right wing policy of criminalization also involves spending huge amounts of tax payer monies on law enforcement and incarceration. Eliminating this gargantuan cost while increasing the incoming funds from taxes would be worth legalization alone.

Additionally, violent crime would be greatly reduced since the buying and selling of the substance would now be legal and criminal activity would now be largely irrelevant.

If you aren't sure simply read the justification for ending prohibition and of course see the results since then.

This is a just an extension of your left-right argument with more detail.

Statfor: I think that you are correct. We have been trending a gradual increase in job creation for well over three years. The unemployment rate would be at 6% if the American Jobs Act and the Small Business Tax Credit bill that would have created or saved about three million jobs. We can thank GOP obstructionism and bullheadedness on wanting to raise taxes on the richest two percent. Conservatives don't like things like data trends or empirical evidence. Conservatives would rather chase the conspiracy bogeyman who lives in a parallel universe called the "Denial Zone."

http: //www.cnbc.com/id/49307621