mcconnell, talks between the two parties on raising the debt ceiling broke down last week. and flood victims in minot, north dakota, have a new worry, they are being told the city's drinking water supply has con tam natured and should not be consumed without boiling first. this news comes as a souris river reached its peek. coming up later in the newsroom, a 95-year-old woman reportlied asked to remove her adult diaper in order to complete a tsa patdown search. her daughter filed a complaint with federal authorities. i'll be talking to the daughter in our 5:00 eastern hour. your money starts right now. the battle lines are drawn in the debt ceiling negotiations, it's taxes versus medicare. welcome to "your money." i'm gloria borger. it's this simple, if republicans won't put tax increases on the table, democrats won't agree to big spending cuts.

until they figure out a way to get around that, there will be no deal. dana bash is cnn's senior congressional correspondent. dana, taxes and entitlements are the big issues here. both parties are refusing to budge. are we going to end up seeing a really big deal here? or in the end are they going to have to settle for something smaller in order to get this debt limit raised? >> that's a good question. at this point, you would think that as you say both sides are so dug in they might have to settle for something smaller. my understanding from sources i'm familiar with the talks that have been led by the vice president that have been going on for a month and a half, is that they actually had been doing pretty well when it comes to finding areas to cut spending, just a general blueprint, they found about $2.5 trillion, no small fete. but the republicans specifically they they wanted to go higher,

about $4 trillion to eat away at the deficit in order to agree to raising the debt ceiling. whether or not they can get there, you're right, that is a big question. but it will be kicked upstairs now. the president will be involved more directly as well the house speaker and senate majority leader to try to find out if the answer to that is yes. >> this is the big moment for the president. what makes us think that the president can actually get everyone to the table to cut a deal any better than the vice president did, right? >> reporter: exactly because the vice president has a pretty good history of getting deals made. he cut the deal at the end of last year to have the extension of tax cuts, bush era tax cuts for two years. look, i think the reality here is politics. that's a shocker, right, gloria? a lot of people in this room, particularly the house majority leader, eric cantor, he did not want to go further than he had.

he was worried about the fact he was going to get a lot of blow back from his rank and file if he cut a deal they didn't like. it just may be a matter of political will. if the top guys have it, maybe they can get there. >> maybe they can convince their caucus actually to go along with it. right? thank you so much. >> thank you. >> david gergen is with us, cnn's senior political analyst. according to a new cnn poll, 87% of americans say they don't want to cut spending for medicare and social security. but they do want the deficit to disappear. so, david, i guess the question is, does the american public want to have it all without giving up anything? >> absolutely. right now it does. and it wants to keep all of the entitlement programs in place, huge majorities as you pointed out, keeping entitlements the same or not cutting them but very large majorities against any tax increases except on the

wealthy. bumt the general public is not willing to accept any tax increases either. now, that's the reason why these -- the democratic and political and republican leaders in congress are so unwilling to compromise because they have the public looking down at them saying don't do these things. when the republicans won the house this year, it was partly because in their districts they promised not to raise taxes and people voted for them. it's understandable that we now have this rigidity and deep divisions. what it requires is frankly serious leadership. >> that's right. >> to turn this around. >> let me go to mark zandy, the chief economist with moodies anl littics. >> people want everything but in the simplest terms possible, if we don't raise this debt ceiling, what are the people really going to get? does the sky fall? >> yeah, pretty much. we'll have to balance the budget

literally overnight, that means very aggressive significant cuts in spending. so social security recipients and medicare recipients, they won't get the benefits they normally get. they'll be government employee furloughs and that will affect all of us. the cutting will be so severe we will be thrown into another recession. that means lost jobs, higher unemployment, the stock market i think would get nailed. that means we'll be less wealthy. it's a very dark scenario. >> it makes you wonder why the politicians really aren't out there instead of talking about taxes, medicare spending, talking about the things that could happen if they actually don't do their job. but we'll get to that that minute. let me bring in jean, a senior writer with cnn money. this week the congressional budget office said we can't afford our government anymore. but the politicians can't figure out a way to make it smaller in

a way that the american public finds acceptable and that's at the root of the debt ceiling standoff. any ideas about how they resolve this in the end? >> i think that what a lot of people are saying, we're not seeing leadership in washington. >> that's shocking, right? >> the republicans blame president obama and they have a point in some respects but the truth is congress isn't showing leadership either. not being frank about what the issues are or being selectively frank saying tax the rich is the answer. they are basically sticking to partisan talking points, absolutist talking points, not really working. i use two statistics that remind me why this is an issue. in 2020 the gao predicts we will be spending 89 cents of every tax dollar that comes in on four things, medicare, medicaid and social security and interest. we'll have 11 cents left over to pay for everything we do. >> let me throw this question out to you, david, whatever happened to leadership in

washington? used to be that leaders would make decisions and then go back to their twinlts and say this is why we made these tough decisions because it will help our lives. now it works the other way around. they are followers. >> well, there's been an absence of leadership for fairly long time on these issues. i must say in the end gloria, the politicians will listen to mark zandy and others, his stat tour and say, we have to lift the debt ceiling. i do think we'll get a short term solution. people in congress and the white house sometimes may not be very smart but they are not suicidal. i think we'll get the a short-term solution. i what i do think on the leadership front, it's up to the president, frankly, to go to the country and to help people understand the sacrifices that must be made by everyone. we have to reform the entitlements and we have to raise taxes. that's what the simpson boels

commission came to the conclusion of. it does take a lot of effort to go help the public understand the tradeoffs and why sacrifice is necessary and both parties have to join together on that. >> and mark, you've got this uncertainty out there, which also doesn't help, doesn't help small business. and don't the politicians sort of think about that and say, okay, uncertainty, bad for business, we need to tell business where we're headed? >> i think they are getting that message. business people are telling them and i entirely agree with it. the think the most significant restraint, constraint on the job market, why we're not creating as many jobs as we need is because of uncertainty and it resolves around the debt ceiling. businessmen and executives can't get their narrative in their mind with respect to how we're going to address this issue. until they do, they are not going to fire workers but not going to hire them. if we do resolve it in a

reasonably graceful way we'll see more jobs. >> what's the graceful way? >> i was going to jump in. we are allowing congress to con flat two issues, the debt kreeting and reducing the debt. both are important and are unrelated. the public dialogue is about connecting the two. we're creating uncertainty around the debt ceiling and businesses and bond investors are like, we can't believe you won't raise the debt ceiling. if they don't by august 2, you'll see a very -- >> there is an understanding that you don't need to raise the debt ceiling, that it's sort of a false issue. mark, what would you say too them. >> i think if we go down that path, they'll quickly change their mind. do you remember t.a.r.p., you had a vote in congress regardth bailout fund? congress voted that down and the

stock market went south and there was panic. that was the sen air yoep i think we would see here if congress and the administration can't come together by august 2nd. >> panic. >> panic. >> gloria, the republicans ought to go back and read the letters coming from the reagan administration to the congress, you can't go into default, don't do this. >> it's a political issue comes up and the party in charge says you can't go into default. i remember barack obama when he was a united states senator by the way, did not vote to raise the debt ceiling. >> they are going to raise it. >> they will. >> short term. but i think the question to mark is, if they raise it short term, does that still leave uncertainty in the marketplace? >> it does. go ahead, quickly. >> go ahead, mark. >> it does. ideally, they would pass the debt ceiling to sufficient degree so we get to the other side of the election, but i mean, the second best is give us

a least a couple more months to nail this down. >> we'll have to leave it there. but david stay where you are. we'll ask, is there anything a president can do about the economic situation in terms of unemployment? does president obama have anything left in the tool box to save the economy and of course his presidency is on the line. stay with us. ♪ you love money

♪ well, you know i love it too ♪ ♪ you love money ♪ well, you know i love it too ♪ ♪ i work so hard at my job ♪ and then i bring it home to you ♪ ♪ i love money in my pocket right now, go to priceline for a sneak peek at recent winning and better than ever! hotel bids to find where you n save up to 60% on hotels. * we'll even email you other people's winning bids, so you'll know what price to name. *á with new hotel bid alerts, from priceline.

welcome back. fdr was the last american president re-elected when the unemployment rate was above

7.2%. well, unemployment currently stands at 9.1%. so david gergen, let me go to you with this. can president obama win four more years with unemployment sort of in the 8 to 9% range? >> i think a lot depends gloria or whether it's coming down -- it seems to be coming down at that point in a way that builds confidence or whether it's still stuck the way it is right now. if it's stuck, i think he's going to be a very tough fight. if it's coming down as we saw with ragen, he was about 7.5 but come down from basically 10 and people thought -- people said, you know, the confidence came back, came surging back. >> mark, what can the president do? what does he have have left right now to make people feel things are going in the right direction? there's some talk about further payroll tax cuts for example?

what would you recommend? >> first and foremost raise the debt ceiling is key. >> we got that. >> on the other side of that. there are a few things that can be done that would mark a difference in the short term if we need it. extending the payroll tax holiday for another year seems like a reasonable thing to do. that can get done politicalally. without the payroll tax cut this year we would be skirting recession because of high energy prices. the other thing that can be done is to help states with their unemployment insurance funds. their funds are busted. they've taken loans from the feds. they've got to start repaying that. that means they'll start raising payroll taxes on businesses. give them a little bit more help for another year or so so they don't have to raise payroll taxes and that would be helpful. two things would provide enough help to the economy to make sure we're off and running. >> gene, would be another stimulus? some democrats have been talking about another stimulus, i doubt

you can get it through the congress but can that be a possibility? >> they want to do intrastructure spending. i would ask dana bash in terms of how likely it is. they are going to push for stimulus measures and it's going to be a communications problem. i don't know quite how they are going to cross that bridge. but like mark said, the payroll tax cut, helping states prese e preserve -- also prevent layoffs the former director, she was saying, we have to continue to give aid to state so they don't continue to do layoffs, creating and preserving jobs. >> president obama's former top check adviser larry summers wrote an interesting piece in which he said and i'm quoting him here, we are halfway towards a lost economic decade. do you think he's right?

>> gloria, there is increasing conversation about that question right now. carmen rin heart, the economist who wrote the important book about how to get out of financial crises over time, has also been making the same argument, we're in danger of stumbling into a lost decade, referring to japan, which coming out of the 80s was staeming along and had big bubbles and bursts and experienced not one but two lost decades. it's now a very demoralized country and been set back. we're four years into what can be a lost decade already. the next six years at this point don't look overly bright, maybe mark would disagree or knows ways we can brighten it but the growth -- the federal reserve is just lowered the growth estimates for this year and next year, not increased them. >> is there any mark and then to jeanne, is there any reason here for any kind of optimism?

>> yeah, absolutely. i disagree with that perspective. i think that the u.s. economy is incredibly resilient. we've made a lot of progress over the last couple of three years, righting the wrongs that got us into this mess. right now i think our biggest missing ingredient is a lack of confidence and resolves around our inability to address what really ails us chgs our fiscal problems. if we nail this down in a reasonably graceful way we'll get the confidence and come back. one thing looking at the history of the american economy, don't bet against it very long. >> but mark, if you're argument is we can bet on the politicians, is that a very -- does that give you a lot of confidence? >> yeah, that too. also, history suggests that they will come through. what's that old winston churchill addage, americans will try anything and they'll ultimately do the right thing.

i botched that but that's roughly what he said. that's roughly right. i feel that when it comes down to signing on the dotted line, we're going to do it. >> jeanne, i'll have you break the tie, optimism, pessimism. where do you go? >> i think we have a choice. politicians, now is the time to think about these issues, what carmen and others warn about, if we doddle any farther we lose less and less automy. >> fiddling while rome burns, right? thanks so much. and up next, how americans feel about the economy and the one poll number president obama might really have to worry about. that's next. fight back fast with tums. calcium rich tums goes to work in seconds. nothing works faster. ♪ tum tum tum tum tums

[ male announcer ] want to pump up your gas mileage? come to meineke for our free fuel-efficiency check and you'll say...my money. my choice. my meineke.

it's no secret that americans are unhappy with this economy, but concerns about another great depression are even on the rise. paul steinhauser joins you now. can you give a sense what americans are feel bg the economy? >> americans right now not very optimistic at the current conditions and the pessimism seems to be rising about what's going to happen in the future. this is our most recent cnn national survey. 48% of the people we question said another great depression is likely within the next 12 months and that is up 10 points since 2008 at the beginning of the recess. go to the next graphic and let's break it down by party. you can see democrats are a lot

less pessimistic and that rises for independents and rises even more for republicans and tea party supporters. i think that's kind of common. in the past if your past is in power you'll be more optimistic. the white house and senate are in control right now so they are more optimistic about the way things are going with the economy. >> how does this also break down demographically by age? >> there is a generational divide, no doubt about it when it comes to the economy and whether things are better or worse. check out this number, we asked economic conditions today are very poor. people under the age of 50, 37% said economic conditions are very poor. 50 and old ever, number drops t 47%. there's a geographical divide as well. people concerned in the rur

rural areas opposed to those living in the city. republicans want to cut spending. they think the government is too big. is that going to lead a republican to the white house in 2012? ♪ you love money ♪ well, you know i love it too ♪ ♪ you love money ♪ well, you know i love it too ♪ ♪ i work so hard at my job ♪ and then i bring it home to you ♪

♪ i love money in my pocket aflac! oh, i've just got major medical... major medical. ...but it helps pay the doctors. pays the doctors, boyyy! [ quack ] oh yeah? what about your family? ♪ we added aflac, so we get cash! it's like our safety net... ♪ to help with the mortgage or whatever we need! so my family doesn't feel the pain too. ha! [ male announcer ] help protect your family at aflac.com. [ pigeons ] heyyy! hooo!!!

[ male announcer ] help protect your family at aflac.com. you know, the ones find a who do a super job? superpages.com®. for local maps, reviews and videos & it's the only local search site with the superguarantee®. so next time, let the good guys save the day. get the superguarantee®, only at superpages®. in the book, on your phone or at superpages.com®.

welcome back to your money. former utah governor jon huntsman officially entered the race for the white house and like many fellow challengers, huptsman decided he would focus on the economy. >> today americans are experiencing through no fault of their own something that is totally alien to them. a sense that the deck is stacked against them by forces totally beyond their control.

no matter how hard they work, save and plan, the opportunities are not there for them that were present for previous generations. >> now, acourting to our polls, huntsman will have to climb his way back up in the polls. our cnn poll shows -- and this is of republicans -- finds that 42% of them think mitt romney is the most likely to win the republican nomination. the next sarah palin is way down at 14%. ron paul and tim pawlenty at 3%. as for john huntsman, down at the bottom with 1% but there's plenty of time to go. vin weber is a former republican congressman from minnesota, now the managing partner at clark and winestock and i should also disclosure advising the pawlenty campaign. take off your pawlenty hat and

keep your republican hat on. why should americans believe that republicans are going to be better at managing the economy than democrats given the fact that the first bailouts actually came in the bush administration? >> well, that's a good question, gloria, but the fact is as time goes on, the democrats and obama administration specifically are getting ownership of this economy, whether they want it or not. and debbie wasserman shultz actually said the other day, the democrats own the economy. the tarp program when it was passed at the end of the bush administration was such an an emergency measure that most everybody in washington did support it. you're right, as time went on that became unpopular as quotes the bailout, but the thing that began to crystallize public opposition was the stimulus package under president obama in his first months in office. the two republicans that were actually in congress at that time that are running for

president actually voted against t.a.r.p. it seems we're going to be able to separate ourselves from that somewhat but the main issue, how is the president done by then in the four years he had to manage the economy. right now it looks bad for him. >> it's also, i might say, the polls show that the public is kind of tired of blaming george w. bush. they now believe as you say that the president has ownership of the economy. let me go now to rowland martin. isn't there something to be said though for the major republican argument which is that government has gotten too large and it's inefficient and needs to be made smaller? that's a pretty good campaign argument, isn't it? >> it's always been the campaign argument and it sounds great until all of a sudden you raise the hood up and say, what does that really mean? for instance, we have the bp oil spill. what was the one thing we heard, where are the people checking these oil wells, why weren't

they having these inspections? all of a sudden you go back and realize, too few of them. then republicans will then say, too much regulation, we shouldn't have too many people checking on different things. that's the problem. here's what i find to be amazing. when i was seeing unemployment numbers, we've had 15 consecutive months of private sector job growth. when the numbers have numbers nor jobs, it's always been based upon losing government jobs. i have republicans on my shoe and say wait a minute, how can you get mad at the unemployment numbers coming out when the job losses were government jobs with the local and state level? they would go, kind of got a good point but it should be better numbers. it sounds great but you have to define what do you actually mean by that or is it simply an empty phrase. >> let me before in christian. the public has given president obama low marks on his handling

of the economy, less than half of them think he's doing a good job. republicans clearly want to cut spending and republican voters i should say like that in theory. but isn't there a question of whether that can boomerang when you get down to the specifics as roland points out? >> i think that that is an excellent question. we've already seen a little bit of that when it comes to the medicare and paul ryan budget plan. you know, we saw voters responding in the new york state race, very, very aggressively to the idea that cutting government spending is great as long as it's not spending on programs that i care about. and so i think if the democrats are smart, they are going to make that point. i think the other thing is -- >> haven't they already made it with medicare, for example? >> yeah, i think they have been. i think they have to do that more aggressively. the other thing is, i think that

roland made the case for the democrats more effectively than we are hearing this administration make it. and i think a real issue right now, the democrats have -- i think to win, to win on the economic issue, the democrats have to actually be democrats and they have to say, yeah, you know what, to rescue this economy, we believe that you need government spending. we believe the stimulus was the right thing and only problem with the stimulus was it was too small. you're not hearing that from the white house and i think that part of the problem that the democrats face politically is they are not being very explicit about what their economic plan really is. >> vin weber, do you think democrats should be democrats? >> i was going to say, we at least agree on what we want to see the democrats saying but maybe for different reasons. >> exactly. go ahead. >> i think to be honest about it, you can make an argument early on that intervention in the economy was necessary.

i think you can make an equally valid objection that as this economy has progressed, the magnitude of our debt and magnitude of spending has become a potential or serious drag on the economy and threat to the financial markets. we're all worried about now we're going to find out the bond market collapsed because of the size of the debt. it's not really inkprensible that that was once a good short term policy has become a dangerous long-term policy. i think if you're going to be honest in facing it, there's no way of dealing with that other than looking at medicare, social security and entigtle programs. >> gloria, you just -- but he just failed one thing, he would not mention defense this is the problem with this whole discussion about the deficit, gloria. democrats want to talk about defense, republicans only want entitlements. if he wants to be honest about the deficit, you cannot ignore

defense. >> i think you know, i think there is some republicans who wouldn't actually mean cutting defense -- >> even mitt romney. >> there's a potential -- >> but you didn't mention it. >> well, that's because i'm looking at the things, the trend lines show are rising percentages of gdp, that's not defense. >> we're going -- i'm going to have to cut you off right now. i want you all to stay. when we come back, we'll continue this conversation and talk about defense and talk about the influence of the tea party, many of who's members want to cut defense and how much that will effect the election. we'll even email you other people's winning bids, so you'll know what price to name. *á with new hotel bid alerts, from priceline. that can go the distance. that's why we gave the chevy equinox an epa estimated 32 miles per gallon highway.

but do passengers appreciate making less stops at the pump? hey. want me to drive? we'll take that as a yes. the count on chevy event is going on strong with a full selection of vehicles to choose from. visit your local chevy dealer.

and welcome to "your money." i know we've been talking about defense, let's move on to something else. the budget proposed by congressman paul ryan of wisconsin is going to be at the center of the presidential debate and there's one reason. and that is because that plan proposes an overhaul of medicare. let me go to you first, roland. if you're running a democratic campaign, how hard do you push republicans on the medicare issue? >> i would slap a sign on that republican forehead and say, paul ryan, paul ryan, paul ryan, at the end of the day weigh we

saw what happened in new york. democrats and republicans fear voter backlash, at the end of the day you're going to have voters, especially seniors who vote at the higher rate than anybody else. they do not want to hear this particular program because they say -- his budget plan because they say it is too severe. of course you stick it to them. like republicans stuck health care to the president and democrats in the -- >> let any go to vin weber on this. politically speaking, did republicans make a mistake here politically by going out on a limb, voting for this plan in congress, which they did almost unanimously, knowing full well it was not going to get out of congress but putting themselves on the record and handing the democrats an issue? was that a mistake? >> it cost them politically in new york, roland is right about this. first of all, republicans embraced the central reality which is that you cannot deal with this deficit problem

without dealing with medicare. they put out -- led with their chin in away but opened up on medicare which you haven't had in a serious way in this country before. i don't think it's -- it was a mistake to do that. as to what roland said about going after republicans, i suppose they can do that. it might be of some political value, only if the president wants to make sure he poisons the well against any curtailment of medical spending going forward. at some point the deem onization of the republicans for wanting to become medicare is going to prevent any solution to this problem. my guess is the white house economic advisers don't want to go quite that far. >> republican presidential candidates have been tip toeing around this ryan plan. newt gingrich got in trouble when he called it right wing social engineering, they kind of want to embrace it but not all the way because they are nervous about it, right? >> well, no, i think it's a

question partly of the republicans being torn between the primaries and tea party and thinking about the actual presidential race. because i think roland is absolutely right. in the general election, medicare is going to be the achilles' heel of the republican party. when people looked up close at the ryan plan, cutting the budget sounds great, everybody thinks that the government is fat and bloated and does nothing good for them. when you say to people, hang on, instead of medicare, we're going to give you $6,000 a year, actually, medicare is kind of fantastic. not only old people who feel that way but anyone who has older members of their family. suddenly think, i have to pay for it. it could be a real achilles' heel but they have to be careful in the primaries they have to pass a sort of budget hawk litmus test in order to get through. >> vin weber, is this just the result of tea party influence or

result of the economic reality in which we find ourselves? >> tea party certainly has an influence on presidential candidates but paul ryan understands the budget i would argue better than anybody on capitol hill, maybe with the exception of senator conrad. he understands the difficults we face and cannot be dealt with unless dealing with medicare. it is attracting a lot of criticism, i understand that. the only way however i'm going to repeat that it becomes the kind of negative issue all the way through the next election that they are talking about is if the democrats refuse to put anything of their own on the table with regard to medicare, which means if they refuse to face up to the budget problem -- >> they propose -- >> gloria -- >> continues to carry a great deal. >> let's see a credible plan that people actually believe will achieve some savings then we can have a debate about that. and we'll find out if that's credible compared to the ryan

plan. there's nothing credible to compare it to. >> let's just show you. when we had the health care debate and talking about the savings we would have when it came to health care reform, republicans use the exact reform plan against democrats. we can sit here and talk about what's credible or not. it boils down to what will i am passion voters and get them so fired up. we vote based upon anger, not really based upon what is right or just. if you tick off the opposition, you fire them up, you're in trouble. the paul ryan budget plan does that for the democratic base. and the concern independent voters who also are on the fence on his budget. that's a real issue. >> we're going to have to end it there. everyone wants to get voters out during this campaign. vin weber, roland martin, thanks so much for being with us. up next, one man's garbage is

another man's treasure. in this case, it could provide new material in an investigation linking a banking giant to the financial crisis. okay, team! after age 40, we can start losing muscle --

8% every 10 years. wow. wow. but you can help fight muscle loss with exercise and ensure muscle health. i've got revigor. what's revigor? it's the amino acid metabolite, hmb to help rebuild muscle and strength naturally lost over time. [ female announcer ] ensure muscle health has revigor and protein to help protect, preserve, and promote muscle health. keeps you from getting soft. [ major nutrition ] ensure. nutrition in charge!

everyone loves a vil lancaster, today, fabulous fab has been the only one named in the lawsuit against the banking giant. in a new twist, his own laptop might just spill the beans. cnn's money's poppy harlow explains. >> reporter: could this laptop found in the garbage hold evidence in a case against one of the world's most powerful banks. >> i turned on my laptop and the

name was there. >> reporter: where was it on the laptop? >> on the screen. >> fabrice torre. >> as the self-dubbed fabulous fab he is the only individual sued by the securitiestourre isy individual sued for helping to sell mortgage-related securities in the run-up to the financial crisis. last year, the u.s. government charged tourre and his firm, goldman sachs, with marketing toxic securities to investors without disclosing material information relevant to them. namely that goldman intended to short some of their bets. >> i wish to repeat, i did not mislead i tell you to the most sophisticated investors of these products anywhere in the world. >> reporter: goldman settled with the sec paying a $550 million fine. but not admitting any wrong doing. yet the government case against tourre goes on. that has wall street observers including "the new york times"

asking, why just him? last month the "times" cited documents between tourre and his lawyers provided to the newspaper by an independent filmmaker with no connection to wall street. nancy cohen. according to the "times", the documents allegedly show that tourre was not the only one to market the securities deal, rather that he was part of a collaborative effort at goldmans' mortgage unit. that's where the story takes a strange turn. cohen says she was given tourre's laptop by a friend who found it in the garbage. goldman sachs confirms the laptop belonged to tourre but insists it was his personal computer. after four years in her possession, cohen says she recognized tourre's name from all the news coverage. >> i didn't like the fact that one person was being blamed for everything. that never makes sense, you know? he was only 30. how many mistakes can you make by 30? >> reporter: you copied the hard

drive and gave it to the "times" and said do with it what you will? >> i said, please try to look for something. i think there might be something there. >> reporter: cohen says she gave the "times" the hard drive from the laptop. she says it contained thousands of e-mails and documents, but she wouldn't show them to us. the "times" says it never accessed tourre's e-mail account or asked to do so, but it did look at copies of documents that cohen provided, and refers to at least one of them in its may 31st article. cohen says she wasn't paid for handing over the files. i think people watching right now might be wondering why didn't she go to the s.e.c.? why didn't she go to the feds? >> because they hadn't done very much, you know? they really hadn't done their job. >> reporter: so some might say, look, this woman doesn't like goldman sachs and now she has a laptop that she's given to the press, with information that could be incriminating towards others at goldman sachs. what would you say to them? >> well, they're wrong. they're wrong. i don't -- i don't like the behavior of greed and the culture of greed.

but i also don't think it's fair to pin an entire lawsuit on one person. >> reporter: but the s.e.c. insists tourre was principally responsible for the mortgage securities deal in question. a u.s. district court recently dropped some of the charges against tourre but he still faces at least four federal fraud counts. he's on paid leave from goldman sachs. in the meantime, cohen still has the laptop but says she deleted tourre's messages. "the new york times" may still have documents related to tourre's case obtained from nancy cohen. they won't say. >> well, poppy joins me now. this is such an interesting story. but there seems to be a pattern developing here, the s.e.c. charges wrongdoing with a big bank. then the firms pay to settle out of court. and then that's the end of it. or is it? because could this laptop lead investigators possibly to others? >> good question.

it is certainly a question i would love answered. we of course asked the s.e.c. whether or not this potential new evidence as described by "the new york times" opens the door to more charges against individuals at goldman sachs or other banks aside from just fabrice tourre. the s.e.c. as expected had no comment. but they pointed to their original complaint, arguing tourre was principally responsible for misleading investors in the goldman deal. "new york times" referred to documents that it says it got from the laptop that nancy cohen now has implicating others at goldman. "the times" could release in an article more documents going forward, and that could force federal regulators like the s.e.c. to investigate others at goldman sachs who may have been involved. the problem is we're not sure what "the times" has off that laptop. they only published one e-mail

in their article and they won't say if they have any other documents. they won't make that public. we have to sort of sit and wait and see. it is fascinating how, you know, this woman got this information off a laptop in a garbage can. i think the fact that she didn't trust regulators, she trusted the press more than the feds. >> imagine losing or trashing your laptop and then somebody picking it up. >> this is a lesson to never throw your laptop in the garbage. >> never do that. i will not. okay, i promise. thank you so much, poppy. up next, why a hollywood ending could be just what washington needs right now. where do you go to find a super business?

you know, the ones who do such a super job, they're backed by the superguarantee®? only superpages®.

wherever you are, wherever you're going, you'll find the super business you need. so next time, let the good guys save the day. get the superguarantee®, only at superpages®. in the book ... on your phone or online. hey, dad, you think i could drive? i'll tell you what -- when we stop to fill it up. ♪ ♪ [ son ] you realize, it's gotta run out sometime. [ male announcer ] jetta tdi clean diesel. the turbo that gets 42 miles per gallon. ♪

time now for the xyz. it's probably safe to say that

the talks on raising the debt limit aren't going too well. house majority leader eric cantor walked out on thursday because he won't think about raising taxes. democrats are more nervous about cutting spending, especially medicare. so who's going to blink? it's hard to see how a deal gets cut when politicians refuse to lead. so here's the history. republicans pummeled democrats on medicare cutbacks in health care reform in the 2010 midterm elections. now republicans support a budget that overhauls medicare. guess what the democrats are doing? punching back. tit for tat. only the country is broke. and there seems to be no grown-ups in charge. an old school idea, how about if both sides hold hands and jump off the cliff together, actually fixing a problem? the landing might be softer than you think. and that's my xyz. thanks for joining the conversation this week on "your money." ali velshi will be back next saturday, 1:00 p.m. eastern and sunday at 3:00.